Absolute Universality vs. Delimitated Universality: Problem Statement

[WasatchMan]

I recently received a comment from someone that said “philosophy has to be universal and absolute”, and this got me thinking….

 

While I agree that some things can be/are universal and absolute, like in ethics where murder, theft, and rape can be universally and absolutely proven to be immoral [see UPB for logical proof].  Not everything can be shown to have an absolute universality, and furthermore, a proof for their absolute universality may not always be immediately available, or practical to develop for the application (i.e. the precision of absolute universality is not required for all applications at all times).  Furthermore, I think the standard of absolute universality has directly lead to an analysis paralysis which is freezing the progress of philosophy.

 

The physical sciences do not wait for absolute universal proofs, or a complete understanding of every single mechanism, of their scientific models/theories before they are functional for practical applications. They simply detail out the precision of the model/theory, the assumptions that were made in the derivation, and boundary conditions indicating any and all known limiting factors.  This mechanism/process has allowed the physical sciences to take advantage of incremental progress building toward a more detailed and precise understanding of reality, with the ultimate goal of absolute universality.  This goal is still on the leading edge of physics and is typically referred to as ‘The Theory of Everything’.

 

A great example of this mechanism/process is the development of our understanding of gravity.  As we were all taught, Newton developed the ‘Law of Universal Gravitation’ in 1687, which was able to predict the forces excreted by objects on each other given their mass, separation, and a gravitational constant.  These laws have been critical to our understanding of the world around us, and their contribution to technological progress is priceless. However, as many of you probably know, Newton’s law of universal gravitation is hardly absolutely universal from the sense that it is not able to predict gravity for all conditions or to an infinite level of precision. It took Einstein’s work on relativity before a more precise (still not absolute!!) model of gravity could be derived.

 

Newton’s gravitational model does do a good job at predicting gravitational effects, and in most cases provides all the precision one would need.  Its predictive power is precise enough that most engineer’s still use it any time a problem requires that gravitational effects be quantified (i.e. skyscrapers). However, if we had tried to create a GPS system before the development of general and special relativity, it would have never worked.  Imagine what would have been the course of human civilization if we held the same standard of ‘absolute universality’ to gravitational theories and claimed that because it doesn’t work for GPS systems we can’t use it for skyscrapers?  If we had to wait for Einstein before we could start applying our understanding of gravity, there would have arguably never been an Einstein.

 

I am still trying to work this idea out, so I am not even quite sure yet what providing a ‘delimitated’ (boundary conditioned, limiting conditioned, etc.) universality to philosophical theories would even look like practically.  However, this does initially seem like it could be a potential tool/organizational mechanism to use against the onslaught of analysis paralysis from the nitpickers who are holding philosophy down in the mud by expecting any theory to immediately be universally absolute and solve any and all “life boat” problems (or equivalent irrelevancy) they can throw at it. 

 

If anyone has any thoughts, or potential flaws, about this it would be greatly appreciated.

[luxfelix]

Maybe it's similar to how we have gravity which is treated as a (near/for most purposes) constant here on Earth and then we have lift which opposes gravity, but then when in outer space, lift and gravity don't seem to have as much of an effect? The boundary in this case would be the proximity to Earth (asymptote?)?

 

Or in another example, NAP is a universal for people but not animals, the boundary here being the ability to understand NAP?

[RuralRon]

I think the man / animal application of philosophical principles is interesting in relation to the shades of gray vs. absolute universalism Wasatchman posted in the OP. Excellent observation luxfelix!

 

Although the OP presents a compelling case worthy of further analysis, I am not sure if such intermediate morality (i.e. non universal principles) will make as much difference as it has in the hard sciences as per Wasatchman's analogy.

 

I say that b/c even when there is solid logical argument and evidence for the efficacy of the NAP, people are still resistant to it, they still refuse to deeply consider the NAP as a universal principle. Rather, most find every excuse in the book and irrational argumentation to reject the NAP.

 

And the reasons they do so transcend logic. The human psyche and resulting behaviors aren't dictated by solely by rationality or the cerebral cortex.

 

Also, the quality of universalism solidifies and justifies the principle as being moral, similarly to when a mathematical formula is proven in support of a theory (including proofs for constants used in such formulas).

[luxfelix]

Thank you RuralRon. 

 

So the less asterisks the better, eh?

[RuralRon]

Thank you RuralRon. 

 

So the less asterisks the better, eh?

 

What do you mean by that luxfelix?

[Pepin]

Can you provide an example of a philosophical topic which doesn't need universality? It isn't that I don't agree or disagree, I am more inclined to agree, but what are we talking about exactly?

[luxfelix]

What do you mean by that luxfelix?

 

 

What I got from your previous comment was that since people are prone to find excuses to reject the NAP anyways, it's probably best to keep explanations concise without many asterisks or exceptions such as WasatchMan's original post mentioning boundary conditions.

 

This is something along the lines of rounding off after two decimal points or something where we get that theoretically the number goes on forever, that level of accuracy is not necessary for what we are communicating. We could say 2/3 or 0.6666666666666667 to describe two divided by three; they both follow the same method of division even if the quotient is expressed differently.

 

Or for another example, we still use flat map projections even if they're not truly accurate because they're accurate enough for getting around.

 

If there are boundary conditions, it's probably more like an order of magnification. 

[WasatchMan]

Thanks for the feedback! This has helped me think through this a lot more.

 

Or in another example, NAP is a universal for people but not animals, the boundary here being the ability to understand NAP?

 

I think this is an excellent example of a reason for documenting a 'boundary condition' in the derivation of a principle. I think another boundary condition on the NAP would probably be that there are limiting conditions when it comes to emergency situations. Now that we have boundary conditions of the basic statement of the NAP, we can now create derivations from the NAP on how to apply it towards living beings that aren't cognitively able to understand the NAP, or for emergency situations.

 

Although the OP presents a compelling case worthy of further analysis, I am not sure if such intermediate morality (i.e. non universal principles) will make as much difference as it has in the hard sciences as per Wasatchman's analogy.

 

I definitely understand this concern.  This is the reason why I framed it as absolute universality vs delimitated universality, because we are still talking about universality.  The difference is we are just being clear, and upfront, about documenting what the boundary conditions and assumptions are, and as long as the situation you are analyzing is within those parameters, and the assumptions are true, then the principle is universal. To keep the gravity analogy going, scientists do not claim that Newtons gravitational law is not universal, they claim that it is universal as long as it is being used within the limits described in the derivation/proof.

 

In a lot of ways, this is already done in philosophy proofs, however I think there could be a way of being more direct and methodical about it.  So for luxfelix's example, you would say that part of the NAP is that you are assumed to the cognitive ability to understand the NAP.

 

I say that b/c even when there is solid logical argument and evidence for the efficacy of the NAP, people are still resistant to it, they still refuse to deeply consider the NAP as a universal principle. Rather, most find every excuse in the book and irrational argumentation to reject the NAP.

 

And the reasons they do so transcend logic. The human psyche and resulting behaviors aren't dictated by solely by rationality or the cerebral cortex.

 

What I got from your previous comment was that since people are prone to find excuses to reject the NAP anyways, it's probably best to keep explanations concise without many asterisks or exceptions such as WasatchMan's original post mentioning boundary conditions.

 

This is something along the lines of rounding off after two decimal points or something where we get that theoretically the number goes on forever, that level of accuracy is not necessary for what we are communicating. We could say 2/3 or 0.6666666666666667 to describe two divided by three; they both follow the same method of division even if the quotient is expressed differently.

 

Or for another example, we still use flat map projections even if they're not truly accurate because they're accurate enough for getting around.

 

If there are boundary conditions, it's probably more like an order of magnification. 

 

 

I can see now that how I phrased the problem statement is causing some confusion.  To be clear, I am not proposing this as a way to appease/convince the nitpickers, nihilists, and determinists of the world, but as a methodical way to move past them.  I am proposing this because I think it is likely the proper way to communicate philosophical principles. Just like detailing out assumptions, and boundary conditions in physics is the proper way to communicate in physics.

 

This is also not to say that we look for things that aren't there, only that there may be a more precise way to approach how we map out a philosophical principle. I attempted to do this in responding to luxfelix's example, by demonstrating how identifying boundary conditions allows the building of a framework to better describe the principle. You don't need a full explanation of the ethics of emergencies to explain why taxations is theft, however if you are trying to understand how the NAP would apply to an emergency situation, a deeper derivation of the NAP is required to probe the boundaries around these extreme and rare occurrences. 

 

There is a great historical example in the development of fluid mechanics of how an initial principle can be built upon to provide greater and greater precision as the need for more precision was required.  Let me know if you are interested in this example, I don't want to bore anyone with more physics stuff because it would be somewhat technical.

 

Can you provide an example of a philosophical topic which doesn't need universality? It isn't that I don't agree or disagree, I am more inclined to agree, but what are we talking about exactly?

 

Please take a look at luxfelix's example and my response to that, as well as my other responses above.  I am hoping I have been able to clear a little bit of the fog in these responses. However feel free to let me know if you have more questions or if it is still too vague to grasp.

[RuralRon]

Speaking for myself, you have helped me to understand your position better, and I am leaning towards agreeing with your hypothesis. I'm still foggy and would not yet be willing to say I fully agree with it or understand it well enough to explain it to others.

 

But I would like to hear your fluid dynamics example. It may further improve my understanding. Should the others here not care to hear it you could PM it to me. It sounds interesting and I like exploring physics questions

 

Oh and I fully understand what you meant by asterisks now luxfelix. Thanks for the clarification.

[luxfelix]

My pleasure RuralRon. 

 

And I say post it as well WasatchMan.

[Hannibal]

The human/animal divide when it comes to NAP has nothing to do with the ability to understand the NAP (at least directly).

It simply comes down to the fact that morality serves to further our prosperity. That's what morality *is*.

Not killing animals arguably is bad for our prosperity, so in fact it's arguable that it is morally good (on a personal level) to kill and eat animals. 

We stand to gain nothing from affording equal rights to animals - hence they don't get equal rights.

 

 

 

And murder == bad is NOT universal. It's almost universal.

Morality is not applicable (or at least it's applicability to social situations) in lifeboat situations. Where there is no possibility for mutual prosperity - such as a situation where 2 people must try to kill one another, or both will die - then there is no scope for morality. In such a situation you may choose, given that your own life is the most important thing in the world, to murder the other. It's you life vs theirs, and your task alone to weigh the options according to the values you hold.

 

I might kill myself to save my child, as I couldn't face living with the alternative. But faced with a stranger, I might give little though against taking his life to save my own.

 

 

 

 

The missing ingredient which appears to make the idea of philosophy being universal conflict with these scenarios (animals and the NAP, lifeboat scenarios, etc) is the understanding of what morality actually is, and why we need it.

 

It's not that there is a problem with universality - just that the problems have been poorly or incompletey framed to begin with.

[WasatchMan]

But I would like to hear your fluid dynamics example. It may further improve my understanding. Should the others here not care to hear it you could PM it to me. It sounds interesting and I like exploring physics questions

 

 

And I say post it as well WasatchMan.

 

Alrighty, here is what I was able to put together for this.  Let me know if it makes any sense, it was kind of a difficult narrative for me to put together.

 

In fluid mechanics there is an equation called the “Bernoulli Principle” which was developed in 1738 by Daniel Bernoulli and published in Hydrodynamica. It is a derivative of Newton’s laws and conservation of energy/mass principles. One application is that it is used by engineers to design all types of fluid distribution systems, including pressurized water systems which we count on to provide running water when we turn our tap.

 

Here is a definition:

“The Bernoulli Equation is an approximate relation between pressure, velocity, and elevation and is valid in steady, incompressible flow where net frictional forces are negligible…

 

The key approximation in the derivation of the Bernoulli equation is that viscous effects are negligibly small compared to inertial, gravitational, and pressure effects.  Since all fluid have viscosity (there is no such thing as a “inviscid fluid”), this approximation cannot be valid for the entire flow field of practical interest… However, it turns out that the approximation is reasonable in certain regions of flow.” [1]

 

Here is the equation:

p/ ρ + v²/(2 g) + z = Et

where:

Et = Total Energy

p = static pressure

ρ = density

γ = specific weight

g = acceleration of gravity

v = flow velocity

z = elevation height

 

Later in the chapter is a list of all of the boundary conditions for this principle: steady flow, frictionless flow, no shaft work (turbines/pumps), incompressible flow, no heat transfer, and flow along a streamline, the conservation of mass, and the conservation of energy. With these boundary conditions the application is pretty constrained, and if it would have not developed from there, it would be useless for pressurized water systems because the frictionless and no shaft work assumptions.  However, it still does have a range of applications.

 

Principle was expanded so that the assumptions of frictionless flow, no shaft work, or no heat transfer could be removed.  This is generally called the Extended Bernoulli Equation, and allows us to model modern pressurized water distribution systems.

 

Here is the equation:

  p/ ρ + v²/(2 g) + z + E_p - E_f - E_s = Et (General expression ∑E_sources = ∑E_sinks)

where:

E_p = Energy added by pumps.  This is quantified by several different models to represent energy being added by pumps.

E_f = Frictional energy loss.  This quantified by several different models depending on the frictional situation, and is also differentiated into two different types of frictions called Minor Losses and major Losses.  More on this: http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~alvi/EML3016/Lecture-notes-new/notes_html/week10/pipe%20flow/sld001.htm

Es = Energy removed by turbines. This is quantified by several different models to represent energy being removed by turbines.

 

What my purpose of this example is to show how this framework allows principles to be built on over time, while allowing practical application through the building process.  Scientists and engineers did not allow themselves to be ham strung into not moving forward by not knowing absolutely everything and providing mitigations for every possible scenario that someone could dream up. They developed a way to clearly distinguish what is known and not known and in what situations this knowledge can, and cannot, be applied.  Science has a major difference in that is demonstrable, on a level philosophy is not, however philosophy is demonstrable to a certain level, and logic is demonstrable to the extent it is consistent.

 

So if a politician came to an engineer who was designing water distribution system, and said “I don’t think I can trust your system. I have looked into your assumptions (are you trying to make an ‘ass out of you and me’ or something?) and boundary conditions and I see some fatal flaws in what you are proposing. What-if all of a sudden water turned into Skittles?  Skittles are COMPRESSIBLE and therefore your system would fail!!!”  The engineer would calmly explain to this politician that “You are right, in that scenario the system would fail. However due to the extremely low probability of that event, and the cost it would take to mitigate against it, the working boundary conditions are sufficient to design and construct a water distribution system that will successfully deliver water to the community.”

 

[1] Fluid Mechanics – Fundamentals and Applications 1^st ed 2006, Cengel and Cimbala

Thanks for your thoughts Hannibal!

 

The human/animal divide when it comes to NAP has nothing to do with the ability to understand the NAP (at least directly).

 

Well, I think the distinction is not completely unwarranted, however the ability to understand a principle is pretty important for most ethical principles.

 

It simply comes down to the fact that morality serves to further our prosperity. That's what morality *is*.

 

My goal is to provide a system to communicate the *is* more effectively and methodically.

 

Not killing animals arguably is bad for our prosperity, so in fact it's arguable that it is morally good (on a personal level) to kill and eat animals. 

We stand to gain nothing from affording equal rights to animals - hence they don't get equal rights.

 

 

This is a pragmatic argument.  I don’t necessarily disagree with you, however it cannot be universalized.

 

And murder == bad is NOT universal. It's almost universal.

 

I would say murder is universally immoral as long as the conditions don’t include…. 

 

Morality is not applicable (or at least it's applicability to social situations) in lifeboat situations. Where there is no possibility for mutual prosperity - such as a situation where 2 people must try to kill one another, or both will die - then there is no scope for morality. In such a situation you may choose, given that your own life is the most important thing in the world, to murder the other. It's you life vs theirs, and your task alone to weigh the options according to the values you hold.

 

I might kill myself to save my child, as I couldn't face living with the alternative. But faced with a stranger, I might give little though against taking his life to save my own.

 

I would say morality is applicable in lifeboat situations, but the conditions are different than normal situations.  These conditions would then need to be defined.

 

The missing ingredient which appears to make the idea of philosophy being universal conflict with these scenarios (animals and the NAP, lifeboat scenarios, etc) is the understanding of what morality actually is, and why we need it.

 

It's not that there is a problem with universality - just that the problems have been poorly or incompletey framed to begin with.

 

I completely agree with you that the problems have been poorly or incompletely framed.  This is what I am trying to address by proposing a better way to frame philosophical principles/arguments.  What I am proposing is using some more of the concepts that scientist and engineers have used to communicate, with wildly successful results.

 

This isn’t an attempt to brush over the need to explain “what morality actually is”, but to find a way to effectively communicate this through a conversation on limiting conditions.  Boundary conditions aren’t just stated, and then moved over, but a detailed explanation of why each boundary condition is there and what it means.  This would facilitate the conversation around morality, and by giving it a mental shape, hopefully provide a more robust understanding of what it is and what it means.

 

I definitely understand the apprehension to this since it seems like I am trying to get rid universality, but as I have explained above: “this s the reason why I framed it as absolute universality vs delimitated universality, because we are still talking about universality.  The difference is we are just being clear, and upfront, about documenting what the boundary conditions and assumptions are, and as long as the situation you are analyzing is within those parameters, and the assumptions are true, then the principle is universal. To keep the gravity analogy going, scientists do not claim that Newton’s gravitational law is not universal, they claim that they are universal as long as it is being used within the limits described in the proof.”

[Hannibal]

Alrighty, here is what I was able to put together for this.  Let me know if it makes any sense, it was kind of a difficult narrative for me to put together.

 

In fluid mechanics there is an equation called the “Bernoulli Principle” which was developed in 1738 by Daniel Bernoulli and published in Hydrodynamica. It is a derivative of Newton’s laws and conservation of energy/mass principles. One application is that it is used by engineers to design all types of fluid distribution systems, including pressurized water systems which we count on to provide running water when we turn our tap.

 

Here is a definition:

“The Bernoulli Equation is an approximate relation between pressure, velocity, and elevation and is valid in steady, incompressible flow where net frictional forces are negligible…

 

The key approximation in the derivation of the Bernoulli equation is that viscous effects are negligibly small compared to inertial, gravitational, and pressure effects.  Since all fluid have viscosity (there is no such thing as a “inviscid fluid”), this approximation cannot be valid for the entire flow field of practical interest… However, it turns out that the approximation is reasonable in certain regions of flow.” [1]

 

Here is the equation:

p/ ρ + v²/(2 g) + z = Et

where:

Et = Total Energy

p = static pressure

ρ = density

γ = specific weight

g = acceleration of gravity

v = flow velocity

z = elevation height

 

Later in the chapter is a list of all of the boundary conditions for this principle: steady flow, frictionless flow, no shaft work (turbines/pumps), incompressible flow, no heat transfer, and flow along a streamline, the conservation of mass, and the conservation of energy. With these boundary conditions the application is pretty constrained, and if it would have not developed from there, it would be useless for pressurized water systems because the frictionless and no shaft work assumptions.  However, it still does have a range of applications.

 

Principle was expanded so that the assumptions of frictionless flow, no shaft work, or no heat transfer could be removed.  This is generally called the Extended Bernoulli Equation, and allows us to model modern pressurized water distribution systems.

 

Here is the equation:

  p/ ρ + v²/(2 g) + z + E_p - E_f - E_s = Et (General expression ∑E_sources = ∑E_sinks)

where:

E_p = Energy added by pumps.  This is quantified by several different models to represent energy being added by pumps.

E_f = Frictional energy loss.  This quantified by several different models depending on the frictional situation, and is also differentiated into two different types of frictions called Minor Losses and major Losses.  More on this: http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~alvi/EML3016/Lecture-notes-new/notes_html/week10/pipe%20flow/sld001.htm

Es = Energy removed by turbines. This is quantified by several different models to represent energy being removed by turbines.

 

What my purpose of this example is to show how this framework allows principles to be built on over time, while allowing practical application through the building process.  Scientists and engineers did not allow themselves to be ham strung into not moving forward by not knowing absolutely everything and providing mitigations for every possible scenario that someone could dream up. They developed a way to clearly distinguish what is known and not known and in what situations this knowledge can, and cannot, be applied.  Science has a major difference in that is demonstrable, on a level philosophy is not, however philosophy is demonstrable to a certain level, and logic is demonstrable to the extent it is consistent.

 

So if a politician came to an engineer who was designing water distribution system, and said “I don’t think I can trust your system. I have looked into your assumptions (are you trying to make an ‘ass out of you and me’ or something?) and boundary conditions and I see some fatal flaws in what you are proposing. What-if all of a sudden water turned into Skittles?  Skittles are COMPRESSIBLE and therefore your system would fail!!!”  The engineer would calmly explain to this politician that “You are right, in that scenario the system would fail. However due to the extremely low probability of that event, and the cost it would take to mitigate against it, the working boundary conditions are sufficient to design and construct a water distribution system that will successfully deliver water to the community.”

 

[1] Fluid Mechanics – Fundamentals and Applications 1^st ed 2006, Cengel and Cimbala

Thanks for your thoughts Hannibal!

 

 

Well, I think the distinction is not completely unwarranted, however the ability to understand a principle is pretty important for most ethical principles.

 

 

My goal is to provide a system to communicate the *is* more effectively and methodically.

 

 

This is a pragmatic argument.  I don’t necessarily disagree with you, however it cannot be universalized.

 

 

I would say murder is universally immoral as long as the conditions don’t include…. 

 

 

I would say morality is applicable in lifeboat situations, but the conditions are different than normal situations.  These conditions would then need to be defined.

 

 

I completely agree with you that the problems have been poorly or incompletely framed.  This is what I am trying to address by proposing a better way to frame philosophical principles/arguments.  What I am proposing is using some more of the concepts that scientist and engineers have used to communicate, with wildly successful results.

 

This isn’t an attempt to brush over the need to explain “what morality actually is”, but to find a way to effectively communicate this through a conversation on limiting conditions.  Boundary conditions aren’t just stated, and then moved over, but a detailed explanation of why each boundary condition is there and what it means.  This would facilitate the conversation around morality, and by giving it a mental shape, hopefully provide a more robust understanding of what it is and what it means.

 

I definitely understand the apprehension to this since it seems like I am trying to get rid universality, but as I have explained above: “this s the reason why I framed it as absolute universality vs delimitated universality, because we are still talking about universality.  The difference is we are just being clear, and upfront, about documenting what the boundary conditions and assumptions are, and as long as the situation you are analyzing is within those parameters, and the assumptions are true, then the principle is universal. To keep the gravity analogy going, scientists do not claim that Newton’s gravitational law is not universal, they claim that they are universal as long as it is being used within the limits described in the proof.”

 

"This is a pragmatic argument."

 

Pragmatism is the root of all morality.

 

'Universality' is is easily misleading. We're not looking for something "universally universal" (if you get my meaning), but simply something consistent and non-contradictry.

 

Ayn Rand has already done an excellent job of defining a basis for objective morality. I'm not trying to put down your efforts - just saying that they should be based on the premise that what is moral is that which is good for man, qua man (as she would put it).  For example - not that which is good for animals, for their own sake.

[luxfelix]

Thank you WasatchMan. 

 

Two other examples come to mind: that of the periodic table of elements and the Drake equation.

 

When the periodic table was designed, not all of the elements were known, but the theory it's based on suggested that previously unknown elements would exist in the sequence. Likewise, the variables in the Drake equation provide a best-guess approach to the discovery of life off Earth.

 

What would an equation/diagram/flow chart for universal morality look like?

 

uM = φ = 1/x + y^z ?

 

(where: A value closer to phi equates a universal moral.)

 

I dunno. 

 

Though I hypothesize that, since nature (both micro and macro) follows Fibonacci toward phi, and we're looking for a universal morality for this world (following the laws of nature), then any moral claim we make would likely follow that same number.

[Snafui]

The duplicitous response received on this comes from an appeal to authority. Most systems of ethics are handed down by a supreme being, or authority, which gives people a false basis for adherence*. So, with science many are culturally taught that men in white coats are close to supernatural beings: priests in a cult of science or demons stealing your soul. So, in the West where the words, "a new study" is enough for people to change behaviors in ways contrary to their nature, and often to their detriment, can be contrasted to the spread of AIDS and Ebola in Africa where a lack of trust is killing people.

 

So, what you have are responses to the source from a cultural bias: From a scientist and some will have an, "oh, I get that." But a system of ethics not from authority you get, "are you insane! Who's in charge here!?"

 

I'm not saying that this is not a great way to point out how they are asking for utopia in the case of ethics and not science, but that there will be backlash from these cultural based norms.

 

*Perhaps this be why Stef is seen as a cult leader so quickly? He's "handing" down an ethical code therefore he must be! *facepalm*

[Devon Gibbons]

Is this thread about philosophy or physics? Physics is about nit-picking using deductive reasoning to build theories; philosophy created all of human knowledge and all fields of study including physics through inductive reasoning. Is there a specific moral situation we are talking about, or are we analyzing analyzing on this thread? And if so, whose analysis of analysis are we analyzing?

 

Would you guys shrink the length of your posts by highlighting and copying the part of the others' post you intend to respond to, then click "quote" or "multiquote" at the bottom of their post, then edit/redact down the specific part you intend to respond to? This led to my confusion here.

[WasatchMan]

Thank you WasatchMan. 

 

Two other examples come to mind: that of the periodic table of elements and the Drake equation.

 

When the periodic table was designed, not all of the elements were known, but the theory it's based on suggested that previously unknown elements would exist in the sequence. Likewise, the variables in the Drake equation provide a best-guess approach to the discovery of life off Earth.

 

What would an equation/diagram/flow chart for universal morality look like?

 

uM = φ = 1/x + y^z ?

 

(where: A value closer to phi equates a universal moral.)

 

I dunno. 

 

Though I hypothesize that, since nature (both micro and macro) follows Fibonacci toward phi, and we're looking for a universal morality for this world (following the laws of nature), then any moral claim we make would likely follow that same number.

 

I think those are good examples.

 

I am not sure if we could ever create an equation to represent morality, but it would be an interesting model to try to build.

 

 

Is this thread about philosophy or physics? Physics is about nit-picking using deductive reasoning to build theories; philosophy created all of human knowledge and all fields of study including physics through inductive reasoning. Is there a specific moral situation we are talking about, or are we analyzing analyzing on this thread? And if so, whose analysis of analysis are we analyzing?

 

This is a philosophy thread dealing epistemology and practical questions on how we communicate philosophical ideas/arguments/principles.  The physics stuff was provided to show how the method of communicating scientific principles when dealing with non-absolute principles/unknowns/assumptions have avoided the analysis paralysis we see when trying to discuss philosophical ideas.  While I am not claiming that we will ever be able to completely stop this in philosophy (there will always be nihilists), I think the discipline could greatly benefit from conversations around boundary conditions/assumptions similar to how physical theories present these.

[Devon Gibbons]

The physics stuff was provided to show how the method of communicating scientific principles when dealing with non-absolute principles/unknowns/assumptions have avoided the analysis paralysis we see when trying to discuss philosophical ideas.

"When trying to discuss philosophical ideas" - what philosophical ideas?

[WasatchMan]

"When trying to discuss philosophical ideas" - what philosophical ideas?

 

Are you asking what philosophical ideas experience analysis paralysis?  If so, my answer is most. 

 

Lets take the NAP for an example.  We can't even establish something as basic as this because people are worried about life boat scenarios.  While there are obviously a lot of people that will never be convinced, I believe there are a lot of genuine people who get thrown off philosophy because the lack of concise/methodical/consistent ways of presenting these things.  They might not necessarily get completely thrown by the life boat problem as such, but it could throw out enough fog that leads to confusion, like if the NAP does not completely apply to life boat scenarios, why does it completely apply to governance?  However, it is my opinion that if part of the conversation about the NAP included that the NAP doesn't apply in the same way for emergency scenarios and the reasons are such-and-such, people won't get thrown off as easy, and are likely not to 'throw the baby out with the bath water' as they say.

[Devon Gibbons]

Lets take the NAP for an example.  We can't even establish something as basic as this because people are worried about life boat scenarios.

...it could throw out enough fog that leads to confusion...

Can you give an example of a life boat scenario? I bet I can answer it for you.

[WasatchMan]

Can you give an example of a life boat scenario? I bet I can answer it for you.

 

I am not saying there are not great answers to life boat scenarios - because there are.  What I am trying to address is there seems to be a problem (I could be wrong) with how people perceive things like the NAP, or other philosophical ideas, that is resulting in these non-productive life boat scenario conversations to begin with, as well as other types of miss-applications.  I believe science doesn't suffer from this because 1. it is demonstrable, & 2. the scope of the idea is methodically mapped out so it is as clear as possible where it does/does not apply.  We obviously can't do much about the demonstrability differences between say physics and philosophy, but we can bring our method of communicating and documenting knowledge closer to that which is done with the scientific method. 

[Devon Gibbons]

there seems to be a problem (I could be wrong) with how people perceive things like the NAP

If the fundamental problem with the NAP is not life-boat scenarios, what is the problem? If you are saying people do not know how to apply the NAP, that just means they are more likely to break the NAP.

 

If you would apply your statement to an actual situation, we might likely be able to bring the conversation down from the realm of platonic ideas into reality so that it can be argued instead of fantasized about.

[J. D. Stembal]

I am not saying there are not great answers to life boat scenarios - because there are.  What I am trying to address is there seems to be a problem (I could be wrong) with how people perceive things like the NAP, or other philosophical ideas, that is resulting in these non-productive life boat scenario conversations to begin with, as well as other types of miss-applications.  I believe science doesn't suffer from this because 1. it is demonstrable, & 2. the scope of the idea is methodically mapped out so it is as clear as possible where it does/does not apply.  We obviously can't do much about the demonstrability differences between say physics and philosophy, but we can bring our method of communicating and documenting knowledge closer to that which is done with the scientific method. 

 

WasatchMan,

 

Are you honestly saying that you cannot clearly demonstrate that the non-aggression principle is universal and preferable? I'm a little confused at this position because a child can do it.

 

As I believe you may understand, lifeboat scenarios are a deliberate attempt to disprove the validity of the principle, usually by making an emotional appeal to fear or sympathy. They are not instructive for the real application of the principle, and are the reason why we have so many practical exceptions to the principle already, such as "killing is bad unless you are wearing a uniform". I also don't understand how discussing physics at length proves or disproves that philosophy cannot be universal.

[Hannibal]

 

Are you honestly saying that you cannot clearly demonstrate that the non-aggression principle is universal and preferable? I'm a little confused at this position because a child can do it.

 

Do you mean universally preferable? I.e can possibly be preferred universally?

 

Because universal and preferable is not the same thing.

[J. D. Stembal]

Do you mean universally preferable? I.e can possibly be preferred universally?

 

Because universal and preferable is not the same thing.

 

Correct, I meant universally preferable, but I wrote it as universal and preferable. I don't see how it changes the meaning. given the context. Certainly, I am not saying that all preferences are universal if that's what you understood me to mean.

 

To rephrase, I was curious if Wasatch really thinks that the non-aggression principle cannot be demonstrated as sufficiently as the "hard" sciences. Through observing the course of the thread (honestly, I skimmed through the technical jargon), I understood that he is suggesting that physics is closer to being universal (the unified theory) than the real world application of philosophy. Perhaps I've misunderstood him in his last post, but I know he understands that lifeboat scenarios are philosophic distractions, but he also mentioned his desire to apply limitations or boundaries on the absolute nature of the non-aggression principle. If you can prove or reason it logically, why do we need exceptions in emergency situations? What is an emergency situation but a lifeboat scenario by another name?

 

 

 

However, it is my opinion that if part of the conversation about the NAP included that the NAP doesn't apply in the same way for emergency scenarios and the reasons are such-and-such, people won't get thrown off as easy, and are likely not to 'throw the baby out with the bath water' as they say.

 

All the lifeboat scenario does is allow someone to object to the NAP without applying it where it is universally preferable. For example, say you have a teacher who digs the concept of the non-aggression principle until you explain that his job is funded by state theft. Suddenly, he feels threatened by the logical principles you are proposing. Instead of applying the NAP universally, he will want his own lifeboat scenario, which is "What about educating the children? Don't you care about the children? The state and the taxpayer cares about the children!"

 

What he is really saying is, "Don't you care about me and my cozy union job? I care about me, why don't you?"

 

The more people you speak to about the NAP, the more the delimiting factors to universality will mount. Science, as a state-funded institution, is not excepted from this tendency. What if I proposed that I wanted an exception to gravity? Philosophy doesn't care about your lifeboat scenario, just as science doesn't care that I would like to be able to fly under my own power. My wishes don't make it so. Why should we care that the NAP skeptics want their lifeboat scenarios addressed? It has nothing to do with the universality of the NAP. Claiming that you don't have a universal preference to it is like saying that you want exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. If you could cheat science, and not have to put any energy in your car to drive it, or grow food magically with fairy dust, don't you think there would be consequences? This is what the involuntary force of the state does to all of us. It creates magical pockets of self-interest where no one wants the principle to apply, and distorts all other voluntary interactions in the process.

[WasatchMan]

First of all thanks for the responses EndtheUsurpation, and I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond in turn.  I have been buried in some work deadlines that had all my mental energy zapped by the end of the day.

 

WasatchMan,

 

Are you honestly saying that you cannot clearly demonstrate that the non-aggression principle is universal and preferable? I'm a little confused at this position because a child can do it.

 

As I believe you may understand, lifeboat scenarios are a deliberate attempt to disprove the validity of the principle, usually by making an emotional appeal to fear or sympathy. They are not instructive for the real application of the principle, and are the reason why we have so many practical exceptions to the principle already, such as "killing is bad unless you are wearing a uniform". I also don't understand how discussing physics at length proves or disproves that philosophy cannot be universal.

 

I agree that the NAP is clearly universal and preferable. I also completely agree with your points on what lifeboat scenarios are typically constructed to do, and that is typically to fog the implications of an principle  All I am asking is if there is some framework, specifically a discussion around boundary conditions, that we can add to philosophical principles to clear this fog, and avoid even confronting these worthless lifeboat scenarios.  My thought is that if boundary conditions were clearer, then we wouldn't have people jumping from "since the NAP doesn't seem to work when hanging from a flag pole, how can I be sure it doesn't apply to people wearing uniforms".  I agree this statement can be logically disproved a 100 different ways, but I would call trying to disprove that statement a "tailpipe" solution, instead of a foundational solution.  In other words, people perceive them as "bandages" but if they were discussed up front that perception would change.

 

My point at discussing physics was to show that even physics principles aren't absolute universals, but rely on a communication framework that includes a discussion of boundary conditions.  I am sorry that the physics discussions have derailed my point so much, but I thought I was pretty clear on what the intent of the examples were for.

 

 

The more people you speak to about the NAP, the more the delimiting factors to universality will mount. Science, as a state-funded institution, is not excepted from this tendency. What if I proposed that I wanted an exception to gravity? Philosophy doesn't care about your lifeboat scenario, just as science doesn't care that I would like to be able to fly under my own power. My wishes don't make it so. Why should we care that the NAP skeptics want their lifeboat scenarios addressed? It has nothing to do with the universality of the NAP. Claiming that you don't have a universal preference to it is like saying that you want exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. If you could cheat science, and not have to put any energy in your car to drive it, or grow food magically with fairy dust, don't you think there would be consequences? This is what the involuntary force of the state does to all of us. It creates magical pockets of self-interest where no one wants the principle to apply, and distorts all other voluntary interactions in the process.

 

I completely agree with this concern, and I want to be clear that I am not proposing boundary conditions to appease people or make ideas like the NAP more palatable.  I am proposing a discussion of boundary conditions because there are boundary conditions.  Where there are not, then it would be invalid to use one. Gravity doesn't have boundary conditions because people want to cheat gravity, gravity has boundary conditions because those boundary conditions are true.

 

Here is my response to a similar concern above: "I can see now that how I phrased the problem statement is causing some confusion.  To be clear, I am not proposing this as a way to appease/convince the nitpickers, nihilists, and determinists of the world, but as a methodical way to move past them.  I am proposing this because I think it is likely the proper way to communicate philosophical principles. Just like detailing out assumptions, and boundary conditions in physics is the proper way to communicate in physics."

[labmath2]

The obvious thing that jumps out at me from the comparison is that all those physics equations have a goal. 

"The Bernoulli Equation is an approximate relation between pressure, velocity, and elevation and is valid in steady, incompressible flow where net frictional forces are negligible…"

The problem is that you don't often get steady, incompressible flow where net frictional forces are negligible." 

So what does the Extended Bernoulli Equation do?

It accounts for energy of pumps, frictional energy loss and energy removed by turbines, which is more compatible with the systems people use the equation for.

 

Now with NAP, what is the intended goal? The goal has to be measurable.

[WasatchMan]

The obvious thing that jumps out at me from the comparison is that all those physics equations have a goal. 

"The Bernoulli Equation is an approximate relation between pressure, velocity, and elevation and is valid in steady, incompressible flow where net frictional forces are negligible…"

The problem is that you don't often get steady, incompressible flow where net frictional forces are negligible." 

So what does the Extended Bernoulli Equation do?

It accounts for energy of pumps, frictional energy loss and energy removed by turbines, which is more compatible with the systems people use the equation for.

 

Now with NAP, what is the intended goal? The goal has to be measurable.

 

I can see what you're saying about that, because I definitely had similar thoughts.  Not only do physics equations/models have goals, they are typically testable to a high level of precision. However, philosophy, and specifically ethics, not being demonstrable to the level that physics is, is not an issue that is created by having a discussion about boundary equations. The goal of the NAP is to provide a logical argument why the initiation of force is immoral, and I think probing boundary conditions of the logic could reinforce its understanding.

[labmath2]

The first hurdle then is not boundary equations, but a way to measure morality. Once we can measure morality, it would be possible to fine tune NAP to better produce moral results.

[WasatchMan]

The first hurdle then is not boundary equations, but a way to measure morality. Once we can measure morality, it would be possible to fine tune NAP to better produce moral results.

 

I am not terribly concerned about being able to measure morality, because I don't know if that is possible or even how much value it would provide.  I think some utilitarians tried that at some point and weren't too successful with it.

 

Boundary conditions wouldn't typically have anything to with numbers, but logical statements describing limits or exceptions to a larger logical construct, like the NAP. Like in one the examples above, you would describe the NAP as the principle that sates that it is immoral to initiate the use of force, with the exception that you have to have the capacity to understand the NAP in order for your actions to be considered immoral.

[J. D. Stembal]

I can see what you're saying about that, because I definitely had similar thoughts.  Not only do physics equations/models have goals, they are typically testable to a high level of precision. However, philosophy, and specifically ethics, not being demonstrable to the level that physics is, is not an issue that is created by having a discussion about boundary equations. The goal of the NAP is to provide a logical argument why the initiation of force is immoral, and I think probing boundary conditions of the logic could reinforce its understanding.

 

Please elaborate on the text I added emphasis to in your quote. It most definitely is demonstrable. Why not to the level of physics? How have you found it not to be demonstrable? Have you attempted to demonstrate it?

 

Since you continue to discuss physics at length without any reference to philosophy, logic, or universal ethics - other than to point out that it is insufficiently demonstrable compared to science - why did you not post this in the Science and Technology sub forum?

 

I still don't understand what you intend to accomplish by imposing boundary conditions on universal ethics. It shouldn't have boundaries, or lifeboat scenarios. It's universal, meaning it's valid no matter where you are in the universe.

[WasatchMan]

Please elaborate on the text I added emphasis to in your quote. It most definitely is demonstrable. Why not to the level of physics? How have you found it not to be demonstrable? Have you attempted to demonstrate it?

 

I think the easy answer to this is math. Physics is very easy to test and quantify with mathematical relationships to a level of precision that allows hypothesis to be easily verifiable (i.e. you can hit it with a hammer).  Sorry, I understand that I am kind of talking circles with this, but to me it is incredibly self evident that physics is demonstrable to a much higher level than something like ethics.

 

Since you continue to discuss physics at length without any reference to philosophy, logic, or universal ethics - other than to point out that it is insufficiently demonstrable compared to science - why did you not post this in the Science and Technology sub forum?

 

I still don't understand what you intend to accomplish by imposing boundary conditions on universal ethics. It shouldn't have boundaries, or lifeboat scenarios. It's universal, meaning it's valid no matter where you are in the universe.

 

Quoting myself above:

This is a philosophy thread dealing epistemology and practical questions on how we communicate philosophical ideas/arguments/principles.  The physics stuff was provided to show how the method of communicating scientific principles when dealing with non-absolute principles/unknowns/assumptions have avoided the analysis paralysis we see when trying to discuss philosophical ideas.  While I am not claiming that we will ever be able to completely stop this in philosophy (there will always be nihilists), I think the discipline could greatly benefit from conversations around boundary conditions/assumptions similar to how physical theories present these.

 

Or to quote Stef: 

“Truth has nothing to do with the conclusion, and everything to do with the methodology.”― Stefan Molyneux

 

I think the truth would benefit from a methodical discussion of boundary conditions.  I don't think that boundary conditions mean that a principle is not universal, it just means its has a logical scope, and I do believe boundary condition exist.

[J. D. Stembal]

Math is only precise when it is correct or valid. The math behind a physics proof can be proven to be just as incorrect as the logic behind any universal ethics proposal. What of it?

 

How do boundary conditions benefit ethics? More importantly, what are they in relation to ethics other than lifeboat scenarios?

 

Why can't we demonstrate universal ethics with any reasonable certainty? What does math have to do with being certain about ethics?

[RuralRon]

WasatchMan, I find your efforts to pursue this line of analysis commendable, and it's my opinion you're doing a great job explaining yourself in a very articulate manor. It never ceases to amaze me how little people like to explore abstract concepts, especially here at FDR where such discussions should be frequent and benevolent. Unfortunately I often sense a level of negativity and critical tone in subjects rather than a spirit of exploration and curiosity.

 

That's not to say it's inappropriate or wrong to criticize or to disbelieve or be skeptical of things, not at all, that's very healthy. It has more to do with the "edginess" and manor of delivery of comments, and it can be quite subtle.

 

I'm not making any accusations concerning anyone here, this is just my gut feeling from several threads I've read. Perhaps it's related to the frenzied focus on recent FDR actions that have people feeling more defensive and sensitive.

[Alice Amell]

I was actually just talking to my friend about this and we came to a road block about the NAP. As WasatchMan said, I don't see ethics as being demonstrable. It is a purely logical argument. Gravity, for example, can be tested (see if rocks fall down or up). General relativity can be tested (put atomic clock in space). The NAP can't be physically demonstrated.

 

The problem my friend and I encountered was that of whether universality applied. He came up with the following syllogism:

1. All dogs are red.

2. Muffin is a dog

3. Muffin is red

 

It is internally consistent, but the assumption given as 1. All dogs are red, is false. Similarly,

 

1. Universality applies to morality

2. Initiation of force cannot be universalized

3. Initiation of force is immoral

 

Why does universality apply to morality?