What you're describing here is how Hoppe solved this problem. Only, he did not use advanced brain scanners, but Mises's praxeology. That is to say, he used logical axioms about human beings to determine what some of their 'ifs' must be, and he then deduced morality from that.
@erhnamdj I think that is different. You can not derive from praxeology that someone's 'if' is that he wants to get a tattoo. You can only say objectively that IF he wants to get a tattoo, he ought to go to a tattoo shop. But I don't know of any praxeological reasoning that can explain his desire for a tattoo. It is a fact of reality he has the wishes for a tattoo. Any ought that says he should not, is wrong, because it does not take the full scope of reality into account.
@modelmark I am thinking of Rothbard's principle of Demonstrated Preference.
If I want a tattoo, then--if I am not currently in the process of receiving the tattoo--we can know that I want it less than whatever I am doing now. Because I am not currently receiving the tattoo.
I don't think there is a way to perform a brain scan and determine someone's desires. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to all of the atoms in the brain, meaning your scan cannot be exact, and chaos applies.
@erhnamdj Furthermore, I don't know of any way to control for the fact that the brain is aware of time. I may want a tattoo, but I know I can change my mind, even while I am traveling to the tattoo parlor. My desire is not absolute, and I am subject to outside influence. The brain is not a closed system. Maybe something causes me to change my preference. And when I act, I know this might happen. The brain scan cannot take this into account.
@erhnamdj I agree. But the IF could be:If I want to get a tattoo somewhere next month, I ought to start saving next week.
I agree there are some practical (and theoretical) difficulties, although you can already verify if people have e.g. racial biases without a scanner:hidden association test.With a scanner you can probably verify musical preferences already. But the practical limitations are besides the point. The IF, is an IS, goodbye Hume
Even if we can pinpoint our 'will' or 'desire' via technology, does that mean that we ought to follow our will or desire in all cases? Often, following our own personal selfish desires can come into conflict with others who are also simply following their own personal seflish desires.
That's really the key problem with ethics, how people can cooperate in an interwoven social dynamic where we inevitably come into contact with the will and desires of others.
@SBRslacker00 The thing is: if the goal is established, a set of actions logically follows to reach that goal. If the goal is in the best interest of the person in terms of survival is another matter. So if your goal (your IF), is to kill yourself, you ought to buy a gun or poison or something. The ought can be objectively tied to the if and the 'IF' can be objectively tied to the brain state.
This holds while you can say that it is not good for the person's survival if he achieves this goal.
This is the ought. Where does this goal come from? Granted, it's a simple situation if we are only talking about one individual, i.e. the Cartesian Ego or an 'I". But the problem becomes much more complicated when we have multiple interacting individuals of equal standing, what 'ought' be a goal for such a group? That's the point I was trying to make. The social dyanamic is the problem, much more than one individual making isolated choices.
@SBRslacker00 the goal is itself a consequence of nature and nurture. It formed itself in the brain by the experiences through the senses, which altered the brain pattern into holding this particular goal.
A group does not have a goal, since it does not have a brain. A group can also not digest a hamburger, because their bowels are separate. They can all individually digest a hamburger and all individually have the same goal.
Which brain gets to decide? When conflict arises, which side wins or what compromise is made? I'm trying to pinpoint where your ultimate 'ought' comes from. Just because a murderer's brain wants to murder doesn't mean that he 'ought' to murder, does it? What about the victim?
'A group does not have a goal, since it does not have a brain.'
A group can have agreement in values, cultural norms, common understanding & policy that reflects this.
@SBRslacker00 there is no central brain who plans what other brains think. There is no 'brain which gets to decide'. If the murderer wants to murder, he ought to go though some objectively rational steps (getting a weapon, etc.) I think he ought not to murder and I have to go through some steps to reach that goal. The victim probably does not want to be murdered, some oughts follow from that as well.
IF your goal is a universal system of oughts, they can not contain subjugation.
Ok, I think I understand. You're talking about an atomized constellation of personalized 'oughts'. We're really talking about ought(1), ought(2), ..., ought(n). I think this an accurate description of reality, even if it's a redefinition of the typical notion definition of 'ought' which is more of a signpost for universal or interpersonal prescription or obligation due to a preexisting social context of typical values. For your concept of 'ought', I tend to use the word 'value'.
@SBRslacker00 yes, so the is => is => ought relation has nothing to do with ethics. If your goal is to learn to play the piano, you ought to practice. The 'IF' is however an 'is' or an objective fact in reality. You either have it as your goal, or you don't. Can stil be interpersonal:if you want to make your wife happy, you ought to bring her flowers.
Ethics is if you try to define a set of 'oughts' that could be valid for everyone. Any subjugation can not be part of this universal set of oughts
@SBRslacker00 It's true that interactions between people make the problem very hard to solve, but it is no longer intractable. Theoretically it can all be untangled and rewound. Each 'if' has a physical representation in the brain and can be explained from the previous state of matter in the brain and outside the brain.
@SBRslacker00 the goal comes from nature and nurture acting on the individuals brain, form the observations with the senses he did in his past. You can not construct a goal for a group, since a group is not an acting entity. A group can not turn left, while all of the individual in the group turn right.
If it is your goal to construct a system of ethics that is universal for all members, then you ought to go through some rational steps that end up with the NAP imho.
What you're describing here is how Hoppe solved this problem. Only, he did not use advanced brain scanners, but Mises's praxeology. That is to say, he used logical axioms about human beings to determine what some of their 'ifs' must be, and he then deduced morality from that.
erhnamdj 6 months ago
@erhnamdj I think that is different. You can not derive from praxeology that someone's 'if' is that he wants to get a tattoo. You can only say objectively that IF he wants to get a tattoo, he ought to go to a tattoo shop. But I don't know of any praxeological reasoning that can explain his desire for a tattoo. It is a fact of reality he has the wishes for a tattoo. Any ought that says he should not, is wrong, because it does not take the full scope of reality into account.
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark I am thinking of Rothbard's principle of Demonstrated Preference.
If I want a tattoo, then--if I am not currently in the process of receiving the tattoo--we can know that I want it less than whatever I am doing now. Because I am not currently receiving the tattoo.
I don't think there is a way to perform a brain scan and determine someone's desires. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to all of the atoms in the brain, meaning your scan cannot be exact, and chaos applies.
erhnamdj 6 months ago
@erhnamdj Furthermore, I don't know of any way to control for the fact that the brain is aware of time. I may want a tattoo, but I know I can change my mind, even while I am traveling to the tattoo parlor. My desire is not absolute, and I am subject to outside influence. The brain is not a closed system. Maybe something causes me to change my preference. And when I act, I know this might happen. The brain scan cannot take this into account.
erhnamdj 6 months ago
@erhnamdj I agree. But the IF could be:If I want to get a tattoo somewhere next month, I ought to start saving next week.
I agree there are some practical (and theoretical) difficulties, although you can already verify if people have e.g. racial biases without a scanner:hidden association test.With a scanner you can probably verify musical preferences already. But the practical limitations are besides the point. The IF, is an IS, goodbye Hume
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark
Praxeological axiom (is): Whatever actions I take, I want to take (or else I would not take them). Reality is this way.
Humean hypothetical (if, then): If I want to do something, then I should act toward doing that thing.
That is an 'is' that is the same as an 'if, then.' An ought has just been derived from an 'is,' because the 'is' is the same as the 'if, then.'
Do I have that right?
erhnamdj 6 months ago
@erhnamdj exactly
modelmark 6 months ago
Even if we can pinpoint our 'will' or 'desire' via technology, does that mean that we ought to follow our will or desire in all cases? Often, following our own personal selfish desires can come into conflict with others who are also simply following their own personal seflish desires.
That's really the key problem with ethics, how people can cooperate in an interwoven social dynamic where we inevitably come into contact with the will and desires of others.
SBRslacker00 6 months ago
@SBRslacker00 The thing is: if the goal is established, a set of actions logically follows to reach that goal. If the goal is in the best interest of the person in terms of survival is another matter. So if your goal (your IF), is to kill yourself, you ought to buy a gun or poison or something. The ought can be objectively tied to the if and the 'IF' can be objectively tied to the brain state.
This holds while you can say that it is not good for the person's survival if he achieves this goal.
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark
'... if the goal is established ...'
This is the ought. Where does this goal come from? Granted, it's a simple situation if we are only talking about one individual, i.e. the Cartesian Ego or an 'I". But the problem becomes much more complicated when we have multiple interacting individuals of equal standing, what 'ought' be a goal for such a group? That's the point I was trying to make. The social dyanamic is the problem, much more than one individual making isolated choices.
SBRslacker00 6 months ago
@SBRslacker00 the goal is itself a consequence of nature and nurture. It formed itself in the brain by the experiences through the senses, which altered the brain pattern into holding this particular goal.
A group does not have a goal, since it does not have a brain. A group can also not digest a hamburger, because their bowels are separate. They can all individually digest a hamburger and all individually have the same goal.
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark
'It formed itself in the brain ...'
Which brain gets to decide? When conflict arises, which side wins or what compromise is made? I'm trying to pinpoint where your ultimate 'ought' comes from. Just because a murderer's brain wants to murder doesn't mean that he 'ought' to murder, does it? What about the victim?
'A group does not have a goal, since it does not have a brain.'
A group can have agreement in values, cultural norms, common understanding & policy that reflects this.
SBRslacker00 6 months ago
@SBRslacker00 there is no central brain who plans what other brains think. There is no 'brain which gets to decide'. If the murderer wants to murder, he ought to go though some objectively rational steps (getting a weapon, etc.) I think he ought not to murder and I have to go through some steps to reach that goal. The victim probably does not want to be murdered, some oughts follow from that as well.
IF your goal is a universal system of oughts, they can not contain subjugation.
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark
Ok, I think I understand. You're talking about an atomized constellation of personalized 'oughts'. We're really talking about ought(1), ought(2), ..., ought(n). I think this an accurate description of reality, even if it's a redefinition of the typical notion definition of 'ought' which is more of a signpost for universal or interpersonal prescription or obligation due to a preexisting social context of typical values. For your concept of 'ought', I tend to use the word 'value'.
SBRslacker00 6 months ago
@SBRslacker00 yes, so the is => is => ought relation has nothing to do with ethics. If your goal is to learn to play the piano, you ought to practice. The 'IF' is however an 'is' or an objective fact in reality. You either have it as your goal, or you don't. Can stil be interpersonal:if you want to make your wife happy, you ought to bring her flowers.
Ethics is if you try to define a set of 'oughts' that could be valid for everyone. Any subjugation can not be part of this universal set of oughts
modelmark 6 months ago
@SBRslacker00 It's true that interactions between people make the problem very hard to solve, but it is no longer intractable. Theoretically it can all be untangled and rewound. Each 'if' has a physical representation in the brain and can be explained from the previous state of matter in the brain and outside the brain.
modelmark 6 months ago
@SBRslacker00 the goal comes from nature and nurture acting on the individuals brain, form the observations with the senses he did in his past. You can not construct a goal for a group, since a group is not an acting entity. A group can not turn left, while all of the individual in the group turn right.
If it is your goal to construct a system of ethics that is universal for all members, then you ought to go through some rational steps that end up with the NAP imho.
modelmark 6 months ago