[Scotty]

No one we think is evil thinks that they're evil.  Everyone thinks that what they're doing is right.

This is a very strong statement. It's also false. I've done things that I thought were wrong (e.g. teasing my brother), just because they were fun.

Do you think that you're evil?  Do you genuinely think that anyone believes that what they're doing is evil?  That doesn't mean that they regret (or don't regret) things they've done, or that everything they do is perfectly aligned with doing good in their own eyes.  It means that Hitler didn't think he was evil, that bin Laden didn't think he was evil, Stalin didn't think he was evil, etc.

[GhylTarvoke]

That only means that anything you prove in deductive system X is also true in deductive system Y. You would do well not to confuse mathematical logic systems with the languages we speak. They have things in common but language is not a very sound deductive system.

What The_E meant was obviously that a proof could me made with positive or negative results. Not to put words in his mouth, but by reading the follow up comment I'd say 'knowable' might be a better word.

... okay, then you're using a truly bizarre definition of "proof".

Do you think that you're evil?  Do you genuinely think that anyone believes that what they're doing is evil?  That doesn't mean that they regret (or don't regret) things they've done, or that everything they do is perfectly aligned with doing good in their own eyes.  It means that Hitler didn't think he was evil, that bin Laden didn't think he was evil, Stalin didn't think he was evil, etc.

Of course not. I have, however, done things that I believed were wrong at the time, so the statement "everyone thinks that what they're doing is right" is false. I would also be surprised if nobody has ever thought they were evil. Again, this is a strong statement.

I would agree that very few people think they are evil.

[FrikgFeek]

Proofs can have negative results. Either way, such a proof should be possible, and I eagerly await your attempts to do so.

Well, it makes no sense using strictly defined words from the English language but it's pretty clear what he was going for, isn't it?

[FrikgFeek]

That's it. I'm done. If you insist on claiming it was okay for bin Laden to kill thousands of Americans, or the Nazis to kill millions of Jews, just because they thought it was, then you've abandoned any ability to distinguish right from wrong, and there's nothing I can do for you. God help you.

So you're saying that not justifying your morals with a made up 'objective' system that is very much like our current morals but completely different from the moral values of 99% of civilisations throughout human history means you can't distinguish right from wrong?
If someone believed what they were doing is right and good then in their moral system it IS.

If you want to make up some kind of history spanning objective morality simply to justify the perceived superiority of the system you happen to be using then knock yourself out.

They are wrong because the internal logic of their morality collapses under scrutiny.

PRECISELY!!!

So you're agreeing that objective standards are only linked to the internal logic of one's moral system? What about this one: 'If it is alive and it is not me, kill it'. The internal logic is perfect yet I'm guessing you wouldn't call this an objectively good moral system.

[GhylTarvoke]

Well, it makes no sense using strictly defined words from the English language but it's pretty clear what he was going for, isn't it?

Not really. Maybe it's just me. Here was my post that started the whole provability discussion, and The E's reply:

Prefacing "this is wrong" with "I believe that" seems like a solipsistic caveat. Yeah, nothing is provable beyond cogito ergo sum. Who cares? To have an ethical discussion, we must relax our definitions of "provable" and "objective".

Why should we? The statement that there is such a thing as objective morality, with a definable source and definable characteristics, seems eminently provable to me.

... I guess he's been using relaxed definitions all along?

[Scotty]

He's arguably been using more rigorous language than you have.  "Provable" does not, counter-intuitively, mean that the outcome must be "true".  It means that there can be a proof arrived at, and that proof may be either "true" or "not true".  The E is pretty positive that it's "not true", and that such an outcome is provable.

[FrikgFeek]

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/provable

Not according to the Oxford dictionary. Not sure that it matters at this point since it's out of the way already.

[Phantom Hoover]

lads

lads

there's an easy way to resolve this

is there a set with cardinality between that of N and that of R

[GhylTarvoke]

@Scotty: Well, that would remove all the force from the word "proof". Almost anything could be a proof. If you really want to be rigorous, logicians almost always use "proof" in the stronger sense... but we've wandered far afield.

@Phantom: Continuum hypothesis!

[FrikgFeek]

Phantom, are you implying that mathematical Platonism should be applied here to separate provability and truth?

[The E]

Proofs can have negative results. Either way, such a proof should be possible, and I eagerly await your attempts to do so.

Well, it makes no sense using strictly defined words from the English language but it's pretty clear what he was going for, isn't it?

It's weird how one's native language can interfere sometimes. The german word "beweisbar" doesn't carry as much of a connotation towards a particular outcome as "provable" apparently does; calling a statement "beweisbar" simply means that it can be evaluated to a truth value (in the boolean sense). I apologise for the confusion.

[GhylTarvoke]

Interesting! No problem.

[zookeeper]

So you're agreeing that objective standards are only linked to the internal logic of one's moral system? What about this one: 'If it is alive and it is not me, kill it'. The internal logic is perfect yet I'm guessing you wouldn't call this an objectively good moral system.

The internal logic is imperfect in that it includes that unfounded exception for yourself. There's no logical difference between yourself and someone else and there's nothing else that necessitates such an exception either, so that's the first point where the internal logic fails.

P.S. I realize you were probably responding to InsaneBaron more than me, but I still like to clarify that I don't argue for an objectively good moral system. Of course morality is subjective, although I don't see that as particularly relevant in contexts of human moral disputes because humans are so similar that I see no reason to assume the kind of fundamental differences which would be necessary to explain widely different subjective moralities even if everyone was being internally consistent and as-rational-as-possible.

[FrikgFeek]

What? The logic holds up just fine, it's the reasoning that's lacking. There's nothing self-contradictory about it. You don't need a reason for any exception to remain internally consistent. That's why it's called 'internal', for that to break you'd need a direct self-contradiction.
And yes, there's a logical difference between any 2 defined objects/groups. I really don't see where you were going with that.

[The E]

It was okay for them.  That's why they did it.  9/11 didn't happen because the people carrying it out were monsters or insane.

That's it. I'm done. If you insist on claiming it was okay for bin Laden to kill thousands of Americans, or the Nazis to kill millions of Jews, just because they thought it was, then you've abandoned any ability to distinguish right from wrong, and there's nothing I can do for you. God help you.

This is a question we've been struggling with a lot in the aftermath of WW2. How responsible were the individuals that made up the armed forces of the third Reich for the atrocities those forces committed? Our legal systems, which are an expression of our moral systems, have long held that it is permissible to commit crimes in the service of the state, as long as its done within a chain of command. A soldier following orders cannot be blamed for doing so, cannot be convicted for committing premeditated murder when ordered to do so, because he is absolved of the full responsibility of his actions by the oath he swears.
So, can I blame my grandfathers for enlisting into the Wehrmacht, and being in a very tiny part accomplices to atrocity? No. They believed they were serving their country. They believed they were doing things that were necessary to ensure german prosperity. They thought that they were doing the right thing at the time. It was only afterwards, after everyone was forced to ackknowledge the truth of what happened, that they became remorseful.

So. While I condemn the actions as a whole and the people who planned and ordered them, I cannot truly condemn the people who were actually at the sharp end. Knowing what I do now, it's easy to say "Well, I would have done everything to stop it", but that question soon morphs into the angrily shouted accusation "Why did you not do anything to stop this?", because it's hard for us to separate our knowledge from their knowledge.

The hardest part for us to accept was that the Nazis weren't monsters. They weren't fundamentally different from us. All it took was misinformation and prejudice to enable them. If you've ever wondered why Germany has restrictions on certain types of public and political speech, this is why. Our civilizations are more fragile than they may appear, and all it takes is one demagogue and a bunch of parrots to create a monster.

I hope, InsaneBaron, that this helps you understand the complexity of this discussion a bit better. When I, or Aesaar, or Scotty say that all morality is relative and that there's no such thing as an absolute good or absolute evil, this sort of reasoning is behind it. What you are doing in this discussion, what you have done for several posts now, is mistaking understanding of a particular moral stance with endorsing that stance. There is a difference between the two, and you would do well to learn it.

[zookeeper]

What? The logic holds up just fine, it's the reasoning that's lacking. There's nothing self-contradictory about it. You don't need a reason for any exception to remain internally consistent. That's why it's called 'internal', for that to break you'd need a direct self-contradiction.
And yes, there's a logical difference between any 2 defined objects/groups. I really don't see where you were going with that.

The internal logic includes more than just your example proposition. It includes whatever it is that you've derived it from. I'm not saying the proposition in itself is self-contradictory, only that the chain of logic from your axioms to the proposition is broken. Or, rather, quite a bit less rational than it could be.

[GhylTarvoke]

The E: Fair enough. I believe that most Nazis weren't evil. ("Eichmann in Jerusalem" is a fascinating read.) I do believe, however, that (say) Hitler and Mengele were evil.

[FrikgFeek]

Using those definitions no moral system EVER could be internally consistent as there is no tautology to start with. You'd have to start from an assumption, as you do in everything else. Since you're starting from assumptions anyway you can start from any assumption and remain as internally consistent as any other system. Using only truths you would never get past:
1. My mind exists

Any other axiom after this would have to be an assumption. Now before you say I'm just trolling with this as you can simply define axioms outside modern logic you're still left with a problem when you look at history. "Any premise that is so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy" would lead to very different premises in different cultures.

Therefore any non-contradictory system is as valid as every other one since they both started on assumptions. Whether those assumptions be "The goal of living is the advancement of humanity" or "The goal of living is eliminating as many other living beings".

[GhylTarvoke]

FrikgFeek is right that "if it is alive and it is not me, kill it" is logically consistent. At the same time, zookeeper's "there's no logical difference between yourself and someone else" is the very first axiom I would include in a moral framework.

Using only truths you would never get past:
1. My mind exists

Why didn't you comment in the consciousness megathread?! 
-----
The E: I thought of a possible way to settle our objective morality disagreement. When I say "Mengele was evil", what I really mean is "I believe that Mengele was objectively evil". Is this acceptable?

[The E]

The E: I thought of a possible way to settle our objective morality disagreement. When I say "Mengele was evil", what I really mean is "I believe that Mengele was objectively evil". Is this acceptable?

No, it's not, unless you can come up with a description for "objectively evil" that isn't dependant on any particular worldview. I mean, you can believe he was evil, no problem there, but to say that something or someone is objectively evil requires that you define evil in a universally true way. The problem here is that you can't; Mengele himself did not believe himself to be evil after all.