GE Morton wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pm
psyreporter wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 6:10 amEmpirical value is anything of which it can be considered to be of substance (i.e. real) within the scope of what science deems valid.
Well, as I said, you're using "value" in some idiosyncratic way. Value is a term for measuring someone's desire for something, and for ranking things desired. Apprehending or asserting the existence of something does not entail any desire for it, and thus no value for it is implied (unless you count zero as a value).
Value is anything of which it can be said that it has meaning. Value can be a number in physics, a pattern or a personal ethical principle.
Meaning in a pure form is equal to 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued).
Empirical value would be any value relative to what science deems 'good' (valid in the face of observation).
Moral value would be value relative to what one deems to be 'good' according to morality. My logic has indicated that the origin of morality is a moral sense (moral compass) that underlays conscious experience.
Basic sensory experience such as Vision requires a priori moral valuing to be possible because it involves
valuing on behalf of what is to be considered 'good'.
Good in sensory experience is the 'good' of the Universe, i.e. what is considered to be 'reality'.
If the 'good' of the Universe would be given to a life form, there would be no reason for the life form to exist since there would be nothing to be sensed (the sense-data would have been predetermined and thus meaningless = senseless).
GE Morton wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pm
Deontology is ethics based on predetermined rules (ethical theory as precursor to denoting good and bad). It would be grounded on the idea that morality is purely subjective and that ethical theory is all that there could be.
Yes, morality consists of rules. A public morality is a set of rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. A private morality may include rules governing one's actions in other contexts. Those rules are not predetermined, however. They're generated by some moral theory. A sound moral theory, however, is not based on anyone's values. Values --- the strength of someone's desire for something --- is, of course, subjective. Rules derived from a sound moral theory, however, are pragmatic and objective.
You are confusing morality with ethics. While morality is involved in the creation of ethical theory, by the simple
addressing of the question '
What is good?', morality does
not reside in theory or
denoted good and bad (i.e. morality does not reside within the scope of a retro-perspective).
GE Morton wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pmThe question: "What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed when it had never sensed?" (how can it be perceived that a living creature can make a subjective moral judgement before it had ever sensed?)
Yes, moral judgments (and theories, rules) presuppose sensory experience. Has anyone here argued otherwise?
What is argued is that the senses (as being primary
before subjective experience is possible) presuppose a priori moral valuing.
GE Morton wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pmMy argument is that moral valuing underlays conscious experience and that it can be considered the root of a priori intelligence.
Again, you're contradicting yourself. Above you ask, " . . . how can it be perceived that a living creature can make a subjective moral judgement before it had ever sensed?" Now you're claiming that "moral valuing underlays experience."
It is argued that non-subjective and non-objective moral valuing necessarily underlays conscious experience.
The 'brain in a vat' idea (causally explainable consciousness) would suppose that an empirical cause of moral judgement can have preceded the sense-data. You would need to envision an empirical cause of consciousness to reside within absolute nothingness to suddenly receive a bit of information to magically judge subjectively. It would be a nonsensical idea.
The question intends to indicate that intelligence and moral valuing is a priori in the face of a mechanical sensing facility and that it cannot be explained with an empirical cause.
It implies that morality cannot be subjective.
The logic indicates that humans are naturally equipped with a moral compass (moral sense) and that morality is to be found in an eternal philosophical exploration on behalf of the simple question "
What is 'good'?". Further, the logic indicates that moral valuing underlays conscious experience as
an a priori intelligence factor.
GE Morton wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pmAnd what is this "a priori intelligence" of which you speak?
For sensing-ability to have come into existence without predetermination or design by a being (e.g. an alien or 'God'), an explanation is required that addresses that most basic aspect required for sensing-ability to be possible, which is
moral valuing of which by simple logic it can be said that it's origin is necessarily pure meaning or 'good per se' (the origin of moral valuing cannot be valued itself and therefore the primary characteristic 'meaning' can be said to be pure).