# Star Trek Ques. (Sort Of): Purely Logical Ethical System--Possible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2003, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-ques-sort-of-purely-logical-ethical-system-possible/170819 "2003-04-24T10:16:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-ques-sort-of-purely-logical-ethical-system-possible/170819/41 "2003-04-26T02:36:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Only if you throw out the concept of “definition”. Not at all. You only have to allow definitions to express ideas that make logical analysis problematical. Examples of this are: self-contradiction, paradox, non-determism, etc. > [@](#): > > Lemur866 holds that an individual can construct any arbitrary system of ethics by using a set number of basic assumptions. I agree. He then said that there’s no way logic can determine which ethical postulates can be used – this is incorrect. So you say, yet you have failed to provide a demonstration that logic alone can be used to found an ethical system. > [@](#): > > Logic applied to observation can indicate which postulates are correct in the same way that logic applied to observation can indicate which postulates in physics are correct. Sure, once we have predetermined a standard for ethical correctness. Absent that, observation and logic simply cannot get you to ethics. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying anything about the symbol chosen to represent any concept. Nor am I, which is why I told you that the issue was not under dispute when you brought it up. > [@](#): > > Good" is the set or sets of principles espoused by the final steady-state configuration of living things. “Evil” is the set or sets of principles that aren’t. This is a perfectly valid set of ethical postulates. Basically: **that which survives is good.** I can’t say that I respect it much as an ethos, but it certainly qualifies as one. What it is not, however, is a demonstration that said postulates are a necessary outcome of logical analysis absent an external system of value. In other words, you still haven’t developed an ethos from a purely logical basis. No shame in that. It simply isn’t a task for which logic was designed. > [@](#): > > Are you familiar with the computer models of the Prisoner’s Dilemma? There’s a reason Tit For Tat always wins in certain types of games… and a reason Generous Tit For Tat always wins in others. Quite familiar. Tell me, from are you really trying to equate “winning strategy” with “ethical behavior”? Is this something that you see as a necessary implication of logic? > [@](#): > > I’m tired of responding to your constant misrepresentations/misunderstandings of my and others’ arguments, **Spiritus.** I do not believe that I have misrepresented any post in this thread. Please substantiate this charge or withdraw it. > [@](#): > > If you want to continue this, start a thread here or in the Pit. Let’s return this thread to the OP. If I cared enough about you to PIT you I would have done so after your behavior in the other thread. Or perhaps after your initial display of class in this one. Instead, I have been trying to address elements pertinent to the OP, including your mistaken assertion that logic can bootstrap meaning into an ethical system. If you didn’t think that point was appropriate to the OP, then you probably shouldn’t have made it in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-ques-sort-of-purely-logical-ethical-system-possible/170819/42 "2003-04-26T03:49:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > \*\*Not at all. You only have to allow definitions to express ideas that make logical analysis problematical. Examples of this are: self-contradiction, paradox, non-determism, etc. \*\* I’m beginning to understand our mutual problems in understanding each other. A concept must have properties – it must have relationships with other concepts and be subject to operations. A listing of its properties _is_ a definition, albeit a very long and unwieldy one. Most definitions in practice describe the properties of a concept as a group, allowing the form of the definition to be compacted, or even include an infinite number of relationships at once. Take away the fundamental definition and you take away the concept. > [@](#): > > **So you say, yet you have failed to provide a demonstration that logic alone can be used to found an ethical system.** I proceed to do this. > [@](#): > > **Sure, once we have predetermined a standard for ethical correctness. Absent that, observation and logic simply cannot get you to ethics.** No, no more than we need to establish a standard to determine if our theories match the behavior of the world in physics. The world itself contains the “standard”. > [@](#): > > **Nor am I, which is why I told you that the issue was not under dispute when you brought it up.** But I didn’t bring it up. I don’t know what you’re reading into my arguments, but I have never discussed “symbols used to represent good”, or symbols used to represent any other concept. > [@](#): > > \*\*This is a perfectly valid set of ethical postulates. Basically: **that which survives is good.** I can’t say that I respect it much as an ethos, but it certainly qualifies as one. What it is not, however, is a demonstration that said postulates are a necessary outcome of logical analysis absent an external system of value. In other words, you still haven’t developed an ethos from a purely logical basis. \*\* I’ve shown how to do so immediately before the section you’re referring to, which restates the conclusions of the argument. > [@](#): > > **No shame in that. It simply isn’t a task for which logic was designed.** Logic wasn’t designed any more than mathematics was designed. > [@](#): > > \*\*Quite familiar. \*\* I don’t think you really are. In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the “correct” strategy can be mathematically determined. We don’t need to define survival as “correct” – it’s simply the strategy that accumulates. > [@](#): > > **I do not believe that I have misrepresented any post in this thread. Please substantiate this charge or withdraw it.** You’ve done so in this thread. For one thing, you keep claiming I’m making statements about symbols when I’ve said or implied no such thing. > [@](#): > > \*\*If you didn’t think that point was appropriate to the OP, then you probably shouldn’t have made it in the first place. \*\* It’s this pointless back-and-forth that’s pointless. That’s it, you’re Pitted. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-ques-sort-of-purely-logical-ethical-system-possible/170819/43 "2003-04-26T05:01:33Z")
> [@](#): > > A concept must have properties – it must have relationships with other concepts and be subject to operations. A listing of its properties is a definition, albeit a very long and unwieldy one. I never said otherwise (though if pressed I will stress the need for caveats about certain existential concepts.) Are you saying that “self-contradictory” is not a property? How about “non-deterministic”? > [@](#): > > No, no more than we need to establish a standard to determine if our theories match the behavior of the world in physics. The world itself contains the “standard”. Yes, because the aim of physics is to describe the world. Thus, the evident world is an appropriate standard against which to measure a physical theory. Ethics, on the other hand, is not generally understood to be a study aimed at describing the world. Perhaps this is the problem. Are you defining ethics to be a sub-discipline of physics? > [@](#): > > But I didn’t bring it up. I don’t know what you’re reading into my arguments, but I have never discussed “symbols used to represent good”, or symbols used to represent any other concept. _sigh_ > [@](#): > > \*\*Spiritus Mundi: \*\*You just shouldn’t fool yourself into thinking that logic is determining what is “good” and what is “evil”. > > \*\*TVAA: \*\*I agree that the word-sound ‘good’ is arbitrary: we could use ‘grafnoinkel’ instead if we wished. > > \*\*Spiritus Mundi: \*\*There is no dispute on this point. You are misunderstanding if you imagine that I am saying anything about the specific symbol chosen to represent the concept “good”. > > \*\*TVAA: \*\*I’m not saying anything about the symbol chosen to represent any concept. I’m saying something about the concept, and anything that can act as the embodiment of the concept in a language. > > \*\*Spiritus Mundi: \*\*Nor am I, which is why I told you that the issue was not under dispute when you brought it up. > > \*\*TVAA: \*\*But I didn’t bring it up. I don’t know what you’re reading into my arguments, but I have never discussed “symbols used to represent good”, or symbols used to represent any other concept. :rolleyes: And then you go on to claim this as an example of my misrepresenting your posts. How lovely. > [@](#): > > I’ve shown how to do so immediately before the section you’re referring to, which restates the conclusions of the argument. No, I’m afraid you have not. Immediately before the section that I quoted you offer 2 cases. [ul][li]In the first case, you discuss sompeting modes of subjective mode and then assert: **The nature of the evolutionary environment in which a group of ethical-opinion-bearing creatures lives ultimately determines what “good” is.** You do not prove that. You do not demonstrate a chain of logic that leads to ethical value when none was postulated. You simply assert that “good” is determined by environmental conditions.[/li] Whether I agree with that conlusion or not, the simple fact is that you have not derived it from an exercise in logic. You have (exactly as **lemur866** said you must) postulated the value from outside your logical framework. [li]In the second case, you mention that “good” might be objective: **in which case, it should be determinable in the same way we can learn anything else about the external, objective world.** Again, this is not a derivation of ethical postulates from a pure exercise of logic. It is simply an assertion as to the nature of “good.” In other words, exactly the type of postulate that **lemur866** mentioned.[/li] Now, if you are indeed proposing that ethics is a sub-discipline of physics, then that might be the root of several misunderstandings.[/ul] > [@](#): > > Logic wasn’t designed any more than mathematics was designed. Logic has been quite explicitely designed. It has, of course, been designed to map certain observed properties of the world, but logic is a human creation. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you really are [familiar with the Prisoner’s Dilemna]. I wonder how you came to that conclusion. No doubt you imagine that it was through logic. > [@](#): > > In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the “correct” strategy can be mathematically determined. My question concerned the equivalence of “ethical behavior” with “winning strategy”. I did not make any reference to how a winning strategy might be determined. > [@](#): > > We don’t need to define survival as “correct” – it’s simply the strategy that accumulates. The correspondence between “ethical” and “accumulative” is not intuitively obvious. Thus, I asked: [ul][li]are you really trying to equate “winning strategy” with “ethical behavior”?[/li][li]Is this something that you see as a necessary implication of logic?[/ul][/li]Do you operate under some ethical prohibition against answering straightforward questions? > [@](#): > > You’ve [misrepresented posts] in this thread. For one thing, you keep claiming I’m making statements about symbols when I’ve said or implied no such thing. You will have to come up with another one. Your words on this matter, as well as my own, are quoted above. they do not support your claim. > [@](#): > > That’s it, you’re Pitted. Whatever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-ques-sort-of-purely-logical-ethical-system-possible/170819.md?page=2)