Autolykos and the Set of First Principles

[sdbest]

Ron, under another thread, you wrote,

"By 'set of first principles' I mean principles that are logically consistent and apply to all people at all times (i.e., universal). If you need more clarification, please just ask -- and I mean that honestly."

So, I'm asking. What are those principles? And, I'd be interested in what others thought about them.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest Ron, under another thread, you wrote,

The name's Rob, thanks. :)

"By 'set of first principles' I mean principles that are logically consistent and apply to all people at all times (i.e., universal). If you need more clarification, please just ask -- and I mean that honestly." So, I'm asking. What are those principles? And, I'd be interested in what others thought about them.

If you think I had a certain set of principles in mind, you'd be mistaken. I simply meant any set of principles that is logically consistent (i.e., do not contain any inherent contradictions) and that also can apply universally.

- Rob

[sdbest]

Quote by: Autolykos The name's Rob, thanks. :) If you think I had a certain set of principles in mind, you'd be mistaken. I simply meant any set of principles that is logically consistent (i.e., do not contain any inherent contradictions) and that also can apply universally. - Rob

Apologies, Rob. I'm not good with names, but you'd think I could copy/paste a signature.

I was mistaken, I had assumed that you "had a certain set of principles in mind [that were] any set of principles that is logically consistent (i.e., do not contain any inherent contradictions) and that also can apply universally."

Not having a set in mind raises a question or two. What are your views about whether or not principles with the characteristics you've identified even exist. If they do, how do you know and if they don't, how do you know? And, if some do, are we obligated in some way to adhere to them. If so, why, and if not, why not?

I may be wrong again, but I would have thought that by raising the notion of the principles that you've characterized that you must think some exist.

Very platonic, this idea of universal principles.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest Apologies, Rob. I'm not good with names, but you'd think I could copy/paste a signature.

No problem.

I was mistaken, I had assumed that you "had a certain set of principles in mind [that were] any set of principles that is logically consistent (i.e., do not contain any inherent contradictions) and that also can apply universally."

That's what I thought. It's okay, though.

Not having a set in mind raises a question or two. What are your views about whether or not principles with the characteristics you've identified even exist.

I will presume that by "exist" you mean "are possible" (i.e., are possible for people to think of). Otherwise, you're committing the reification fallacy. Do I think sets of self-consistent principles are possible? Certainly.

If they do, how do you know and if they don't, how do you know?

In all honesty, I don't think it's a question of knowledge. Logic is an abstract process used to discern consistency. As a result, no axiom or principle exists outside of the human mind.

And, if some do, are we obligated in some way to adhere to them. If so, why, and if not, why not?

No one is obligated to adhere to any principle or set of principles. Indeed, the concept of obligation does not exist in external reality.

I may be wrong again, but I would have thought that by raising the notion of the principles that you've characterized that you must think some exist.

I think they exist only in the sense of the following statement: "For all integers, there exist some that are divisible by the integer 2."

Very platonic, this idea of universal principles.

Not really, I'd say. There is no truth in moral principles -- that is, I don't think the concept of "truth" even applies there. However, self-consistent and universally-applied morality seems more likely to persist. On the gripping hand, probability is also not the same as truth, except in an existential sense.

- Rob

[sdbest]

Quote by: Autolykos Do I think sets of self-consistent principles are possible? Certainly. - Rob

So, can you suggest some examples? The reason I ask is that some examples of would be helpful to test your hypothesis.

In the absence of "data" that becomes impossible, which means your views are not falsifiable, and therefore beyond any reasonable scrutiny or investigation. They are in the realm of faith and dogma.

You see my dilemma. You're making points that seem so abstract and that may not exist "outside of [your] human mind" that they may have no merit whatsoever, except, of course, to you. In which case they are likely not applicable to anything other than your world view.

Surely, if you believe "sets of self-consistent principles are possible" you must have some notion of what they might be. Rather than a set, even one principle might be helpful.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

You see my dilemma. You're making points that seem so abstract and that may not exist "outside of [your] human mind" that they may have no merit whatsoever, except, of course, to you. In which case they are likely not applicable to anything other than your world view.

You think that the hypothesis "There are sets of claims that don't contradict eachother" doesn't exist out of his mind?

I'll cite some uncontradictory principles, right now:

1. All people have the right to unimpeded expression, unless this would violate one or more of the enumerated rights of others.

2. All people have the right to participate in locally maintained militias.

3. All people have exclusive rights to their property, unless this would interfere with the property rights of other persons.

Is there a contradiction? Do I need to write it with more exact phrasing?

[sdbest]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'll cite some uncontradictory principles, right now:

Thank you, Kam. As always your posts are appreciated. But, this topic was about Rob's (Autolykos) thoughts about first principles, not yours. I wonder if Rob agrees with your view.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest So, can you suggest some examples? The reason I ask is that some examples of would be helpful to test your hypothesis.

Here is an example: "Murder is wrong."

In the absence of "data" that becomes impossible, which means your views are not falsifiable, and therefore beyond any reasonable scrutiny or investigation. They are in the realm of faith and dogma.

By "data" I assume you mean example axioms and sets of axioms?

On another note, is logic a matter of faith and/or dogma?

You see my dilemma. You're making points that seem so abstract and that may not exist "outside of [your] human mind" that they may have no merit whatsoever, except, of course, to you. In which case they are likely not applicable to anything other than your world view.

I think there is a difference between physical existence (empiricism) and mental existence (thought, of which logic is a subset). A concept exists physically as a pattern of neurons firing in one's brain, but it has no effect on reality outside of the human mind. Therefore, if we are talking only about concepts, empiricism is irrelevant.

Surely, if you believe "sets of self-consistent principles are possible" you must have some notion of what they might be. Rather than a set, even one principle might be helpful.

Again, how is this for a start: "Murder is wrong."

- Rob

[ZNFYRH]

Define murder.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Autolykos Again, how is this for a start: "Murder is wrong." - Rob

Just to be clear, this is an example of a first principle that applies to all people, all the time, and universally? Or do you need to qualify the principle in some way?

Also, by "murder" do you mean a narrow legal sense as might be encoded in a state's laws or in a larger moral sense?

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest Just to be clear, this is an example of a first principle that applies to all people, all the time, and universally?

I would say so.

Or do you need to qualify the principle in some way?

I don't think so.

Also, by "murder" do you mean a narrow legal sense as might be encoded in a state's laws or in a larger moral sense?

My definition for "murder" is "intentional, non-defensive killing".

- Rob

[sdbest]

Quote by: Autolykos My definition for "murder" is "intentional, non-defensive killing". - Rob

I think that is a good definition of murder.

Some comments.

Why is it wrong?

And, obviously, some murderers who know they have committed an "intentional, non-defensive killing" may not view what they did as wrong at all, which would seem to remove the universality component of this test principle.

I can accept an appeal to the majority, but if you can't, how and who is the "wrongness" of murder decided?


Regards
S.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: Autolykos I simply meant any set of principles that is logically consistent (i.e., do not contain any inherent contradictions) and that also can apply universally.

I doubt very much that any set of principles can ever exist that can be applied universally.

[nm420]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 I doubt very much that any set of principles can ever exist that can be applied universally.

How about the empty set? That is, no principle would be applied to all people at all times. It is trivially logically consistent and extremely easy to implement. Perhaps it leaves a bit to be desired, however.

We could also build singleton sets of principles, and unless my logical understanding is incorrect, these could never be logically inconsistent. Thus, "Murder is wrong" could be one such set, while "Murder is acceptable" could be another one, and another could even be "Murder is a moral imperative". Note the second one is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to the empty set, as it is neutral on the one topic it touches. Obviously, the third set is not desirable, if our goal is to create a functioning human society, as all "good" people would see to the extinction of our species.

We can easily build larger sets from a singleton, though care must then be taken. For instance, suppose we built a large enough set to include various "wrongs", so that it might be desirable to add another item to the set considering punishments for committing a wrong. Assuming "Murder is wrong" has been included, then we could not add the item "Capital punishment is acceptable" to our set without breaking the logical consistency of it (using the definition of "intentional non-defensive killing" previously provided). Short of amending the definition of murder to include more and more exceptional cases (something not too advisable as it makes analyzing the logical consistency of our set quite a headache), we could not include those two notions in a set of first principles, as I understand it anyhow.

[MachineCode0110]

It can never be said that 100% of people accept that "murder is wrong".

There might only be 2 or 3 people who disagree, but that's still less than 100%.

[sdbest]

Perhaps it would be helpful to consider first principles as positive statements rather than expressions of what might be wrong (ie. "murder"). For example, drawing from the notions of Albert Schweitzer, "Revere life."

"Revere" meaning the simple dictionary sense of "Hold in or regard with deep respect of veneration" and "life" meaning all life from the simplest organisms to the most complex.

Would this work as a "first principle" as Rob has proposed meaning a value that is internally consistent and applies universally and for all time?

Regards
S.

[MachineCode0110]

I think it would have to be something very obvious and not useful.


Something like "if you're reading this, then you can read".

[nm420]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 It can never be said that 100% of people accept that "murder is wrong". There might only be 2 or 3 people who disagree, but that's still less than 100%.

Perhaps I should clarify. "Wrong" in this sense is merely a proscription. "Moral imperative" is merely an obligation. I am assuming that we may dream up any set of "moral" principles that are logically consistent, and this would define morality. That is, we have abandoned all of our usual notions of propriety and good, and may go back to a "set of first principles" with which to define right and wrong.

It should go without saying, though I'll say it anyway, these are my own interpretations of the subject of the thread, and may or may not have any commonality to Rob's ideas.

As such, I'm not entirely sure of the context in which we are speaking of a "set of first principles", though my hunch is that such a set would be used in the formation of some human institution, i.e. government. It is not necessary for all people at all times to agree with the items in our set. I am sure that there exist some who would not agree with the statement "Murder is wrong." That is irrelevant to the fact that, if they live in a society which has adopted this as one of their first principles, they must abide by it or suffer the consequences.

[sdbest]

Quote by: nm420 As such, I'm not entirely sure of the context in which we are speaking of a "set of first principles", though my hunch is that such a set would be used in the formation of some human institution, i.e. government.

The notion was articulated by Rob. Perhaps he can tell you what he meant.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest I think that is a good definition of murder. Some comments. Why is it wrong?

Does there need to be a reason? A first principle is one that is simply postulated as true.

And, obviously, some murderers who know they have committed an "intentional, non-defensive killing" may not view what they did as wrong at all, which would seem to remove the universality component of this test principle.

You misunderstand my use of "universality". It does not mean that all people agree, merely that a given principle can be applied to all people.

Perhaps I should clarify. By "wrong" I mean "that which one should not do".

I can accept an appeal to the majority, but if you can't, how and who is the "wrongness" of murder decided?

There is nothing to decide. Either one holds the principle that murder is wrong or he does not.

- Rob