Philosophy Now Forum

Therefore, the ‘that’s-how-we-use-these-words’ argument for moral objectivity is invalid, as it would be for any other kind of objectivity. Enforcement of social norms (such as the (in)validity of arguments) is an empirical example of the objectivity of morality. There exists an object in the world...

To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. Which reality are you constructing a model of? We can describe things in countless different ways. Which things are you describing? But a description is not the described. Which described are you describing? Peter "Dumb Cun t" H...

That seems obviously false. Especially when it comes to science, which has knowledge without any apparent social function. That seems obviously incoherent. If it has no social function - why do a bunch of social creatures DO science? Why do a bunch of social creatures manufacture scientific knowled...

So you said that you use science to corroborate your beliefs about creation. And now you trash science. Must make sense to someone. :shock: Ultimately, all knowledge is a social construction. It's "created" by humans for human consumption because it performs a social function. It serves a...

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:47 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:43 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:41 pm

There's something in teeth. Need a floss?

Careful Skepdick; you're in danger of learning something.

I'm dusting off old skills... Horses for courses.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:41 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:32 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:02 pmThat's just your point of view.

Which is precisely the fucking point...

There's something in teeth. Need a floss?

Morality is useful for what we use it for, The same goes for objectivity. And it goes without saying that neither morality nor objectivity are useful for the things we don't use them for. Objective morality is a fiction All morality is fiction. Nothing precludes fiction from being objective. This i...

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 8:02 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 12:53 pmThe point of objectivity is entirely contingent upon people deciding what the point of objectivity is.

That's just your point of view.

Which is precisely the fucking point...

There is no point of objectivity that is point-of-view independent.

As far as I am concerned, "objectively moral", is a contradiction in terms. Objectivity is the default position. Everything's objective. My desires. Your desires. The fact that your desires conflict with my desires. Objective facts everywhere. There's no contradiction until you make up th...

'Subjective' and 'objective' can be useful words if people are in agreement on the meaning because then we can bypass spelling out every detail of what is being discussed. As it is, I have to ask exactly how subjective morality works, step by step, so that I can try to figure out what people are ac...

As long as you know what 'objective' means, that's all that counts. It doesn't mean anything. It's an unnecessary word. Everything's objective by being exactly the way it is and no other way. It is by historical accident that things happened one way and not another way. It's a historical accident t...

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 12:48 pm The whole point of objectivity is not to be contingent on agreements.

Do you ever get tired of being this dumb?

The point of objectivity is entirely contingent upon people deciding what the point of objectivity is.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 12:31 pm Taken from our friendly neighbourhood Philosophy Forum from a thread hoping to prove that the abortion povs were not diametrically opposed.

Showing how amusing is the idea or objective morality.

abbo.JPG

So how did you decide that abortion is a moral issue?

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 10:44 pm Now you look as if you are avoiding communication, Pete.

Communication is the (inadvertent and benign) manipulation of other minds.

You said you aren't into propaganda.

It's not possible to reconcile these two goals.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:17 pm Pete, we are talking at cross purposes; I’m a philosopher, and it seems you are primarily interested in rhetoric.

There's a difference?