Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:45 pm Do you understand equivocation? Using a word in two or more different ways? If you do, you can see why your question is incoherent, as I explained with the example of mathematical objects. The premise 'if there are mathematical objects, then mathematical objects exist' is a conceptual mess, given a physical use of the word 'exist'.

If, as a physicalist, you say that mathematical objects - or any other abstract things, such as meanings - exist, then you must clarify your use of the word 'exist' in that context. In other words, if you think they exist in a non-physical way, you must, as a physicalist, justify that claim.

Try these claims:

1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist.
2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist.
3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.
4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.

You've said that I may be deaf to the use of language in these contexts. But if you really can see no difference between the uses of 'exist' in 1 and 2, and its uses in 3 and 4, then I suggest the problem is yours.
Your views are in a mess because you are grounding your claims based on an assumption of Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which is grounded on a psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis.

'Exist' or existence is not a predicate.
"Exist" or "is" is merely a copula that joins the subject to the predicate.

Whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Thus
  • 1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
    2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist, as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
    3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
    4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
Whatever the proper meaning of any term it must be conditioned by the Semantics FSK and whether the term and its meaning say 'cat' exists as real, it must be conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.

So, whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Objective moral principles exist as conditioned by the Moral FSK which is a near equivalent to the credible Scientific FSK.
No, we've done all this many times already.

A description of a real thing is a truth-claim, and a description is always contextual.

But, as you say, existence is not a predicate; a thing either does or doesn't exist. So the existence of a thing is not 'conditioned' or dependent on a descriptive context. That a thing exists has nothing to do with how it is described.

We have empirical evidence for the actual existence of cats, claws and sentences. But, to my knowledge, we have no evidence for the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness.

An opinion - even one held by everyone - is still an opinion, which is subjective. But a fact - such as the existence of cats, claws and sentences - even one acknowledged by nobody - is still a fact, how ever we name and describe it.
I guess you're not going to bother to explain the different senses of "exist"/"there is" that you're employing?

Re this, by the way:
"Do you think mathematical objects, such as numbers, exist? Are you a Platonist? Mathematical language exists, of course. But what and where is the number one?"

Mathematical objects, numbers, etc. exist as brain states--as ways of thinking about relations. I'm not using "exist" in any different sense there. There's just one sense on my usage. So no I'm not a platonist. But yes, mathematical objects exist as brain states in the individuals thinking about relations in a mathematical manner.

"Okay. Does the meaning of a sentence exist in the same way that a sentence exists?"

Yes. There aren't "different ways of existing." I don't know what the heck that would refer to.

"If not, what and where is the meaning of a sentence, and in what way does it exist? "

Again, meaning is a brain state that an individual can be in. Meaning is an associative way of thinking.

"a noun must be the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow."

The idea of anything existing without having a location is incoherent, as I mentioned above. You'd need to explain how you'd think that could be the case for anything, if that's what you're thinking. You'd have to explain how that's supposed to work ontologically on your view.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2372
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:26 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:42 am
Your views are in a mess because you are grounding your claims based on an assumption of Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which is grounded on a psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis.

'Exist' or existence is not a predicate.
"Exist" or "is" is merely a copula that joins the subject to the predicate.

Whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Thus
  • 1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
    2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist, as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
    3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
    4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
Whatever the proper meaning of any term it must be conditioned by the Semantics FSK and whether the term and its meaning say 'cat' exists as real, it must be conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.

So, whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Objective moral principles exist as conditioned by the Moral FSK which is a near equivalent to the credible Scientific FSK.
No, we've done all this many times already.

A description of a real thing is a truth-claim, and a description is always contextual.

But, as you say, existence is not a predicate; a thing either does or doesn't exist. So the existence of a thing is not 'conditioned' or dependent on a descriptive context. That a thing exists has nothing to do with how it is described.

We have empirical evidence for the actual existence of cats, claws and sentences. But, to my knowledge, we have no evidence for the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness.

An opinion - even one held by everyone - is still an opinion, which is subjective. But a fact - such as the existence of cats, claws and sentences - even one acknowledged by nobody - is still a fact, how ever we name and describe it.
I guess you're not going to bother to explain the different senses of "exist"/"there is" that you're employing?

Re this, by the way:
"Do you think mathematical objects, such as numbers, exist? Are you a Platonist? Mathematical language exists, of course. But what and where is the number one?"

Mathematical objects, numbers, etc. exist as brain states--as ways of thinking about relations. I'm not using "exist" in any different sense there. There's just one sense on my usage. So no I'm not a platonist. But yes, mathematical objects exist as brain states in the individuals thinking about relations in a mathematical manner.

"Okay. Does the meaning of a sentence exist in the same way that a sentence exists?"

Yes. There aren't "different ways of existing." I don't know what the heck that would refer to.

"If not, what and where is the meaning of a sentence, and in what way does it exist? "

Again, meaning is a brain state that an individual can be in. Meaning is an associative way of thinking.

"a noun must be the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow."

The idea of anything existing without having a location is incoherent, as I mentioned above. You'd need to explain how you'd think that could be the case for anything, if that's what you're thinking. You'd have to explain how that's supposed to work ontologically on your view.
Okay. You claim that mathematical objects and meanings - and, presumably, other supposed abstract things - exist as brain states.

And I say that's patent nonsense. A brain state consists of nothing but brain matter and electro-chemical processes. Those things can be empirically shown to exist. To call a meaning - or any supposed abstract thing - a brain state is the purest mysticism, and it explains absolutely nothing.

But if you're content with that, so be it. Let's leave it there.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:14 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:26 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:44 am
No, we've done all this many times already.

A description of a real thing is a truth-claim, and a description is always contextual.

But, as you say, existence is not a predicate; a thing either does or doesn't exist. So the existence of a thing is not 'conditioned' or dependent on a descriptive context. That a thing exists has nothing to do with how it is described.

We have empirical evidence for the actual existence of cats, claws and sentences. But, to my knowledge, we have no evidence for the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness.

An opinion - even one held by everyone - is still an opinion, which is subjective. But a fact - such as the existence of cats, claws and sentences - even one acknowledged by nobody - is still a fact, how ever we name and describe it.
I guess you're not going to bother to explain the different senses of "exist"/"there is" that you're employing?

Re this, by the way:
"Do you think mathematical objects, such as numbers, exist? Are you a Platonist? Mathematical language exists, of course. But what and where is the number one?"

Mathematical objects, numbers, etc. exist as brain states--as ways of thinking about relations. I'm not using "exist" in any different sense there. There's just one sense on my usage. So no I'm not a platonist. But yes, mathematical objects exist as brain states in the individuals thinking about relations in a mathematical manner.

"Okay. Does the meaning of a sentence exist in the same way that a sentence exists?"

Yes. There aren't "different ways of existing." I don't know what the heck that would refer to.

"If not, what and where is the meaning of a sentence, and in what way does it exist? "

Again, meaning is a brain state that an individual can be in. Meaning is an associative way of thinking.

"a noun must be the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow."

The idea of anything existing without having a location is incoherent, as I mentioned above. You'd need to explain how you'd think that could be the case for anything, if that's what you're thinking. You'd have to explain how that's supposed to work ontologically on your view.
Okay. You claim that mathematical objects and meanings - and, presumably, other supposed abstract things - exist as brain states.

And I say that's patent nonsense. A brain state consists of nothing but brain matter and electro-chemical processes. Those things can be empirically shown to exist. To call a meaning - or any supposed abstract thing - a brain state is the purest mysticism, and it explains absolutely nothing.

But if you're content with that, so be it. Let's leave it there.
Right. so you think that meanings exist in some sense that you want to be shy about--you won't share the sense in question, but they're not brain states in your view, they have no location, and yet you're a physicalist?

Or are you going to say that there are no meanings?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 8030
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:45 pm Do you understand equivocation? Using a word in two or more different ways? If you do, you can see why your question is incoherent, as I explained with the example of mathematical objects. The premise 'if there are mathematical objects, then mathematical objects exist' is a conceptual mess, given a physical use of the word 'exist'.

If, as a physicalist, you say that mathematical objects - or any other abstract things, such as meanings - exist, then you must clarify your use of the word 'exist' in that context. In other words, if you think they exist in a non-physical way, you must, as a physicalist, justify that claim.

Try these claims:

1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist.
2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist.
3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.
4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.

You've said that I may be deaf to the use of language in these contexts. But if you really can see no difference between the uses of 'exist' in 1 and 2, and its uses in 3 and 4, then I suggest the problem is yours.
Your views are in a mess because you are grounding your claims based on an assumption of Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which is grounded on a psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis.

'Exist' or existence is not a predicate.
"Exist" or "is" is merely a copula that joins the subject to the predicate.

Whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Thus
  • 1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
    2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist, as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
    3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
    4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
Whatever the proper meaning of any term it must be conditioned by the Semantics FSK and whether the term and its meaning say 'cat' exists as real, it must be conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.

So, whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Objective moral principles exist as conditioned by the Moral FSK which is a near equivalent to the credible Scientific FSK.
No, we've done all this many times already.

A description of a real thing is a truth-claim, and a description is always contextual.

But, as you say, existence is not a predicate; a thing either does or doesn't exist. So the existence of a thing is not 'conditioned' or dependent on a descriptive context. That a thing exists has nothing to do with how it is described.

We have empirical evidence for the actual existence of cats, claws and sentences. But, to my knowledge, we have no evidence for the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness.

An opinion - even one held by everyone - is still an opinion, which is subjective. But a fact - such as the existence of cats, claws and sentences - even one acknowledged by nobody - is still a fact, how ever we name and describe it.
1. Yes, we have gone through that umpteen times but unfortunately you still cannot get it [don't expect you to do so] but it is good refresher for me.

2. You got a problem since you adopted Philosophical Realism thus assumes [with very strong psychological impulses] that there is something-X out there that is independent of the common sense description of that something-X.

3. On a common or conventional sense basis, I agree with you that the apple I see on my table is independent from me and my description of that apple [red, Washington, ripe, etc.]. This is Empirical Realism which is about relative-independence.

4. But on a philosophical and more refine [wiser] level of reflection, that supposedly [relative] independent apple from my physical self and description is not absolutely independent from my and that of the collective human conditions.
Note the difference between
1. the common/conventional-sense-relative-independence and
2. philosophical-absolutely-independence.

5. What you are ignorant and lacking is the deeper understanding re point 4.
That is why I always state your thinking is too narrow and shallow which is confined to common and conventional sense.

6. Point 4 is where that something-X emerges spontaneously with your own existence where both share [arm-in-arm] the same evolution process since the Big Bang.
In this case that something-X did not pre-exist to be discovered /observed /perceived and described.
At this level there is no absolute independence between you [& all humans] and all of reality [all there is].

7. The same principle applies to objective moral principles which has relative-independence but not absolute-independence [like Plato's Forms].

8. Above is just my refresher, I don't expect it to sink into your very thick skull at all.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 4:50 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:42 am
Your views are in a mess because you are grounding your claims based on an assumption of Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which is grounded on a psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis.

'Exist' or existence is not a predicate.
"Exist" or "is" is merely a copula that joins the subject to the predicate.

Whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Thus
  • 1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
    2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist, as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
    3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
    4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
Whatever the proper meaning of any term it must be conditioned by the Semantics FSK and whether the term and its meaning say 'cat' exists as real, it must be conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.

So, whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Objective moral principles exist as conditioned by the Moral FSK which is a near equivalent to the credible Scientific FSK.
No, we've done all this many times already.

A description of a real thing is a truth-claim, and a description is always contextual.

But, as you say, existence is not a predicate; a thing either does or doesn't exist. So the existence of a thing is not 'conditioned' or dependent on a descriptive context. That a thing exists has nothing to do with how it is described.

We have empirical evidence for the actual existence of cats, claws and sentences. But, to my knowledge, we have no evidence for the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness.

An opinion - even one held by everyone - is still an opinion, which is subjective. But a fact - such as the existence of cats, claws and sentences - even one acknowledged by nobody - is still a fact, how ever we name and describe it.
1. Yes, we have gone through that umpteen times but unfortunately you still cannot get it [don't expect you to do so] but it is good refresher for me.

2. You got a problem since you adopted Philosophical Realism thus assumes [with very strong psychological impulses] that there is something-X out there that is independent of the common sense description of that something-X.

3. On a common or conventional sense basis, I agree with you that the apple I see on my table is independent from me and my description of that apple [red, Washington, ripe, etc.]. This is Empirical Realism which is about relative-independence.

4. But on a philosophical and more refine [wiser] level of reflection, that supposedly [relative] independent apple from my physical self and description is not absolutely independent from my and that of the collective human conditions.
Note the difference between
1. the common/conventional-sense-relative-independence and
2. philosophical-absolutely-independence.

5. What you are ignorant and lacking is the deeper understanding re point 4.
That is why I always state your thinking is too narrow and shallow which is confined to common and conventional sense.

6. Point 4 is where that something-X emerges spontaneously with your own existence where both share [arm-in-arm] the same evolution process since the Big Bang.
In this case that something-X did not pre-exist to be discovered /observed /perceived and described.
At this level there is no absolute independence between you [& all humans] and all of reality [all there is].

7. The same principle applies to objective moral principles which has relative-independence but not absolute-independence [like Plato's Forms].

8. Above is just my refresher, I don't expect it to sink into your very thick skull at all.
There's nothing "deeper" about (4). It's rather ignornant and at least borderline suggests some sort of mental health issue.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 5336
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:14 pm Okay. You claim that mathematical objects and meanings - and, presumably, other supposed abstract things - exist as brain states.

And I say that's patent nonsense. A brain state consists of nothing but brain matter and electro-chemical processes. Those things can be empirically shown to exist. To call a meaning - or any supposed abstract thing - a brain state is the purest mysticism, and it explains absolutely nothing.

But if you're content with that, so be it. Let's leave it there.
So you are trying to say that a "meaning" exists outisde of brain states??
Seriously?
So PI is a real thing existing, and was just waiting for humans to discover it?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2372
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:52 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:14 pm Okay. You claim that mathematical objects and meanings - and, presumably, other supposed abstract things - exist as brain states.

And I say that's patent nonsense. A brain state consists of nothing but brain matter and electro-chemical processes. Those things can be empirically shown to exist. To call a meaning - or any supposed abstract thing - a brain state is the purest mysticism, and it explains absolutely nothing.

But if you're content with that, so be it. Let's leave it there.
So you are trying to say that a "meaning" exists outisde of brain states??
Seriously?
No. I'm saying that talk about the physical existence of a meaning - or any other so-called abstract thing - anywhere, inside or outside a brain - is conceptually incoherent. Just as is talk about the existence of mathematical objects. Do you think a mathematical object exists as a brain state?

So PI is a real thing existing, and was just waiting for humans to discover it?
I don't know what PI is.
Skepdick
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:25 pm Yeah, well the point I was arguing for popeye's benefit was to do with our natural language containing a way in which we use the concepts of of subjective/objective. So that's what I'm sticking with and I don't really care very much to redefine things purposelessly in physiologocal terms.
You don't get to tell me, popeye or anyone how "we" use the concepts of subjective and objective when I am telling you that my use is different to your use. You are just playing language enforcer.

Apparently this is a philosophy forum and you've signed yourself up for a burden of arguing that pain and thirst are "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".
Skepdick
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:19 pm I don't know what PI is.
Do you know what a concept is?
Do you know what incoherence is?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:19 pm No. I'm saying that talk about the physical existence of a meaning - or any other so-called abstract thing - anywhere, inside or outside a brain - is conceptually incoherent. Just as is talk about the existence of mathematical objects. Do you think a mathematical object exists as a brain state
So any talk about "conceptual incoherence" is conceptually incoherent? Do you think concepts, incoherence and conceptual incoherence exist as brain states?

If conceptual incoherence doesn't exist as a brain state, then why are you talking about conceptual incoherence?

Fucking. Philosophical. Time-wasting. Retard.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 5336
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:52 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:14 pm Okay. You claim that mathematical objects and meanings - and, presumably, other supposed abstract things - exist as brain states.

And I say that's patent nonsense. A brain state consists of nothing but brain matter and electro-chemical processes. Those things can be empirically shown to exist. To call a meaning - or any supposed abstract thing - a brain state is the purest mysticism, and it explains absolutely nothing.

But if you're content with that, so be it. Let's leave it there.
So you are trying to say that a "meaning" exists outisde of brain states??
Seriously?
No. I'm saying that talk about the physical existence of a meaning - or any other so-called abstract thing - anywhere, inside or outside a brain - is conceptually incoherent. Just as is talk about the existence of mathematical objects. Do you think a mathematical object exists as a brain state?

So PI is a real thing existing, and was just waiting for humans to discover it?
I don't know what PI is.
3.142..... = PI.

Yes I am definitely saying that an idea is a brain state absolutely, and you can kill an idea by blowing someones brains away.
The reason this is important is that ideas all share a truth that they are based in the subject. Objectivity is also a brain state in which two or more subjective states are compared for their similarlities. Agreement is required to achieve and bestoy the quality of objectivity.
This is perfectly coherent.
Your objection to Terrapin that it "explains nothing" is not relevant, since it perfectly describes the reality of the situation.
Have you something better?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2372
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 4:06 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 1:52 pm

So you are trying to say that a "meaning" exists outisde of brain states??
Seriously?
No. I'm saying that talk about the physical existence of a meaning - or any other so-called abstract thing - anywhere, inside or outside a brain - is conceptually incoherent. Just as is talk about the existence of mathematical objects. Do you think a mathematical object exists as a brain state?

So PI is a real thing existing, and was just waiting for humans to discover it?
I don't know what PI is.
3.142..... = PI.

Yes I am definitely saying that an idea is a brain state absolutely, and you can kill an idea by blowing someones brains away.
The reason this is important is that ideas all share a truth that they are based in the subject. Objectivity is also a brain state in which two or more subjective states are compared for their similarlities. Agreement is required to achieve and bestoy the quality of objectivity.
This is perfectly coherent.
Your objection to Terrapin that it "explains nothing" is not relevant, since it perfectly describes the reality of the situation.
Have you something better?
Question: what is the meaning of: Pi, a sentence, this behaviour, these statistics, Russian tanks on the border, and so on?

Answer: It's a brain state.

Sorted. If you've nothing better, let's leave it.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 5336
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 4:06 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:19 pm

No. I'm saying that talk about the physical existence of a meaning - or any other so-called abstract thing - anywhere, inside or outside a brain - is conceptually incoherent. Just as is talk about the existence of mathematical objects. Do you think a mathematical object exists as a brain state?
I don't know what PI is.
3.142..... = PI.

Yes I am definitely saying that an idea is a brain state absolutely, and you can kill an idea by blowing someones brains away.
The reason this is important is that ideas all share a truth that they are based in the subject. Objectivity is also a brain state in which two or more subjective states are compared for their similarlities. Agreement is required to achieve and bestoy the quality of objectivity.
This is perfectly coherent.
Your objection to Terrapin that it "explains nothing" is not relevant, since it perfectly describes the reality of the situation.
Have you something better?
Question: what is the meaning of: Pi, a sentence, this behaviour, these statistics, Russian tanks on the border, and so on?

Answer: It's a brain state.

Sorted. If you've nothing better, let's leave it.
:roll:
Yes this is the second attempt to run away. You tried to duck the issue with Terrapin, and now you are still trying to drop a turd and run.
Russian tanks on the border for you and I are brain states. But I think that they refer to something you can kick, or be run over by and squashed.
But the meaning of Russian tanks on the border and what they might mean for you and I, like PI, is completely idealistic and therefore a brain state.
You seem to have no counter argument.
You can run away now, with your tail between your legs.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 4:06 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:19 pm

No. I'm saying that talk about the physical existence of a meaning - or any other so-called abstract thing - anywhere, inside or outside a brain - is conceptually incoherent. Just as is talk about the existence of mathematical objects. Do you think a mathematical object exists as a brain state?
I don't know what PI is.
3.142..... = PI.

Yes I am definitely saying that an idea is a brain state absolutely, and you can kill an idea by blowing someones brains away.
The reason this is important is that ideas all share a truth that they are based in the subject. Objectivity is also a brain state in which two or more subjective states are compared for their similarlities. Agreement is required to achieve and bestoy the quality of objectivity.
This is perfectly coherent.
Your objection to Terrapin that it "explains nothing" is not relevant, since it perfectly describes the reality of the situation.
Have you something better?
Question: what is the meaning of: Pi, a sentence, this behaviour, these statistics, Russian tanks on the border, and so on?

Answer: It's a brain state.

Sorted. If you've nothing better, let's leave it.
If you don't know what Pi is, ontologically, doesn't it interest you to think about this as someone interested in philosophy?

I'm pretty sure you've said elsewhere that you're a physicalist (though maybe I'm mistaken about that). Well, if you don't think that Pi exists as something physical, and you're a physicalist, then it would seem like you need to say that Pi doesn't exist. But that seems problematic, doesn't it? We are referring to something by Pi, we can represent it textually, we do equations involving it, etc. To say that it doesn't exist would seem to require an explanation of all of those things, including an explanation of just what we're saying by suggesting that there's no such thing as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, because there seem to be circles, there seem to be measurements of circumferences and diameters, it seems like we have procedures of expressing that ratio, and so on. So to say that it doesn't exist seems to be a problem.

Or you could say that it exists as something nonphysical, but then it would be difficult to account for how you're a physicalist given this, besides the fact that then you'd also have the task of explaining just what nonphysical things would be ontologically, how they'd obtain, etc.

And if these sorts of puzzles, dilemmas, etc.--whatever we want to call them don't intrigue you, then I have to wonder just how it is that you're interested in philosophy period.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 8030
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 4:50 am
2. You got a problem since you adopted Philosophical Realism thus assumes [with very strong psychological impulses] that there is something-X out there that is independent of the common sense description of that something-X.

3. On a common or conventional sense basis, I agree with you that the apple I see on my table is independent from me and my description of that apple [red, Washington, ripe, etc.]. This is Empirical Realism which is about relative-independence.

4. But on a philosophical and more refine [wiser] level of reflection, that supposedly [relative] independent apple from my physical self and description is not absolutely independent from my and that of the collective human conditions.
Note the difference between
1. the common/conventional-sense-relative-independence and
2. philosophical-absolutely-independence.

5. What you are ignorant and lacking is the deeper understanding re point 4.
That is why I always state your thinking is too narrow and shallow which is confined to common and conventional sense.

6. Point 4 is where that something-X emerges spontaneously with your own existence where both share [arm-in-arm] the same evolution process since the Big Bang.
In this case that something-X did not pre-exist to be discovered /observed /perceived and described.
At this level there is no absolute independence between you [& all humans] and all of reality [all there is].

7. The same principle applies to objective moral principles which has relative-independence but not absolute-independence [like Plato's Forms].

8. Above is just my refresher, I don't expect it to sink into your very thick skull at all.
There's nothing "deeper" about (4). It's rather ignornant and at least borderline suggests some sort of mental health issue.
I presume you are with 2 which is actually a mental 'health' issue but because it is so normal within the majority that is not taken to be an issue.

You are only guessing about 4 [as ignorant] to justify your position.
The fact is,
  • 1. Reality is all there is.
    2. 'You' are part and parcel of all there is.
    3. Therefore at the very fundamental level, you cannot be independent of others within 'all there is' which you are part and parcel of.
Can you counter the above rationally?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2372
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:58 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 4:06 pm

3.142..... = PI.

Yes I am definitely saying that an idea is a brain state absolutely, and you can kill an idea by blowing someones brains away.
The reason this is important is that ideas all share a truth that they are based in the subject. Objectivity is also a brain state in which two or more subjective states are compared for their similarlities. Agreement is required to achieve and bestoy the quality of objectivity.
This is perfectly coherent.
Your objection to Terrapin that it "explains nothing" is not relevant, since it perfectly describes the reality of the situation.
Have you something better?
Question: what is the meaning of: Pi, a sentence, this behaviour, these statistics, Russian tanks on the border, and so on?

Answer: It's a brain state.

Sorted. If you've nothing better, let's leave it.
If you don't know what Pi is, ontologically, doesn't it interest you to think about this as someone interested in philosophy?

I'm pretty sure you've said elsewhere that you're a physicalist (though maybe I'm mistaken about that). Well, if you don't think that Pi exists as something physical, and you're a physicalist, then it would seem like you need to say that Pi doesn't exist. But that seems problematic, doesn't it? We are referring to something by Pi, we can represent it textually, we do equations involving it, etc. To say that it doesn't exist would seem to require an explanation of all of those things, including an explanation of just what we're saying by suggesting that there's no such thing as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, because there seem to be circles, there seem to be measurements of circumferences and diameters, it seems like we have procedures of expressing that ratio, and so on. So to say that it doesn't exist seems to be a problem.

Or you could say that it exists as something nonphysical, but then it would be difficult to account for how you're a physicalist given this, besides the fact that then you'd also have the task of explaining just what nonphysical things would be ontologically, how they'd obtain, etc.

And if these sorts of puzzles, dilemmas, etc.--whatever we want to call them don't intrigue you, then I have to wonder just how it is that you're interested in philosophy period.
We can observe and describe the electrochemical processes going on in the brain of someone seeing, talking or thinking about a dog. But there's nothing canine going on in that person's brain. The claim that the idea or concept (same thing?) of a dog 'exists as a brain state' in that brain is an absurdity forced on us by the need for a physicalist foundation to replace the dualist-mentalist (Cartesian) foundation we've had to abandon.

(The abbreviation 'PI' usually means 'private investigator', and I assumed Sculptor didn't mean that, which is why I said I don't know what PI is. The Greek letter is usually written 'Pi' or 'pi'.)

As a physicalist, I use the word 'exist' to mean 'exist physically'. Mathematical language, using figures and other symbols, definitely exists physically. But the debate as to whether so-called mathematical objects - such as numbers - exist persists. And the claim that they 'exist as brain states' doesn't settle the question. That (we say) we use our brains to think about things doesn't mean those things exist in our brains. What a ridiculous idea!

I'm saying the idea is a mistake arising from the delusion that an abstract noun is the name of something which must, therefore, exist somewhere, somehow. You don't recognise the delusion, so you think, as a physicalist, that abstract things are indeed things that exist. So you think such things as truth and knowledge are physical things that exist somewhere. But where? Ah yes - they exist as brain states or processes. Patent nonsense.

Now, the people least likely to welcome the news that the emperor is naked are those most committed to delusion that he's finely arrayed. The myth of abstract things runs very deep and strong in both philosophy and supernaturalist religion. And abstract things are remarkably like supernatural things.

I'm suggesting you question your belief in the physical existence of abstract things. (After all, what does the modifier 'abstract' mean?) I ask: what and where are so-called abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Your answer is that they exist physically as brain states, in brains. And, as I said, if that answer satisfies you, fair enough. It doesn't satisfy me. I think it's absurd. And I'm not running away if I suggest we leave it.

If you want to continue, please actually address the points I make, and try to refute them. Then we can keep talking.
Post Reply