What could make morality objective?

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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:35 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:28 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 11:27 am

It is indeed meaningless. Nevertheless it still matters because you don't need to define the object of your aspiration towards goodness, truth or beauty as the search is good of itself.
I agree that what we call goodness, truth and beauty matter deeply to us, as does moral rightness - and, therefore, wrongness. But we have to and indeed do define them. And those definitions or descriptions are necessarily subjective. The claim that they are objective is always false and tyrannical.
I agree with your first proposition. As to your second proposition definitions of the good are only relatively false and tyrannical. For practical purposes of administration of justice there have to be codes of behaviour. The relative aspect of authoritarianism can be seen by looking at the authoritarian /libertarian spectrum applied to religions and political regimes.
I didn't say definitions of the good are false and tyrannical. I said that the claim that they are objective is always false and tyrannical. And what American swivel-eyed vangies are doing - in the name of their invented god - is a screaming example. It's evil.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7969
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 2:39 am And a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. That's the difference.
Note I have argued in many threads why there is no such thing as a fact-in-itself, i.e. a fact that does not entangle with the human conditions, i.e. a fact standing alone by itself.

There is No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=493707#p493707
The above is my last post therein which you ran away yelping "WAFWOT" with tails between your legs. That is due to your shallow and narrow thinking.

As I had presented my argument 000s of times;
all facts must be conditioned to a specific FSK [explicitly or implicitly] as shown in this WIKI definition of what is fact; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You have not disputed this definition.
Thus accordingly there are moral facts that are in alignment with the above definition.

So far you have not provided any grounding to claim what you deemed as 'fact'.
As such you claim of what is fact is groundless and baseless.

I have asked, are you even aware or is very familiar with the origin and history of how your definition of "what is fact" came about?
I can tell you the origin is based on illusions and delusions from Philosophical Realism [since emergence of Philosophy], Russell's logical atomism, the defunct logical positivists' ideology and baseless ordinary language philosophy.
If otherwise, demonstrate to me your supposedly 'solid' ground that,
PH: "a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact."
It's rational to discuss and develop our moral values and opinions - that's how we've made and are making moral progress.
But moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts - justifies and enables precisely the kind of authoritarian imposition of rules that you rightly criticise - and that's happening so disastrously in America at the moment.
You are ignorant on this,
Morality based on Divine Command Theory [even though the moral facts is claimed to be "objective" by theists] it is actually Subjective Morality, i.e. subjective [highly] within different groups. Obviously you are ignorant of the various perspectives of Ethics & Morality.

Why they are subjective [highly] is because they are not verified and justified within a FSK and supported by rational philosophical arguments.
Nevertheless I concede some of the moral maxims from Christianity e.g. "Thou Shall Not Kill" are fundamentally objective but they are derived intuitively and not verified and justified.

Why you are sticking to the falsehood, there are no objective moral facts is because you are stuck in an archaic paradigm, thus the selective attention and confirmation bias.
You are like the very resistant 'geocentrists' who are unable to see the paradigm of the 'heliocentrists'.
Yours is a psychological problem, albeit it is pervasive among the majority who will rebel against anything new despite the verifiable and justifiable evidences.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 2:39 am And a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. That's the difference.
Note I have argued in many threads why there is no such thing as a fact-in-itself, i.e. a fact that does not entangle with the human conditions, i.e. a fact standing alone by itself.

There is No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=493707#p493707
The above is my last post therein which you ran away yelping "WAFWOT" with tails between your legs. That is due to your shallow and narrow thinking.

As I had presented my argument 000s of times;
all facts must be conditioned to a specific FSK [explicitly or implicitly] as shown in this WIKI definition of what is fact; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You have not disputed this definition.
Thus accordingly there are moral facts that are in alignment with the above definition.

So far you have not provided any grounding to claim what you deemed as 'fact'.
As such you claim of what is fact is groundless and baseless.

I have asked, are you even aware or is very familiar with the origin and history of how your definition of "what is fact" came about?
I can tell you the origin is based on illusions and delusions from Philosophical Realism [since emergence of Philosophy], Russell's logical atomism, the defunct logical positivists' ideology and baseless ordinary language philosophy.
If otherwise, demonstrate to me your supposedly 'solid' ground that,
PH: "a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact."
It's rational to discuss and develop our moral values and opinions - that's how we've made and are making moral progress.
But moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts - justifies and enables precisely the kind of authoritarian imposition of rules that you rightly criticise - and that's happening so disastrously in America at the moment.
You are ignorant on this,
Morality based on Divine Command Theory [even though the moral facts is claimed to be "objective" by theists] it is actually Subjective Morality, i.e. subjective [highly] within different groups. Obviously you are ignorant of the various perspectives of Ethics & Morality.

Why they are subjective [highly] is because they are not verified and justified within a FSK and supported by rational philosophical arguments.
Nevertheless I concede some of the moral maxims from Christianity e.g. "Thou Shall Not Kill" are fundamentally objective but they are derived intuitively and not verified and justified.

Why you are sticking to the falsehood, there are no objective moral facts is because you are stuck in an archaic paradigm, thus the selective attention and confirmation bias.
You are like the very resistant 'geocentrists' who are unable to see the paradigm of the 'heliocentrists'.
Yours is a psychological problem, albeit it is pervasive among the majority who will rebel against anything new despite the verifiable and justifiable evidences.
And I have explained that signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. And we use the word fact to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'. And you yourself have cited a definition that confirms this use: 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.' Bur since this (standard) definition undermines your argument, you dishonestly ignore it. And you're not fooling anyone.

And I've pointed out that a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, which also demolishes your argument. And you've dishonestly decided to ignore this logical fact. And you're not fooling anyone.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7969
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 2:39 am And a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. That's the difference.
Note I have argued in many threads why there is no such thing as a fact-in-itself, i.e. a fact that does not entangle with the human conditions, i.e. a fact standing alone by itself.

There is No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=493707#p493707
The above is my last post therein which you ran away yelping "WAFWOT" with tails between your legs. That is due to your shallow and narrow thinking.

As I had presented my argument 000s of times;
all facts must be conditioned to a specific FSK [explicitly or implicitly] as shown in this WIKI definition of what is fact; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You have not disputed this definition.
Thus accordingly there are moral facts that are in alignment with the above definition.

So far you have not provided any grounding to claim what you deemed as 'fact'.
As such you claim of what is fact is groundless and baseless.

I have asked, are you even aware or is very familiar with the origin and history of how your definition of "what is fact" came about?
I can tell you the origin is based on illusions and delusions from Philosophical Realism [since emergence of Philosophy], Russell's logical atomism, the defunct logical positivists' ideology and baseless ordinary language philosophy.
If otherwise, demonstrate to me your supposedly 'solid' ground that,
PH: "a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact."
It's rational to discuss and develop our moral values and opinions - that's how we've made and are making moral progress.
But moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts - justifies and enables precisely the kind of authoritarian imposition of rules that you rightly criticise - and that's happening so disastrously in America at the moment.
You are ignorant on this,
Morality based on Divine Command Theory [even though the moral facts is claimed to be "objective" by theists] it is actually Subjective Morality, i.e. subjective [highly] within different groups. Obviously you are ignorant of the various perspectives of Ethics & Morality.

Why they are subjective [highly] is because they are not verified and justified within a FSK and supported by rational philosophical arguments.
Nevertheless I concede some of the moral maxims from Christianity e.g. "Thou Shall Not Kill" are fundamentally objective but they are derived intuitively and not verified and justified.

Why you are sticking to the falsehood, there are no objective moral facts is because you are stuck in an archaic paradigm, thus the selective attention and confirmation bias.
You are like the very resistant 'geocentrists' who are unable to see the paradigm of the 'heliocentrists'.
Yours is a psychological problem, albeit it is pervasive among the majority who will rebel against anything new despite the verifiable and justifiable evidences.
And I have explained that signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean.
And we use the word fact to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.
If we go along with your point, then,
theists can claim 'God exists', i.e.
signs such as words [God exists] can mean only what we use them to mean.
And we use the word fact [god exists is a fact] to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

The above is obviously used within some kind of FSK [whatever the name, say X-FSK] but it has no significance to fact as a reality.
To verify the above supposedly claim of fact, it has to be subjected to further verification and justification, the most being the scientific FSK.

Say the claim, "water is a liquid", it is obviously a fact via common acceptance and also by say your X-FSK, i.e. 'water is a liquid' is 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion' thus a fact. It cannot be a standalone fact but rather it is conditioned to the X-FSK.

But above so-claim as fact has no semblance of reality unless verified and justified via a credible FSK like the scientific FSK.
When 'water is a liquid' by the scientific FSK, it MUST be qualified as a scientific fact and not a standalone absolute fact.
And you yourself have cited a definition that confirms this use: 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.' But since this (standard) definition undermines your argument, you dishonestly ignore it. And you're not fooling anyone.
Strawman!

Yes, within certain perspectives, "facts" are independent of beliefs and of knowledge and opinion, but only with respect to common sense, kindergarten kids, conventional sense but not where rigor and ultimate reality is concern.
Note at the FSKs of Newtonian Physics, all facts are independent of the observers, but not with FSKs re Einsteinian or Quantum Physics. Get that? You dispute this fact?

And I've pointed out that a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, which also demolishes your argument. And you've dishonestly decided to ignore this logical fact. And you're not fooling anyone.
Again you are clamping to your narrow paradigm [FSK] like the geocentrists to their narrow ideology.
I am not claiming the above.
I don't jump to moral conclusions from any factual premises.

What I have done is to verify and justify there are factual moral premises that are a matter of fact that is a real moral potential represented by physical referents of neural correlates in the brain and body.

This is like ALL humans have an inherent sexual potential embedded in the DNA and RNA of various degrees within different ages. That the manifestations of this sexual potential differs from person to person due to different conditions do not obviate the fact of such a sexual potential.

So it is the same for the inherent moral potential as a matter of fact and is a physical referent within all humans. That the manifestations of this moral potential differs from person to person due to different conditions do not obviate the fact of such a moral potential as a matter of fact.

Note 'potential'
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.
The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential
Belinda
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:16 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:35 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:28 pm

I agree that what we call goodness, truth and beauty matter deeply to us, as does moral rightness - and, therefore, wrongness. But we have to and indeed do define them. And those definitions or descriptions are necessarily subjective. The claim that they are objective is always false and tyrannical.
I agree with your first proposition. As to your second proposition definitions of the good are only relatively false and tyrannical. For practical purposes of administration of justice there have to be codes of behaviour. The relative aspect of authoritarianism can be seen by looking at the authoritarian /libertarian spectrum applied to religions and political regimes.
I didn't say definitions of the good are false and tyrannical. I said that the claim that they are objective is always false and tyrannical. And what American swivel-eyed vangies are doing - in the name of their invented god - is a screaming example. It's evil.
I agree definitions of the good ,if they claim to be objectively true, are false and tyrannical. There is a sort of person who idolises their own moral code and calls it God's moral code. Such people claim that God underwrites their political moves.
Skepdick
Posts: 9153
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:16 pm I didn't say definitions of the good are false and tyrannical. I said that the claim that they are objective is always false and tyrannical. And what American swivel-eyed vangies are doing - in the name of their invented god - is a screaming example. It's evil.
I call bullshit.

I claim that murder is objectively wrong.
You are claiming that my claim is "false, tyrannical and evil".

To what non-evil non-tyrannical non-false end are you making a claim such as yours?!?

The only agenda one could possibly infer from your claim is your willingness to legitimise murder. Which would be evil and tyrannical!

We really ought to watch out for those subjective moralists. They are no moralists at all!
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat May 14, 2022 10:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:08 am
Note I have argued in many threads why there is no such thing as a fact-in-itself, i.e. a fact that does not entangle with the human conditions, i.e. a fact standing alone by itself.

There is No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?p=493707#p493707
The above is my last post therein which you ran away yelping "WAFWOT" with tails between your legs. That is due to your shallow and narrow thinking.

As I had presented my argument 000s of times;
all facts must be conditioned to a specific FSK [explicitly or implicitly] as shown in this WIKI definition of what is fact; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You have not disputed this definition.
Thus accordingly there are moral facts that are in alignment with the above definition.

So far you have not provided any grounding to claim what you deemed as 'fact'.
As such you claim of what is fact is groundless and baseless.

I have asked, are you even aware or is very familiar with the origin and history of how your definition of "what is fact" came about?
I can tell you the origin is based on illusions and delusions from Philosophical Realism [since emergence of Philosophy], Russell's logical atomism, the defunct logical positivists' ideology and baseless ordinary language philosophy.
If otherwise, demonstrate to me your supposedly 'solid' ground that,
PH: "a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact."


You are ignorant on this,
Morality based on Divine Command Theory [even though the moral facts is claimed to be "objective" by theists] it is actually Subjective Morality, i.e. subjective [highly] within different groups. Obviously you are ignorant of the various perspectives of Ethics & Morality.

Why they are subjective [highly] is because they are not verified and justified within a FSK and supported by rational philosophical arguments.
Nevertheless I concede some of the moral maxims from Christianity e.g. "Thou Shall Not Kill" are fundamentally objective but they are derived intuitively and not verified and justified.

Why you are sticking to the falsehood, there are no objective moral facts is because you are stuck in an archaic paradigm, thus the selective attention and confirmation bias.
You are like the very resistant 'geocentrists' who are unable to see the paradigm of the 'heliocentrists'.
Yours is a psychological problem, albeit it is pervasive among the majority who will rebel against anything new despite the verifiable and justifiable evidences.
And I have explained that signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean.
And we use the word fact to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.
If we go along with your point, then,
theists can claim 'God exists', i.e.
signs such as words [God exists] can mean only what we use them to mean.
And we use the word fact [god exists is a fact] to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.
Yes. And the point is that what actually exists and what we say exists are completely different and separate things. Thinking and saying something is so doesn't make it so. And that's why your claim that facts exist only within an FSK is false.


The above is obviously used within some kind of FSK [whatever the name, say X-FSK] but it has no significance to fact as a reality.
To verify the above supposedly claim of fact, it has to be subjected to further verification and justification, the most being the scientific FSK.
Precisely. But what's this? 'Fact as a reality'?! Oops. So - you do actually know there are such things.
Say the claim, "water is a liquid", it is obviously a fact via common acceptance and also by say your X-FSK, i.e. 'water is a liquid' is 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion' thus a fact. It cannot be a standalone fact but rather it is conditioned to the X-FSK.
Oh well. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

But above so-claim as fact has no semblance of reality unless verified and justified via a credible FSK like the scientific FSK.
When 'water is a liquid' by the scientific FSK, it MUST be qualified as a scientific fact and not a standalone absolute fact.
'Standalone [sic] absolute fact'? I spy a straw man. I've only ever talked about facts as features of reality - which you admit exist above.
And you yourself have cited a definition that confirms this use: 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.' But since this (standard) definition undermines your argument, you dishonestly ignore it. And you're not fooling anyone.
Strawman!

Yes, within certain perspectives, "facts" are independent of beliefs and of knowledge and opinion, but only with respect to common sense, kindergarten kids, conventional sense but not where rigor and ultimate reality is concern.
Note at the FSKs of Newtonian Physics, all facts are independent of the observers, but not with FSKs re Einsteinian or Quantum Physics. Get that? You dispute this fact?
No, no, no. You can't slide off sideways into QM and the observer effect. The observer effect seems to be a fact - a feature of reality - that has been observed and verified scientifically.

And I've pointed out that a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, which also demolishes your argument. And you've dishonestly decided to ignore this logical fact. And you're not fooling anyone.
Again you are clamping to your narrow paradigm [FSK] like the geocentrists to their narrow ideology.
I am not claiming the above.
I don't jump to moral conclusions from any factual premises.
False. The whole of your argument rests on factual premises entailing moral conclusions.

What I have done is to verify and justify there are factual moral premises that are a matter of fact that is a real moral potential represented by physical referents of neural correlates in the brain and body.
Worthless: 'there are factual moral premises; therefore, there are moral facts.' Your actual argument is this: humans are programmed (with the potential) to behave in a certain way (factual premise); therefore, certain behaviour is morally right/wrong. And this is a non sequitur fallacy.

This is like ALL humans have an inherent sexual potential embedded in the DNA and RNA of various degrees within different ages. That the manifestations of this sexual potential differs from person to person due to different conditions do not obviate the fact of such a sexual potential.

So it is the same for the inherent moral potential as a matter of fact and is a physical referent within all humans. That the manifestations of this moral potential differs from person to person due to different conditions do not obviate the fact of such a moral potential as a matter of fact.

Note 'potential'
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.
The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential
The question of potential is irrelevant. Judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour (which is what morality is about) is quite separate from facts about human nature, such as neural programming with the potential to behave in certain ways.
Skepdick
Posts: 9153
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:11 am The question of potential is irrelevant. Judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour (which is what morality is about) is quite separate from facts about human nature, such as neural programming with the potential to behave in certain ways.
There's nothing separate about it. It is a fact of human nature that we make judgments. And it is also a fact of human nature that we make judgments about judgments.

It is a fact of human nature that we can distinguish between good judgments and bad judgments.

For example. It is your judgment that murder is not objectively wrong. And it is pertinently clear to any non-idiot that's a bad judgment.
Belinda
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:07 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:16 pm I didn't say definitions of the good are false and tyrannical. I said that the claim that they are objective is always false and tyrannical. And what American swivel-eyed vangies are doing - in the name of their invented god - is a screaming example. It's evil.
I call bullshit.

I claim that murder is objectively wrong.
You are claiming that my claim is "false, tyrannical and evil".

To what non-evil non-tyrannical non-false end are you making a claim such as yours?!?

The only agenda one could possibly infer from your claim is your willingness to legitimise murder. Which would be evil and tyrannical!
Not murder, but idolatry is objectively wrong. Idolatry is when someone has an idea and claims their idea is God.

Skepdick cannot possibly know whether or not murder is objectively wrong . Skepdick's claim is not even well written , as murder is a legal not an ethical category.
Skepdick
Posts: 9153
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:19 am Not murder, but idolatry is objectively wrong. Idolatry is when someone has an idea and claims their idea is God.

Skepdick cannot possibly know whether or not murder is objectively wrong . Skepdick's claim is not even well written , as murder is a legal not an ethical category.
God is just a metaphor for the idolary idea of a moral authority. At the very least the intention or desire to invent a moral authority exists and is consequential - that which we casually dismiss as "moral opinion".

Either the process of jurisprudence (which has determined murder as being wrong) has a semblance of being a moral/ethical authority, or none of us have any grounds (not even our moral opinions) to claim that murder is wrong.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 3624
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:19 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:07 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:16 pm I didn't say definitions of the good are false and tyrannical. I said that the claim that they are objective is always false and tyrannical. And what American swivel-eyed vangies are doing - in the name of their invented god - is a screaming example. It's evil.
I call bullshit.

I claim that murder is objectively wrong.
You are claiming that my claim is "false, tyrannical and evil".

To what non-evil non-tyrannical non-false end are you making a claim such as yours?!?

The only agenda one could possibly infer from your claim is your willingness to legitimise murder. Which would be evil and tyrannical!
Not murder, but idolatry is objectively wrong. Idolatry is when someone has an idea and claims their idea is God.

Skepdick cannot possibly know whether or not murder is objectively wrong . Skepdick's claim is not even well written , as murder is a legal not an ethical category.
Murder is definitevly the act of wrongful killing. It's entirely tautologous that murder is wrong. If yo find yourself arguing either that it is a discoverable fct that murder is wrong, or that it is impossible to say for sure that murder is wrong, you have fucked up a little bit and need to retrace your steps a ways.

Skepdick and Belinda have found a way to disagree over a simple proposition and both be wrong. It's never been a question that murder is wrong, it has only ever been a question of whether this or that counts as murder (such as when it wasn't murder to kill a slave, or to strangle your wife if you caught her in bed with another man and so on).
Skepdick
Posts: 9153
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:49 am It's never been a question that murder is wrong, it has only ever been a question of whether this or that counts as murder (such as when it wasn't murder to kill a slave, or to strangle your wife if you caught her in bed with another man and so on).
So uuuuh.

It's never been a question that right and wrong exist - It's always been a question of what counts as right; or wrong.

Since it's "not a discoverable fact" that Belinda and I are wrong, how have you determined that what we are doing counts as wrong?

Could it just be that everything you ever say is viciously circular and tautological?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:49 am Murder is definitevly the act of wrongful killing. It's entirely tautologous that murder is wrong.
Could it be that the idiot-philosopher doesn't distinguish between murder and the definition of murder?
Could it be that the idiot-philosopher doesn't understand that a choice was made in defining murder as a "wrongful" and not a "righteous" act?

All definitions are tautologous. So what?
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5669
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 2:39 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:28 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 12:07 pm An issue has come up in various recent OPs and comments that I think needs clarifying.

1 A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, or good or bad - or one that says something should or ought to be the case. (But we can also use the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'should' and 'ought to' non-morally - with no moral judgement involved.)

2 A non-moral premise cannot entail a moral conclusion. There is no logical connection between them, so the conclusion can't follow from the premise, and the argument must be a non sequitur fallacy.

3 Here are three examples of such fallacies.
  • Humans are programmed with 'ought-not-to-kill-other-humans'; therefore humans ought not to kill other humans.
  • A creator god thinks X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.
  • People own themselves; therefore it is morally wrong to own people.
None of these premises is a moral assertion. Each is a factual assertion with a truth-value. And the point is, the truth-value of a non-moral premise is not the issue. Even if it's true, a moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow. The is/ought barrier is insuperable. And that's why there are no moral facts, and morality can't be objective.
You're incorrect!

Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).

A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.

There is no consensus among humans as to what single moral code is objective, (all encompassing). So it might seem to be subjective, and for an individual it is in fact the case. So by itself it's not objective, however when combined with all humanities versions of what they individually expect as moral, it is in fact objective. To be Objective in this case is simply to say it's universal (with respect to the human realm) because the Universe neither knows nor needs such a concept, nor does it create such, it can't, it seems to pretty much be inanimate, not of mind, simply matter and such.

So morality is to be decided by humans, and we differ in opinion. So as soon as anyone 'projects' their moral code upon another they are in violation of the truth of things. And since the old "Golden Rule" is a moral code, that in fact has a version in almost all cultures dating back to antiquity. I have corrected it in the only way it can be corrected. In answer, not only to knowledge, (philosophers concern), but also some things I thought up that are also factors.

So here is the common, 'original', paraphrased: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'

And here's my corrected version, which I call "The Fundamental Social Axiom":"Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

And that's the best we can do! Individually we can't speak for everyone, only ourselves. I know this is going to annoy all you that want/desire to TELL EVERYBODY 'what is what,' but there is no such one thing. We have to ask how it is that they want us to treat them, and then treat them accordingly. Why stupid humans want to 'DICTATE' their PARTICULAR VERSION of LIFE is beyond me, but if everyone did as I insist they do, there would be no crime, no misunderstandings, no encroachment, no treading, no rape, no thievery, etc, etc, etc, perpetrated on anyone including all of us. And of course we'd still need the law to protect all against any infractions.

So the opening line would be: "Would you care to converse?" And while it's easy to see that in fact that could be considered a violation of the point of the axiom, it's the worst we'd have to suffer. From that point on, initially, it would be about what each expected from the other, and all terms explained in case of the ignorance of either participant. Yeah I know what you crazies are thinking, "But how can I take advantage of someone, that's not fair..." EXACTLY!!!! That's the fucking point dip-shit, to protect everyone equally!
SOB originally said: Moral objectivity for any one particular subjective perspective, as an actor, so to project with absolute certainty, can only ever be the observance of the culmination of all subjective moral codes combined as one set of universal facts, thus not subjective in nature, rather universal, thus attaining objectivity. As in my version of the 'Golden Rule', which I've named the "Fundamental Social Axiom:" "Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent that all parties knowingly agree at the time."
If anyone here believes they have a better way to change morality into something objective (all people considered, universal in the human realm) for everyone, AND I MEAN EVERYONE EQUALLY! please enlighten all that visit here.

I'm listening for intelligent philosophy that changes society for the better. Not simply saying that it can't be done so you can feel good about your being a dictator.

Remember: "All Spheres must Balance." We live in a symbiotic biosphere! Without such a situation, we all die as failures to maintain the ecosystems that our lives depend on!
You confuse universality - which refers to space and time - with objectivity, which refers to facts independent from opinion. An opinion held by everyone (ie universally) is still an opinion. And a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. That's the difference.

It's rational to discuss and develop our moral values and opinions - that's how we've made and are making moral progress. But moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts - justifies and enables precisely the kind of authoritarian imposition of rules that you rightly criticise - and that's happening so disastrously in America at the moment.
Then you either didn't read or understand a thing I said. I'm crushing the meaning of words in saying they're inappropriate for the task at hand, such that objective and universal are synonymous. That each of us considering everyone's moral code is the only answer. It's the best we can do with the conceptualizations of humans that have absolutely no basis in the universe. You know the universe is totally objective, it has no values, no opinions, it's nothing but facts. The universe has no human social rules or cares, so it starts us with a clean slate. From nothing, we can start with all inclusion, as all variances between us are factual, environmental, start being the case from our first breath, set pretty much in stone in our psyche, and as such, beyond our control.

What I said couldn't be further from authoritarianism, as it has absolutely nothing to do with any particular one. It only considers the masses complete, it's all inclusive! In Fact my way of dealing with the differences between us is the only solution I'm aware of, that exists, to escape authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

Humans fear death and so they scramble to judge and dictate due to that fear, and then of course they step on toes. They cheat people out of their lives, and we each only have one chance to live our way, and no one has the knowledge/right to set any sort of moral code for anyone but themselves. We have to grant everyone the right to be themselves, to really be free.

As far as our coming together with others goes, it's basically contractual in nature, as the ritual in seeking a relationship with anyone is solely dependent upon all parties knowingly agreeing to each others terms (Moral Code).

I'm reminded of a "Yes" lyric from the song, "Yours is no Disgrace", from the "Yes" album.

"...silly human, silly human race..."
Skepdick
Posts: 9153
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:24 pm You know the universe is totally objective, it has no values, no opinions, it's nothing but facts. The universe has no human social rules or cares, so it starts us with a clean slate.
The universe has humans. Therefore the universe has whatever humans have.

Values, opinions, social rules and cares.

To say that the Universe "starts us with a clean slate" is an anthromorphism. The universe isn't doing that - philosophers are attempting to do that.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:24 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 2:39 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:28 pm
You're incorrect!

Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).

A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.

There is no consensus among humans as to what single moral code is objective, (all encompassing). So it might seem to be subjective, and for an individual it is in fact the case. So by itself it's not objective, however when combined with all humanities versions of what they individually expect as moral, it is in fact objective. To be Objective in this case is simply to say it's universal (with respect to the human realm) because the Universe neither knows nor needs such a concept, nor does it create such, it can't, it seems to pretty much be inanimate, not of mind, simply matter and such.

So morality is to be decided by humans, and we differ in opinion. So as soon as anyone 'projects' their moral code upon another they are in violation of the truth of things. And since the old "Golden Rule" is a moral code, that in fact has a version in almost all cultures dating back to antiquity. I have corrected it in the only way it can be corrected. In answer, not only to knowledge, (philosophers concern), but also some things I thought up that are also factors.

So here is the common, 'original', paraphrased: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'

And here's my corrected version, which I call "The Fundamental Social Axiom":"Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

And that's the best we can do! Individually we can't speak for everyone, only ourselves. I know this is going to annoy all you that want/desire to TELL EVERYBODY 'what is what,' but there is no such one thing. We have to ask how it is that they want us to treat them, and then treat them accordingly. Why stupid humans want to 'DICTATE' their PARTICULAR VERSION of LIFE is beyond me, but if everyone did as I insist they do, there would be no crime, no misunderstandings, no encroachment, no treading, no rape, no thievery, etc, etc, etc, perpetrated on anyone including all of us. And of course we'd still need the law to protect all against any infractions.

So the opening line would be: "Would you care to converse?" And while it's easy to see that in fact that could be considered a violation of the point of the axiom, it's the worst we'd have to suffer. From that point on, initially, it would be about what each expected from the other, and all terms explained in case of the ignorance of either participant. Yeah I know what you crazies are thinking, "But how can I take advantage of someone, that's not fair..." EXACTLY!!!! That's the fucking point dip-shit, to protect everyone equally!



If anyone here believes they have a better way to change morality into something objective (all people considered, universal in the human realm) for everyone, AND I MEAN EVERYONE EQUALLY! please enlighten all that visit here.

I'm listening for intelligent philosophy that changes society for the better. Not simply saying that it can't be done so you can feel good about your being a dictator.

Remember: "All Spheres must Balance." We live in a symbiotic biosphere! Without such a situation, we all die as failures to maintain the ecosystems that our lives depend on!
You confuse universality - which refers to space and time - with objectivity, which refers to facts independent from opinion. An opinion held by everyone (ie universally) is still an opinion. And a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. That's the difference.

It's rational to discuss and develop our moral values and opinions - that's how we've made and are making moral progress. But moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts - justifies and enables precisely the kind of authoritarian imposition of rules that you rightly criticise - and that's happening so disastrously in America at the moment.
Then you either didn't read or understand a thing I said. I'm crushing the meaning of words in saying they're inappropriate for the task at hand, such that objective and universal are synonymous. That each of us considering everyone's moral code is the only answer. It's the best we can do with the conceptualizations of humans that have absolutely no basis in the universe. You know the universe is totally objective, it has no values, no opinions, it's nothing but facts. The universe has no human social rules or cares, so it starts us with a clean slate. From nothing, we can start with all inclusion, as all variances between us are factual, environmental, start being the case from our first breath, set pretty much in stone in our psyche, and as such, beyond our control.

What I said couldn't be further from authoritarianism, as it has absolutely nothing to do with any particular one. It only considers the masses complete, it's all inclusive! In Fact my way of dealing with the differences between us is the only solution I'm aware of, that exists, to escape authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

Humans fear death and so they scramble to judge and dictate due to that fear, and then of course they step on toes. They cheat people out of their lives, and we each only have one chance to live our way, and no one has the knowledge/right to set any sort of moral code for anyone but themselves. We have to grant everyone the right to be themselves, to really be free.

As far as our coming together with others goes, it's basically contractual in nature, as the ritual in seeking a relationship with anyone is solely dependent upon all parties knowingly agreeing to each others terms (Moral Code).

I'm reminded of a "Yes" lyric from the song, "Yours is no Disgrace", from the "Yes" album.

"...silly human, silly human race..."
Ah. Yes. Always interesting, exploding with The Yes Album, peaking maybe with Close to the Edge, maybe over-doing it with Tales from Topographic Oceans - but who cares? - and still doing it until Going for the One. Never really understood Anderson's lyrics - but, who cares? Magic stuff.
Post Reply