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

Belinda
Posts: 6690
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:28 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:23 am Spinoza actually studied Descartes and took from D the notion of extended matter and thought as separate substances. Then S turned D's theory inside out and sort of said "there is extended matter and there is thought, but these are aspects of the same Substance i.e. Nature."
The number of substances is immaterial if all substances are capable of causal interraction.

If mind can alter nature and nature can alter minds then what does it even mean for mind and nature to be "separate"?

What is the essence of this separation/separator?
Like we can think of the expansion of a gas and we can think of the heating of a gas, or we can think of gas of which the former attributes define gas. Two aspects of the same.

Similarly, we can think of the morning star and we can think of the evening star, or we can think of the planet Venus. Attributes that define the same .

Similarly we can think of the myriad of creatures from viruses to universe, or we can think of nature. Each creature is a necessary aspect of nature as without it nature would not be defined.

If by "essence" you mean what in human psyche makes us split into nature as a whole on the one hand and the things of nature on the other hand, is that we must, so to speak, stop nature in its tracks so we can predict and control. We must make this moth nature still and silent, pin it down, and catalogue it.
popeye1945
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:23 am
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 5:56 am Belinda,

Interesting, give me a bit of time with that sounds like I need to re-visit Spinoza.
Spinoza actually studied Descartes and took from D the notion of extended matter and thought as separate substances. Then S turned D's theory inside out and sort of said "there is extended matter and there is thought, but these are aspects of the same Substance i.e. Nature."
Belinda,
Again the answer seems to be energy, thought and substance are undoubtedly energies. I pose a question, when and how does a condition become a thing, if not by its affecting something else, so the condition becomes a thing for something else but remains in and of itself a condition? The something being biology the thing being a reaction of one's biology to the energy condition. It is interesting is it not that in order to change ones apparent reality all one needs to do is alter one's biology. I still need to go back to Spinoza and perhaps Descartes!!
popeye1945
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:28 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:23 am Spinoza actually studied Descartes and took from D the notion of extended matter and thought as separate substances. Then S turned D's theory inside out and sort of said "there is extended matter and there is thought, but these are aspects of the same Substance i.e. Nature."
The number of substances is immaterial if all substances are capable of causal interraction.

If mind can alter nature and nature can alter minds then what does it even mean for mind and nature to be "separate"?

What is the essence of this separation/separator?
Skepdick,

There is no separation indeed it is well established that subject and object cannot be separated because they are one thing. The new work in physics on entanglement in all probability has some revelations forthcoming.
Belinda
Posts: 6690
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 4:31 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:28 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:23 am Spinoza actually studied Descartes and took from D the notion of extended matter and thought as separate substances. Then S turned D's theory inside out and sort of said "there is extended matter and there is thought, but these are aspects of the same Substance i.e. Nature."
The number of substances is immaterial if all substances are capable of causal interraction.

If mind can alter nature and nature can alter minds then what does it even mean for mind and nature to be "separate"?

What is the essence of this separation/separator?
Skepdick,

There is no separation indeed it is well established that subject and object cannot be separated because they are one thing. The new work in physics on entanglement in all probability has some revelations forthcoming.
Entanglement is a super analogy of Spinoza's dual aspect theory of being. However until metaphysics becomes physics it's only an analogy.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 8398
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 11:32 am VA

Have another go at the folowing assertion. You didn't understand the point about incoherence last time.

If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent. The distinction collapses, and all we have is things. And the claim that those things can only be things-in-themselves is perfectly circular and so self-defeating.

(VA either won't or can't address this. But can any other Kantian here straighten me out?)
The truth is you are too ignorant and dogmatic in understand my full posts.

My point was your statement below is incoherent in the first place because it is a strawman; Kant would not agree with it at all.
PH:If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent.

In your statement above there are two parts, i.e.
1. there are no noumena (things-in-themselves)
2. there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear)

The point is, regardless of whether 'there are no noumena' or 'there are noumena',
statement [2] cannot be incoherent because phenomena can be verified and justified as real within the scientific FSK.

As had explained in the earlier stage of my post, Kant introduced "the concept of the noumena" as the illusion that you and others are insisting upon.
Thus what Kant is presenting is that you [and your likes] are claiming there is a noumena as underlying the phenomena which to Kant is mere nonsense.

But to pacify [temporary shut up] the impatient of your likes, Kant would have implied, "OK let there be a 'noumena' in contrast to the phenomena but it is only to be accepted as a limiting concept but not a real thing."

Kant subsequently demonstrated the "noumena" aka the thing-in-itself is illusory.

So,
If there are no noumena (illusions), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear)
is definitely coherent.
i.e. if there are no illusions, then there are only phenomena, the real things.

It is irrational to insist that it is incoherent as you have claimed earlier.
No, you're just not getting it. To repeat: If there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then the claim that there are only phenomena (things-as-they-appear) is incoherent. The distinction collapses, and all we have is things. And the claim that those things can only be things-in-themselves is perfectly circular and so self-defeating.
You are the one who is not getting it.
For Kant the distinction Phenomena vs Noumena is critical to expose philosophical realists [like you regardless of your denial] in claiming there are "things that exist independent of human opinions and beliefs" which Kant labelled as 'noumena'.
The use of the term 'phenomena' is incoherent, because it makes no sense to call something an appearance if there's nothing of which it's an appearance. If there are no noumena, the term 'phenomena' makes a distinction which doesn't obtain. As you put it, there are only 'the real things' - which makes you a realist after all.
The term 'phenomena' is a common term to denote things that are observable, verifiable and justifiable via a credible FSK like the scientific FSK. In this case, the term 'phenomena' make sense, i.e. empirical and scientific sense. Phenomena 'obtain' in relation to the scientific framework.

In your case, you are claiming there is more to 'phenomena' which is 'fact,' the thing that is a feature of reality [states of affairs] which is independent of human opinions and beliefs, i.e. independent [not entangled] of the scientific framework.
To Kant, what you are claiming as 'fact' i.e. fact independent of human conditions, is an illusory thing which Kant labelled as 'noumena'.

You are very ignorant to insist the term 'phenomena' is incoherent without the 'noumena' which you are inferring from crude logic.
The term 'phenomena' is VERY real but it has to be entangled with a credible FSK like the scientific FSK.
You cannot deny there are phenomena like hurricanes, volcanic erruptions, earthquakes, suns, planets, physical things, etc. which can be verified and justified by Science.

Yes, I claim there are 'real things' but they are not independent of the human conditions but emerged with the human conditions, e.g. within the scientific framework.
In this sense I am an Empirical Realist [not a philosophical realist] which is entangled with empirical evidences, verification and justifications within the credible scientific FSK.
The claim that realists believe in the existence of things-in-themselves is a straw man - a product of Kant's argument. Realists have no idea what a thing-in-itself can possibly be. Outside Kantian blather, the expression has no discernable meaning.
You think you have no idea what a thing-in-itself is?
Surely you should be aware, you are claiming [ignorantly and dogmatically] there are "real" things which are independent of humans' beliefs and opinion, thus not entangled with the human conditions at all.
This is precisely a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves you are insisting on and believing in, so how can you deny that?
In this case you are philosophical realist [independent of real thing] not an empirical realist [entangled with real things emergently].
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 8398
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:00 am Question: If the noumena/phenomena distinction doesn't obtain, because there are no noumena, what about the subject/object distinction?
In other words, if subjects are just objects, what distinction do we make when we call something an object?

Some thoughts.

First, it's a good idea to think of ourselves as merely objects among all the other objects in the universe. It can help to counter our vanity, anthropocentrism, speciesism, and so on. I call it Wittgenstein's prophylactic.

Second: If - for lack of evidence for the existence of anything non-physical - we (rightly) no longer identify the subject with the mind-as-separate-substance - so that subjectivity/objectivity is no longer mind-dependence/mind-independence - then the old subject/object distinction, secularised and de-mystified, can still be useful.

The subject can then be what, in fact, it always was: a person who perceives, knows and describes things, such as objects - among which are other people - and who makes judgements and has beliefs and opinions. Given this, subjectivity is then '(what belongs to) the judgements, beliefs and opinions of a person or people'. And objectivity is then 'to do with facts which are independent from anyone's judgements, beliefs and opinions'.

Third: If we deny the possibility of objectivity, we can't have our cake and eat. We can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If we think the distinction between subject and object, subjectivity and objectivity, no longer obtains, then the claim that morality is objective is incoherent. If there are no facts, then there can be no moral facts.
It is very unfortunate for you that you are thinking so dogmatically and narrowly.

I agree with you on the following;
PH: The subject can then be what, in fact, it always was: a person who perceives, knows and describes things, such as objects - among which are other people - and who makes judgements and has beliefs and opinions.
Given this, subjectivity is then '(what belongs to) the judgements, beliefs and opinions of a person or people'.


but only on the basis of common sense and the conventional sense which are merely half-truths and are not credible, i.e. highly subjective to individual[s] beliefs and opinions.

But humans has advanced to understand there are higher degrees of reality of the 'subjects' and the 'objects' based the beliefs and judgments from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [science being the most credible].
Such judgments are not based on individual[s] but a collective, i.e. a FSK where there are scientific facts. They 'obtain' but conditioned upon the specific FSK.

Note when one claims 'water is H20' one does not insists 'because I said so' or 'we said so' but rather it is always "Science said so."
In this case, there is no subjectivity of individual[s] thus it is claim of an objective fact, i.e. a conditional fact qualified to the scientific FSK.
But because the scientific FSK is sustained by the will of scientists who are humans thus subjects, fundamentally this objectivity is intersubjectivity on another meta-level.

Beside scientific facts independent of individual[s]' opinions and beliefs, there are moral facts of similar credibility when the relevant moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK. Obviously such moral facts must be fundamentally verified and justified empirically and supported by rational philosophical reasonings.

Your ignorant view is you are insisting there are facts, i.e. features of reality, out there independent of the human conditions and waiting for humans to discover them, and these are what Kant labelled as noumena or things-in-themselves.

It is a psychological drive for the 'oncological' thing by philosophical realists while the theists will insist on the existence of the oncological subject, i.e. a soul that survive physical death.
As such you [philosophical realists] and the theists are in the same psychological boat heading for the rocks of illusion.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2527
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:00 am Question: If the noumena/phenomena distinction doesn't obtain, because there are no noumena, what about the subject/object distinction?
In other words, if subjects are just objects, what distinction do we make when we call something an object?

Some thoughts.

First, it's a good idea to think of ourselves as merely objects among all the other objects in the universe. It can help to counter our vanity, anthropocentrism, speciesism, and so on. I call it Wittgenstein's prophylactic.

Second: If - for lack of evidence for the existence of anything non-physical - we (rightly) no longer identify the subject with the mind-as-separate-substance - so that subjectivity/objectivity is no longer mind-dependence/mind-independence - then the old subject/object distinction, secularised and de-mystified, can still be useful.

The subject can then be what, in fact, it always was: a person who perceives, knows and describes things, such as objects - among which are other people - and who makes judgements and has beliefs and opinions. Given this, subjectivity is then '(what belongs to) the judgements, beliefs and opinions of a person or people'. And objectivity is then 'to do with facts which are independent from anyone's judgements, beliefs and opinions'.

Third: If we deny the possibility of objectivity, we can't have our cake and eat. We can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If we think the distinction between subject and object, subjectivity and objectivity, no longer obtains, then the claim that morality is objective is incoherent. If there are no facts, then there can be no moral facts.
It is very unfortunate for you that you are thinking so dogmatically and narrowly.

I agree with you on the following;
PH: The subject can then be what, in fact, it always was: a person who perceives, knows and describes things, such as objects - among which are other people - and who makes judgements and has beliefs and opinions.
Given this, subjectivity is then '(what belongs to) the judgements, beliefs and opinions of a person or people'.


but only on the basis of common sense and the conventional sense which are merely half-truths and are not credible, i.e. highly subjective to individual[s] beliefs and opinions.

But humans has advanced to understand there are higher degrees of reality of the 'subjects' and the 'objects' based the beliefs and judgments from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [science being the most credible].
Such judgments are not based on individual[s] but a collective, i.e. a FSK where there are scientific facts. They 'obtain' but conditioned upon the specific FSK.

Note when one claims 'water is H20' one does not insists 'because I said so' or 'we said so' but rather it is always "Science said so."
In this case, there is no subjectivity of individual[s] thus it is claim of an objective fact, i.e. a conditional fact qualified to the scientific FSK.
But because the scientific FSK is sustained by the will of scientists who are humans thus subjects, fundamentally this objectivity is intersubjectivity on another meta-level.

Beside scientific facts independent of individual[s]' opinions and beliefs, there are moral facts of similar credibility when the relevant moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK. Obviously such moral facts must be fundamentally verified and justified empirically and supported by rational philosophical reasonings.

Your ignorant view is you are insisting there are facts, i.e. features of reality, out there independent of the human conditions and waiting for humans to discover them, and these are what Kant labelled as noumena or things-in-themselves.

It is a psychological drive for the 'oncological' thing by philosophical realists while the theists will insist on the existence of the oncological subject, i.e. a soul that survive physical death.
As such you [philosophical realists] and the theists are in the same psychological boat heading for the rocks of illusion.
Nothing new to see here. Same old misunderstandings. And oncology is the study of cancer. You probably mean ontology.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:24 am The term 'phenomena' is a common term to denote things that are observable, verifiable and justifiable via a credible FSK like the scientific FSK.
There are two different ways to point out the absurdity of this sentence:
1) (is to say) Oh, look VA is using ordinary language philosophy ('common term').
2) the other is to point out that it is NOT a common term used to (only) denote things that are observable, verifiable and justifiable [sic: things are not justifiable; assertions, for example can be]via a credible FSK like the scientific FSK. If we are talking about the common use of phenomena, then fsk's may or may not be involved and no one is calling them that. If we are using it as in philosophy then it is not at all as he says here....
The Oxford English Dictionary presents the following definition: “Phenomenology. a. The science of phenomena as distinct from being (ontology). b. That division of any science which describes and classifies its phenomena. From the Greek phainomenon, appearance.” In philosophy, the term is used in the first sense, amid debates of theory and methodology. In physics and philosophy of science, the term is used in the second sense, albeit only occasionally.

In its root meaning, then, phenomenology is the study of phenomena: literally, appearances as opposed to reality. This ancient distinction launched philosophy as we emerged from Plato’s cave. Yet the discipline of phenomenology did not blossom until the 20th century and remains poorly understood in many circles of contemporary philosophy. What is that discipline? How did philosophy move from a root concept of phenomena to the discipline of phenomenology?
Notice that it is contrasted with reality or equated with appearances.

And this is not just picking out a random sentence from VA's post. These ideas are central to his position, the discussion at hand, and how is sliding around but not really dealing with PH:
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 8398
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:00 am Question: If the noumena/phenomena distinction doesn't obtain, because there are no noumena, what about the subject/object distinction?
In other words, if subjects are just objects, what distinction do we make when we call something an object?

Some thoughts.

First, it's a good idea to think of ourselves as merely objects among all the other objects in the universe. It can help to counter our vanity, anthropocentrism, speciesism, and so on. I call it Wittgenstein's prophylactic.

Second: If - for lack of evidence for the existence of anything non-physical - we (rightly) no longer identify the subject with the mind-as-separate-substance - so that subjectivity/objectivity is no longer mind-dependence/mind-independence - then the old subject/object distinction, secularised and de-mystified, can still be useful.

The subject can then be what, in fact, it always was: a person who perceives, knows and describes things, such as objects - among which are other people - and who makes judgements and has beliefs and opinions. Given this, subjectivity is then '(what belongs to) the judgements, beliefs and opinions of a person or people'. And objectivity is then 'to do with facts which are independent from anyone's judgements, beliefs and opinions'.

Third: If we deny the possibility of objectivity, we can't have our cake and eat. We can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If we think the distinction between subject and object, subjectivity and objectivity, no longer obtains, then the claim that morality is objective is incoherent. If there are no facts, then there can be no moral facts.
It is very unfortunate for you that you are thinking so dogmatically and narrowly.

I agree with you on the following;
PH: The subject can then be what, in fact, it always was: a person who perceives, knows and describes things, such as objects - among which are other people - and who makes judgements and has beliefs and opinions.
Given this, subjectivity is then '(what belongs to) the judgements, beliefs and opinions of a person or people'.


but only on the basis of common sense and the conventional sense which are merely half-truths and are not credible, i.e. highly subjective to individual[s] beliefs and opinions.

But humans has advanced to understand there are higher degrees of reality of the 'subjects' and the 'objects' based the beliefs and judgments from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [science being the most credible].
Such judgments are not based on individual[s] but a collective, i.e. a FSK where there are scientific facts. They 'obtain' but conditioned upon the specific FSK.

Note when one claims 'water is H20' one does not insists 'because I said so' or 'we said so' but rather it is always "Science said so."
In this case, there is no subjectivity of individual[s] thus it is claim of an objective fact, i.e. a conditional fact qualified to the scientific FSK.
But because the scientific FSK is sustained by the will of scientists who are humans thus subjects, fundamentally this objectivity is intersubjectivity on another meta-level.

Beside scientific facts independent of individual[s]' opinions and beliefs, there are moral facts of similar credibility when the relevant moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK. Obviously such moral facts must be fundamentally verified and justified empirically and supported by rational philosophical reasonings.

Your ignorant view is you are insisting there are facts, i.e. features of reality, out there independent of the human conditions and waiting for humans to discover them, and these are what Kant labelled as noumena or things-in-themselves.

It is a psychological drive for the 'oncological' thing by philosophical realists while the theists will insist on the existence of the oncological subject, i.e. a soul that survive physical death.
As such you [philosophical realists] and the theists are in the same psychological boat heading for the rocks of illusion.
Nothing new to see here. Same old misunderstandings. And oncology is the study of cancer. You probably mean ontology.
Yes, its ontology. Currently I am doing a few courses in biochemistry, genetics, epigenetics, molecular biology, nutrition, etc. that include topics in diseases notably cancer, thus the confusion.

You are running away from the my above counter you need to be more specific rather than simply brushing it off.

Btw, I have already answered your 'Phenomena vs Noumena" question in the previous post,
viewtopic.php?p=587633#p587633

Btw, you did not address the point I raised re your reliance on W's Tractatus?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416
Peter Holmes' grounds on 'Early'-Wittgenstein??
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2527
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 3:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:52 am
It is very unfortunate for you that you are thinking so dogmatically and narrowly.

I agree with you on the following;
PH: The subject can then be what, in fact, it always was: a person who perceives, knows and describes things, such as objects - among which are other people - and who makes judgements and has beliefs and opinions.
Given this, subjectivity is then '(what belongs to) the judgements, beliefs and opinions of a person or people'.


but only on the basis of common sense and the conventional sense which are merely half-truths and are not credible, i.e. highly subjective to individual[s] beliefs and opinions.

But humans has advanced to understand there are higher degrees of reality of the 'subjects' and the 'objects' based the beliefs and judgments from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [science being the most credible].
Such judgments are not based on individual[s] but a collective, i.e. a FSK where there are scientific facts. They 'obtain' but conditioned upon the specific FSK.

Note when one claims 'water is H20' one does not insists 'because I said so' or 'we said so' but rather it is always "Science said so."
In this case, there is no subjectivity of individual[s] thus it is claim of an objective fact, i.e. a conditional fact qualified to the scientific FSK.
But because the scientific FSK is sustained by the will of scientists who are humans thus subjects, fundamentally this objectivity is intersubjectivity on another meta-level.

Beside scientific facts independent of individual[s]' opinions and beliefs, there are moral facts of similar credibility when the relevant moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK. Obviously such moral facts must be fundamentally verified and justified empirically and supported by rational philosophical reasonings.

Your ignorant view is you are insisting there are facts, i.e. features of reality, out there independent of the human conditions and waiting for humans to discover them, and these are what Kant labelled as noumena or things-in-themselves.

It is a psychological drive for the 'oncological' thing by philosophical realists while the theists will insist on the existence of the oncological subject, i.e. a soul that survive physical death.
As such you [philosophical realists] and the theists are in the same psychological boat heading for the rocks of illusion.
Nothing new to see here. Same old misunderstandings. And oncology is the study of cancer. You probably mean ontology.
Yes, its ontology. Currently I am doing a few courses in biochemistry, genetics, epigenetics, molecular biology, nutrition, etc. that include topics in diseases notably cancer, thus the confusion.

You are running away from the my above counter you need to be more specific rather than simply brushing it off.

Btw, I have already answered your 'Phenomena vs Noumena" question in the previous post,
viewtopic.php?p=587633#p587633

Btw, you did not address the point I raised re your reliance on W's Tractatus?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416
Peter Holmes' grounds on 'Early'-Wittgenstein??
1 You haven't addressed my point about the fallacy of Kant's noumena/phenomena argument - perhaps because it demolishes your 'what is fact?' line.

2 You haven't addressed my point about the impossibility of moral entailment from non-moral premises - because your whole argument for so-called moral facts depends on that entailment.

3 You don't understand the significance of what the later Wittgenstein was doing - how radically the 'meaning as use' development changes philosophy. And your straw man about my supposed early-Wittgensteinian view of factuality demonstrates complete incomprehension.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 8398
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 3:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:51 am
Nothing new to see here. Same old misunderstandings. And oncology is the study of cancer. You probably mean ontology.
Yes, its ontology. Currently I am doing a few courses in biochemistry, genetics, epigenetics, molecular biology, nutrition, etc. that include topics in diseases notably cancer, thus the confusion.

You are running away from the my above counter you need to be more specific rather than simply brushing it off.

Btw, I have already answered your 'Phenomena vs Noumena" question in the previous post,
viewtopic.php?p=587633#p587633

Btw, you did not address the point I raised re your reliance on W's Tractatus?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416
Peter Holmes' grounds on 'Early'-Wittgenstein??
1 You haven't addressed my point about the fallacy of Kant's noumena/phenomena argument - perhaps because it demolishes your 'what is fact?' line.
I believe there are some issues on your misunderstanding of Kant's Noumena vs Phenomena, so I have raised a specific thread to iron out the issues.
Phenomena vs Noumena
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35423

It is philosophy herein, so we need to be critical and rational in getting to the bottom of any issues.
2 You haven't addressed my point about the impossibility of moral entailment from non-moral premises - because your whole argument for so-called moral facts depends on that entailment.
You are relying on the concept of morality based on judgments of right and wrong which is obviously subjective and those involved in such views had been off target with "what is morality."
I have already explained a "million" times what is moral fact to me is based on physical referents in the DNA and brain within each individual human.

Note it is not impossible for an X entailment from a non-X premises.
For example it is possible for scientific entailment from non-scientific premises [intuitions, speculations, empirical observations, hypotheses, etc.] when the latter are processed via the scientific FSK.
It is also possible for legal entailment from non-legal premises when they latter are processed via a legal FSK.
So it is possible for moral entailment from non-moral premises when they latter are processed via a moral FSK.

The only question is how credible at the facts conditioned within each specific FSK with the scientific FSK as the standard.
3 You don't understand the significance of what the later Wittgenstein was doing - how radically the 'meaning as use' development changes philosophy. And your straw man about my supposed early-Wittgensteinian view of factuality demonstrates complete incomprehension.
Note the 7 propositions I listed from the SEP site are the same as what you have been claiming as 'what is fact' in your posts related to the issue. Do you deny this?
Show me which of the 7 propositions of W's Tratacus you do not disagree with and have never relied on them to support your view of 'what is fact'.

Btw, you are running away from stating the grounds you are relying upon to justify your 'what is fact'.

If you that sure you understood W's latest position, give me an idea of his 'On Certainty' and how that is applicable to your views on 'what is fact' [thus no moral facts].
Iwannaplato
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

I think this is the closest to objective morality one could come to. It isn't objective, but on the other hand it's not simply subjective.
I think there are moralities (or cultural rules of interaction) that are more catchy than others. You can see this with immigration and changes from one generation to the next. The parental cultural code and morals with some immigrants to some countries tend to be not as attractive to the coming generations. With other countries the parental morals are still preferred by the coming generations.

Note: we are not talking about all individuals, we are talking statistically.

I think it is harder to go back to honor culture from certain Western cultures. (perhaps if civilization collapsed and some of the reasons for honor culture to be an option, it might go the other way, but as long as there is a functioning modern infrastructure, high availabiity of food, shelter, education, work, I think that honor culture fades when individuals and families arrive in that new society)

You could call this the degree of infectiousness of certain memes,
You could call it a kind of cultural natural selection.
You could argue, and I guess I would here, that certain patterns of behavior and interaction suit us better. And that is felt, via trial and error and attraction over time. It just feels, seems and to some degree can be argued as better (for me and what I want (each person´'s sense of this))

IOW while not objective in that it is morally good to do X, we might in general, at a statistical level, move towards moralities that help us thrive. This is a hypothesis. And of course what makes this process even more complex is things like: our affects on the environment lead to new needs that are often hard to feel at the individual level, changes in technology create new environments and factors and we more or less have to learn from nothing how to have rules that feel right to us.

But it's not entirely subjective either. It's not hey, I came up with some morals out of my pure and free imagination, let's try these. Our bodies, needs, desires undergird this trend - if it is real.

We are finding rules that suit us, in general, better. It will never be universal, there will always be dissidents, outliers, and then ideally, places those with other tastes in common could have their own societies.

And again: it is not objective in the sense that one could say to a dissident, no you are wrong to want to do X. It is objective wrong morally. However it is not mere subjective plucked out of the air. You could say that it is grounded in physiology/neurology/social mammal traits that we tend to have. Not that it will be easy to disentangle cultural and these nature tendencies.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:46 am 3 You don't understand the significance of what the later Wittgenstein was doing - how radically the 'meaning as use' development changes philosophy. And your straw man about my supposed early-Wittgensteinian view of factuality demonstrates complete incomprehension.
He also doesn't understand the Tractatus. He doesn't understand what this means for instance...
"1. The world is everything that is the case."
And without understanding that he can't understand how you are not making use of it.
To him it looks no different to anything yuo do say, he doesn't in reality get what the difference between the picture and tool views means at all.

I'm not convinced you have much chance of teaching him o_O
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2527
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:04 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 3:28 am
Yes, its ontology. Currently I am doing a few courses in biochemistry, genetics, epigenetics, molecular biology, nutrition, etc. that include topics in diseases notably cancer, thus the confusion.

You are running away from the my above counter you need to be more specific rather than simply brushing it off.

Btw, I have already answered your 'Phenomena vs Noumena" question in the previous post,
viewtopic.php?p=587633#p587633
No, you haven't addressed my point: if there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), it makes no sense to say that things are phenomena (appearances).

Btw, you did not address the point I raised re your reliance on W's Tractatus?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416
Peter Holmes' grounds on 'Early'-Wittgenstein??
1 You haven't addressed my point about the fallacy of Kant's noumena/phenomena argument - perhaps because it demolishes your 'what is fact?' line.
I believe there are some issues on your misunderstanding of Kant's Noumena vs Phenomena, so I have raised a specific thread to iron out the issues.
Phenomena vs Noumena
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35423
I understand Kant's argument, and I'm pointing out its absurdity.

It is philosophy herein, so we need to be critical and rational in getting to the bottom of any issues.
2 You haven't addressed my point about the impossibility of moral entailment from non-moral premises - because your whole argument for so-called moral facts depends on that entailment.
You are relying on the concept of morality based on judgments of right and wrong which is obviously subjective and those involved in such views had been off target with "what is morality."
I have already explained a "million" times what is moral fact to me is based on physical referents in the DNA and brain within each individual human.
And I've explained a million times that your premises - facts about DNA or mirror neurons, and so on - are non-moral, and have no moral significance. You can call them moral facts till you're blue in the face, but they aren't moral facts.

Note it is not impossible for an X entailment from a non-X premises.
For example it is possible for scientific entailment from non-scientific premises [intuitions, speculations, empirical observations, hypotheses, etc.] when the latter are processed via the scientific FSK.
It is also possible for legal entailment from non-legal premises when they latter are processed via a legal FSK.
So it is possible for moral entailment from non-moral premises when they latter are processed via a moral FSK.
No, deductive entailment is about the nature of premises and what they can entail. A deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premises. So if the premises make no moral claim, neither can the conclusion.

(A scientific conclusion can, of course, be deduced from scientific premises arrived at by intuition, speculation, observation, hypothesis, and so on. It's the nature of the premise that matters, not how it's been reached.)
The only question is how credible at the facts conditioned within each specific FSK with the scientific FSK as the standard.
3 You don't understand the significance of what the later Wittgenstein was doing - how radically the 'meaning as use' development changes philosophy. And your straw man about my supposed early-Wittgensteinian view of factuality demonstrates complete incomprehension.
Note the 7 propositions I listed from the SEP site are the same as what you have been claiming as 'what is fact' in your posts related to the issue. Do you deny this?
Show me which of the 7 propositions of W's Tratacus you do not disagree with and have never relied on them to support your view of 'what is fact'.

Btw, you are running away from stating the grounds you are relying upon to justify your 'what is fact'.

If you that sure you understood W's latest position, give me an idea of his 'On Certainty' and how that is applicable to your views on 'what is fact' [thus no moral facts].
A word can mean only what we use it to mean. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion.

You deny that such things exist, but also appeal to them as the empirical evidence that gives natural science its credibility.

You deny that what we call facts exist, but also claim that there are moral facts.

Cognitive dissonance?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 8398
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:04 am I believe there are some issues on your misunderstanding of Kant's Noumena vs Phenomena, so I have raised a specific thread to iron out the issues.
Phenomena vs Noumena
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35423
I understand Kant's argument, and I'm pointing out its absurdity.
From what you have been posting, you have not understood Kant's position thoroughly.

If you insist, give me an idea of what you have understood about Kant's complete argument in the CPR re phenomena, appearance, noumena, then thing-in-itself as an illusion.
2 You haven't addressed my point about the impossibility of moral entailment from non-moral premises - because your whole argument for so-called moral facts depends on that entailment.
I have explained my basis of what is fact is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths?
You are relying on the concept of morality based on judgments of right and wrong which is obviously subjective and those involved in such views had been off target with "what is morality."
I have already explained a "million" times what is moral fact to me is based on physical referents in the DNA and brain within each individual human.
And I've explained a million times that your premises - facts about DNA or mirror neurons, and so on - are non-moral, and have no moral significance. You can call them moral facts till you're blue in the face, but they aren't moral facts.
As above, I have explained my basis of what is fact is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths?

Your thinking is too narrow in confining morality to judgments by individual[s] of what is right or wrong.

I have argued;
All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Scientific facts are conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Moral facts are conditioned upon a moral FSK.
Therefore Moral facts exist.

Note it is not impossible for an X entailment from a non-X premises.
For example it is possible for scientific entailment from non-scientific premises [intuitions, speculations, empirical observations, hypotheses, etc.] when the latter are processed via the scientific FSK.
It is also possible for legal entailment from non-legal premises when they latter are processed via a legal FSK.
So it is possible for moral entailment from non-moral premises when they latter are processed via a moral FSK.
No, deductive entailment is about the nature of premises and what they can entail. A deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premises. So if the premises make no moral claim, neither can the conclusion.
As above, I have explained my basis of what is fact is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths? You insist scientific facts are not credible or false?
(A scientific conclusion can, of course, be deduced from scientific premises arrived at by intuition, speculation, observation, hypothesis, and so on. It's the nature of the premise that matters, not how it's been reached.)
What are you talking about?
A scientific conclusion is NEVER arrived via deduction!
A scientific conclusion is inferred from induction [induced not deduced] from a scientific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] with its specific conditions.
3 You don't understand the significance of what the later Wittgenstein was doing - how radically the 'meaning as use' development changes philosophy. And your straw man about my supposed early-Wittgensteinian view of factuality demonstrates complete incomprehension.
Note the 7 propositions I listed from the SEP site are the same as what you have been claiming as 'what is fact' in your posts related to the issue. Do you deny this?
Show me which of the 7 propositions of W's Tratacus you do not disagree with and have never relied on them to support your view of 'what is fact'.

Btw, you are running away from stating the grounds you are relying upon to justify your 'what is fact'.

If you that sure you understood W's latest position, give me an idea of his 'On Certainty' and how that is applicable to your views on 'what is fact' [thus no moral facts].
PH wrote:A word can mean only what we use it to mean. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion.
The above points are held by the early-Wittgenstein in his Tractatus which he had abandoned in his very later part of his life.
I suggest you research or reread Wittgenstein's whole perspective of philosophy from his early stage to his final stage in 'On Certainty'.
You deny that such things exist, but also appeal to them as the empirical evidence that gives natural science its credibility.
Obviously, what is "facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion" are mere illusions.
You don't even realize you are clinging to illusions.
You deny that what we call facts exist, but also claim that there are moral facts.

Cognitive dissonance?
I deny your illusory 'facts' but
my "what is fact" is verifiable and justifiable via specific FSK, where the scientific FSK is the standard.

I have linked this a "million" times already and yet you are so blind to it.
A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK, i.e. [mine]
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means [scientific FSK].

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, [Linguistic FSK] and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. [astronomical FSK]
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. [historical FSK]

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion. [but conditioned and entangled with their s human based FSK]
You have never countered the above but merely repeat ad nauseum your early-Wittgenstein's nonsense [which W abandoned] of 'what is fact'.
Post Reply