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: 2608
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:33 am Peter,

Einstein's equation pretty much states that all is energy and matter seems to be present only in our apparent reality much energy out there seem to be unmanifested as matter -- it makes one wonder! You from what I can understand believe all is just as it looks. Quote: Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert That is a close a door on wonder! In all your practicality, what do you make of quantum entanglement, does that open your door to wonder? Biological perception you don't know what it means-- good grief, why are we in dialogue at all.
Biology is the study of life forms, including non-sentient life forms. So the expression 'biological perception' is incoherent.

And an appeal to 'wonder' and 'imagination' cuts no mustard in a discussion about what exists and what we can know about it. (That we can and do marvel at existence and imagine all sorts of things is true.)
popeye1945
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:15 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:33 am Peter,

Einstein's equation pretty much states that all is energy and matter seems to be present only in our apparent reality much energy out there seem to be unmanifested as matter -- it makes one wonder! You from what I can understand believe all is just as it looks. Quote: Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert That is a close a door on wonder! In all your practicality, what do you make of quantum entanglement, does that open your door to wonder? Biological perception you don't know what it means-- good grief, why are we in dialogue at all.
Biology is the study of life forms, including non-sentient life forms. So the expression 'biological perception' is incoherent.

And an appeal to 'wonder' and 'imagination' cuts no mustard in a discussion about what exists and what we can know about it. (That we can and do marvel at existence and imagine all sorts of things is true.)
Peter,
Non-sentient life forms, meaning life forms that do not feel or feel pain? This is a presumption on your part. Many people believe that plants can not feel or feel no pain, but they most assuredly do feel and probably feel pain as is indicated by their awareness of being attracted by parasitic organisms and the defense systems they have developed over time. Even the ameba is sensitive to its environment. Your blowing smoke.

My point you seem to be missing is there is only energy unless you have something to teach old Albert! We live in a world of objects these are generally considered things, if you consider energy that is unmanifested as things, then we have a major disagreement.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:15 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:33 am Peter,

Einstein's equation pretty much states that all is energy and matter seems to be present only in our apparent reality much energy out there seem to be unmanifested as matter -- it makes one wonder! You from what I can understand believe all is just as it looks. Quote: Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert That is a close a door on wonder! In all your practicality, what do you make of quantum entanglement, does that open your door to wonder? Biological perception you don't know what it means-- good grief, why are we in dialogue at all.
Biology is the study of life forms, including non-sentient life forms. So the expression 'biological perception' is incoherent.

And an appeal to 'wonder' and 'imagination' cuts no mustard in a discussion about what exists and what we can know about it. (That we can and do marvel at existence and imagine all sorts of things is true.)
Peter,
Non-sentient life forms, meaning life forms that do not feel or feel pain? This is a presumption on your part. Many people believe that plants can not feel or feel no pain, but they most assuredly do feel and probably feel pain as is indicated by their awareness of being attracted by parasitic organisms and the defense systems they have developed over time. Even the ameba is sensitive to its environment. Your blowing smoke.

My point you seem to be missing is there is only energy unless you have something to teach old Albert! We live in a world of objects these are generally considered things, if you consider energy that is unmanifested as things, then we have a major disagreement.
Hold on. If plants feel pain, is that a fact of reality - something that exists independent from the 'meaning' that you say is subjectively imposed on reality by biological perception or consciousness? Shurely shum mishtake!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Okay. It can't be a fact that there are no facts. So, given that there are facts, the question stands: are there moral facts? And the burden of proof (the test) for the existence of moral facts is with moral objectivists - unmet so far, to my knowledge. Moral objectivism is a ridiculous but perennial joke.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:47 am 1 'My problem with this argument or assertion is that the category 'physical' has been expanding through time.'

Agreed. And that's meant the gaps/spaces for the supposed non-physical have been closing.
Only because what can be called physical now is a lot like what most people would not have called physical before. The potential qualities and lack of them. The word physical sounds like a stand on substance, but it just means...real things, whatever their qualities.

2 'For your position to be meaningful there would need to be a process whereby evidence would come in for something and it could possibly be considered non-physical. I believe science should not be considered a physicalist methodology. It's really a verificationist methodology, but I think due to the history of conflict with the church, say, and other sets of beliefs, it has seemed necessary to take an ontological stand, whereas, in fact scientists in practice just try to find real phenomena and understand them.'
My condition is 'pending evidence'. And natural scientists do as you say - they try to find 'real phenomena' - which is physical evidence.
It's just evidence. That adjective is hollow.
So I think 'methodological naturalism' is the correct name for the scientific method - assuming at least a near-synonymy between naturalism, materialism and physicalism - which I know can be disputed. I don't understand what you think 'evidence...that could possibly be considered non-physical' could be.
That's approaching it backwards. I am saying that they don't care what something is made of, if they consider it real, they feel paradigmatically bound to call it physical - if they even do.
That we believe, or have believed, a phenomenon to be non-physical isn't evidence that it is non-physical - obviously.
Personally I think the whole thing is a storm in a tea cup based on an old battle. And that the real is on a spectrum and neither physical nor non-physical mean anything. But the real has a spectrum of qualities. 600 years ago pretty much anyone, and certainly theologians, would have thought some of our descriptions of what passes as matter would be descriptions of non-material things. It's like the old battle is being run, so old terms with their baggage must be clung to, even though the playing field has shifted utterly on the scientific side.

3 'So, to rule out a phenomenon because it seems or is asserted to be non-physical, it seems to me, is jumping the gun. To ask for evidence, especially if the other person expects you to believe them, is only logical and rational. As it would be if someone asserted X, that is physical, exists, if one is not aware of any evidence backing this up.'

Again, there's no ruling out here. My point isn't that the non-physical can't exist. It's precisely the asking for evidence that makes the enquiry logical and rational.

4 'If we look at the history of science, up into the early 70s it was professionally dangerous to assert that animals were conscious experiencers with intentions, and other cognitive subjective qualities. The problem of other minds coupled with old prejudices made this taboo. And it is very hard to demonstrate the internal life of anyone including animals. Yet, animal trainers, pet owners, animists, indigenous people, pagans and many others worked with the rather rational assumption that animals did have internal lives, etc. Then there was a shift in the model.'
My point is that there's no evidence - so far, and to my knowledge - that the 'internal life' of anything is non-physical - that it has a non-physical cause or explanation.
But then there is no reason to use the adjective non-physical. Any phenomenon that does not have evidence for it cannot move into communal knowledge. It doesn't matter what it might or might not be made of. Someone sees a ghost and believes they exist. They may well think it is non-physical. The skeptic may think it must be or would be non-physical. But that's all beside the point. Is it real? Do we have evidence? Perhaps there is some field we cannot now sense with our devices. Perhaps it is or will be considered physical once it is determine via peer review to be real. The fact that it seems like it must be in a certain ontological category is irrelevant. So, it seems to me implicit in your wording that some things can be ruled out due to the substance category. I think that is problematic.
5 'I am NOT arguing that consciousness is non-physical. What I am saying here is that it is not irrational per se to believe in things one is not, at a certain point in time (which is always where we are) able to demonstrate to others or the scientific community.'

Absolutely. Loads of scientific advance comes from pushing the boat out, hypothesising and exploring possibilities.
Or even living your entire lifetime believing in something that only after your death is confirmed. There can be good reasons to believe things that cannot be demonstrated to others, let alone confirmed by a consensus of the scientific community. Like, for example, the existence of animal experiencing, which was considered an irrational belief in science up to my teens.
6 'One can have rational reasons for believing something that cannot be demonstrated with scientific rigor to others.'

Maybe here's the rub - and the condition 'cannot' seems critical to me. Can you give an example?
That's an ambivalent verb, yes.
Cannot now be demonstrated, would have been better wording. Or 'has not yet been'. Or might not be demonstrated by science.

And I have given some past examples: animal consciousness, rogue waves, elephant long distance communication. These were, yes, later confirmed. But before that one could not know if they would someday be confirmed or when and yet it was not irrational to believe in these things.
popeye1945
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:31 am
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:15 pm
Biology is the study of life forms, including non-sentient life forms. So the expression 'biological perception' is incoherent.

And an appeal to 'wonder' and 'imagination' cuts no mustard in a discussion about what exists and what we can know about it. (That we can and do marvel at existence and imagine all sorts of things is true.)
Peter,
Non-sentient life forms, meaning life forms that do not feel or feel pain? This is a presumption on your part. Many people believe that plants can not feel or feel no pain, but they most assuredly do feel and probably feel pain as is indicated by their awareness of being attracted by parasitic organisms and the defense systems they have developed over time. Even the ameba is sensitive to its environment. Your blowing smoke.

My point you seem to be missing is there is only energy unless you have something to teach old Albert! We live in a world of objects these are generally considered things, if you consider energy that is unmanifested as things, then we have a major disagreement.
Hold on. If plants feel pain, is that a fact of reality - something that exists independent from the 'meaning' that you say is subjectively imposed on reality by biological perception or consciousness? Shurely shum mishtake!
No mistake, a plant is a biological consciousness, sensitive to its environment just as you are reactive to your environment. One can not feel another's pain but one can discern by another's reactions to assault if they feel and are thus aware of being assaulted. A bush being attacked by parasitic insects begins producing a toxic substance to turn the parasites away. They also produce a chemical warning system relative to like vegetation in the area and without having been attacked, these neighboring bushes begin producing the same defensive repellent. Nothing is independent of meaning, including your own ability to discern pain, you have an experience and the meaning you give that experience is pain.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:09 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:31 am
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:03 am

Peter,
Non-sentient life forms, meaning life forms that do not feel or feel pain? This is a presumption on your part. Many people believe that plants can not feel or feel no pain, but they most assuredly do feel and probably feel pain as is indicated by their awareness of being attracted by parasitic organisms and the defense systems they have developed over time. Even the ameba is sensitive to its environment. Your blowing smoke.

My point you seem to be missing is there is only energy unless you have something to teach old Albert! We live in a world of objects these are generally considered things, if you consider energy that is unmanifested as things, then we have a major disagreement.
Hold on. If plants feel pain, is that a fact of reality - something that exists independent from the 'meaning' that you say is subjectively imposed on reality by biological perception or consciousness? Shurely shum mishtake!
No mistake, a plant is a biological consciousness, sensitive to its environment just as you are reactive to your environment. One can not feel another's pain but one can discern by another's reactions to assault if they feel and are thus aware of being assaulted. A bush being attacked by parasitic insects begins producing a toxic substance to turn the parasites away. They also produce a chemical warning system relative to like vegetation in the area and without having been attacked, these neighboring bushes begin producing the same defensive repellent. Nothing is independent of meaning, including your own ability to discern pain, you have an experience and the meaning you give that experience is pain.
You miss my point. If the features of reality you refer to are indeed the case - so that your assertions are factually true - then your claim that all meaning is subjective is false - and you performatively contradict it by citing facts that are, by definition, objective.
popeye1945
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:34 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:09 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:31 am
Hold on. If plants feel pain, is that a fact of reality - something that exists independent from the 'meaning' that you say is subjectively imposed on reality by biological perception or consciousness? Shurely shum mishtake!
No mistake, a plant is a biological consciousness, sensitive to its environment just as you are reactive to your environment. One can not feel another's pain but one can discern by another's reactions to assault if they feel and are thus aware of being assaulted. A bush being attacked by parasitic insects begins producing a toxic substance to turn the parasites away. They also produce a chemical warning system relative to like vegetation in the area and without having been attacked, these neighboring bushes begin producing the same defensive repellent. Nothing is independent of meaning, including your own ability to discern pain, you have an experience and the meaning you give that experience is pain.
You miss my point. If the features of reality you refer to are indeed the case - so that your assertions are factually true - then your claim that all meaning is subjective is false - and you performatively contradict it by citing facts that are, by definition, objective.
You miss the point, biological perception and/or judgment are not infallible, but besides that, just the fact that apparent reality/subjective reality ceases to be in the absence of a conscious subject certainly leaves us with no reality whatsoever. As Schopenhauer stated when a conscious subject closes his eyes in death a world dissolves. There is no way of proving that your apparent reality exists in and of itself at all. I have been speculating that energies put through biological processes create objects and that there is no such thing as objectivity or object in and of itself, it is a biological readout.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:59 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:34 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:09 am

No mistake, a plant is a biological consciousness, sensitive to its environment just as you are reactive to your environment. One can not feel another's pain but one can discern by another's reactions to assault if they feel and are thus aware of being assaulted. A bush being attacked by parasitic insects begins producing a toxic substance to turn the parasites away. They also produce a chemical warning system relative to like vegetation in the area and without having been attacked, these neighboring bushes begin producing the same defensive repellent. Nothing is independent of meaning, including your own ability to discern pain, you have an experience and the meaning you give that experience is pain.
You miss my point. If the features of reality you refer to are indeed the case - so that your assertions are factually true - then your claim that all meaning is subjective is false - and you performatively contradict it by citing facts that are, by definition, objective.
You miss the point, biological perception and/or judgment are not infallible, but besides that, just the fact that apparent reality/subjective reality ceases to be in the absence of a conscious subject certainly leaves us with no reality whatsoever. As Schopenhauer stated when a conscious subject closes his eyes in death a world dissolves. There is no way of proving that your apparent reality exists in and of itself at all. I have been speculating that energies put through biological processes create objects and that there is no such thing as objectivity or object in and of itself, it is a biological readout.
There's no reason to believe that, if there were no perceivers, there would be nothing to be perceived - that the only reality there can be is the reality perceived by conscious subjects. And fallibility is a red herring in this context.
promethean75
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

"that the only reality there can be is the reality perceived by conscious subjects"

Indeed that's a problem because you end up with a infinite regress of esse est percipis if u believe that.

Plus a quick thought experiment should do away with that nonsense pretty quickly; if you and I are standing beside one another and I fall over dead, it would mean your perception constituted reality and not mines, since if mines did, you and the world wouldn't continue existing when i fell over dead.
popeye1945
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:45 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:59 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:34 am
You miss my point. If the features of reality you refer to are indeed the case - so that your assertions are factually true - then your claim that all meaning is subjective is false - and you performatively contradict it by citing facts that are, by definition, objective.
You miss the point, biological perception and/or judgment are not infallible, but besides that, just the fact that apparent reality/subjective reality ceases to be in the absence of a conscious subject certainly leaves us with no reality whatsoever. As Schopenhauer stated when a conscious subject closes his eyes in death a world dissolves. There is no way of proving that your apparent reality exists in and of itself at all. I have been speculating that energies put through biological processes create objects and that there is no such thing as objectivity or object in and of itself, it is a biological readout.
There's no reason to believe that, if there were no perceivers, there would be nothing to be perceived - that the only reality there can be is the reality perceived by conscious subjects. And fallibility is a red herring in this context.
Peter,

I thought it was your belief that physical reality existed even in the absence of a conscious subject--- no? So, you do believe apparent reality is biologically dependent and that physical reality/apparent in the absence of a conscious subject cannot be proven. That there may be no reality out there in and of itself.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 12:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:45 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:59 am

You miss the point, biological perception and/or judgment are not infallible, but besides that, just the fact that apparent reality/subjective reality ceases to be in the absence of a conscious subject certainly leaves us with no reality whatsoever. As Schopenhauer stated when a conscious subject closes his eyes in death a world dissolves. There is no way of proving that your apparent reality exists in and of itself at all. I have been speculating that energies put through biological processes create objects and that there is no such thing as objectivity or object in and of itself, it is a biological readout.
There's no reason to believe that, if there were no perceivers, there would be nothing to be perceived - that the only reality there can be is the reality perceived by conscious subjects. And fallibility is a red herring in this context.
Peter,

I thought it was your belief that physical reality existed even in the absence of a conscious subject--- no? So, you do believe apparent reality is biologically dependent and that physical reality/apparent in the absence of a conscious subject cannot be proven. That there may be no reality out there in and of itself.
That life-forms 'experience' what we call reality in specific ways doesn't mean that what we call reality exists only because life-forms experience it, nor that what we call reality didn't exist before life-forms appeared, and wouldn't exist if there were no life-forms to experience it.

I think you're stuck with something like VA's muddled Kantianism. Your 'apparent reality' seems to consist of Kant's 'phenomena' - things-as-they-appear - so that we can have no access to 'noumena' - things-in-themselves - which, however, don't exist anyway.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 12683
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

What ACTUALLY DOES make ANY 'thing', including 'morality', 'objective': IS voluntary AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE with and by EVERY one.

And, do NOT FORGET that ONLY 'that', which is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct could be and would be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED by EVERY one.
popeye1945
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:08 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 12:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:45 am
There's no reason to believe that, if there were no perceivers, there would be nothing to be perceived - that the only reality there can be is the reality perceived by conscious subjects. And fallibility is a red herring in this context.
Peter,

I thought it was your belief that physical reality existed even in the absence of a conscious subject--- no? So, you do believe apparent reality is biologically dependent and that physical reality/apparent in the absence of a conscious subject cannot be proven. That there may be no reality out there in and of itself.
That life-forms 'experience' what we call reality in specific ways doesn't mean that what we call reality exists only because life-forms experience it, nor that what we call reality didn't exist before life-forms appeared, and wouldn't exist if there were no life-forms to experience it.

I think you're stuck with something like VA's muddled Kantianism. Your 'apparent reality' seems to consist of Kant's 'phenomena' - things-as-they-appear - so that we can have no access to 'noumena' - things-in-themselves - which, however, don't exist anyway.
Peter,

I agree, the thing in itself does not exist. for energy is not a thing, so what makes it manifest as a thing?/object?
popeye1945
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:11 pm Okay. It can't be a fact that there are no facts. So, given that there are facts, the question stands: are there moral facts? And the burden of proof (the test) for the existence of moral facts is with moral objectivists - unmet so far, to my knowledge. Moral objectivism is a ridiculous but perennial joke.
Peter,
Agreed!!
Post Reply