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

Age
Posts: 13421
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:38 am
Age wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:40 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:59 pm
Okay. Try again.
Stop lying.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:59 pm 'Morality is objective because ...'
There is NO use, with you, as you are completely and utterly BLIND and DEAF, due to your ABSOLUTE BELIEF here.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:59 pm Or you can carry on coat-trailing - as if anyone gives a toss.
And you can carry on BELIEVING things to be ABSOLUTELY true, as you do here. But just be forewarned, NO one really cares and you WILL BE BLINDED by such, ILLOGICAL and UNSUPPORTED, BELIEFS. As you CLEARLY ARE here.
I have no idea what absolute truth is, or what distinction the word absolute makes. A truth-claim is always contextual and conventional.
Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?

If yes, then where or when?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:38 am You claim to know what makes morality objective, so you claim that there are moral facts, independent from opinion.
you are Wrong, ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:38 am Why not produce one example? That would end the discussion.
ALREADY HAVE.

you either really do NOT read what I write or you do but just forget.

Also noted here is your INABILITY to SEE and HEAR due to your current BELIEF.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2653
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:57 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:38 am
Age wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:40 pm

Stop lying.


There is NO use, with you, as you are completely and utterly BLIND and DEAF, due to your ABSOLUTE BELIEF here.


And you can carry on BELIEVING things to be ABSOLUTELY true, as you do here. But just be forewarned, NO one really cares and you WILL BE BLINDED by such, ILLOGICAL and UNSUPPORTED, BELIEFS. As you CLEARLY ARE here.
I have no idea what absolute truth is, or what distinction the word absolute makes. A truth-claim is always contextual and conventional.
Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?

If yes, then where or when?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:38 am You claim to know what makes morality objective, so you claim that there are moral facts, independent from opinion.
you are Wrong, ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:38 am Why not produce one example? That would end the discussion.
ALREADY HAVE.

you either really do NOT read what I write or you do but just forget.

Also noted here is your INABILITY to SEE and HEAR due to your current BELIEF.
1 I wrote: a truth-claim is always contextual and conventional.
You replied: Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?
Now, I wonder what you think my answer will be. Der.

Otoh, if you think a claim of any kind can be non-contextual and non-conventional, please produce one. Or stfu.

2 I wrote: You claim to know what makes morality objective, so you claim that there are moral facts, independent from opinion.
You replied: you are Wrong, ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN.
This seems to mean you don't claim morality is objective because there are moral facts.
I then asked: Why not produce one example? That would end the discussion.
Your reply: ALREADY HAVE. So, you don't claim morality is objective because there are moral facts - but you've already produced an example of a moral fact.

Now, this kind of farting about may entertain you. But it gets us nowhere. The claim that you've already produced an example of a moral fact is a lie. You're a liar, or a self-deluded twat.

There. Abuse helps, doesn't it? We can do this to the crack of doom. And morality still won't be objective, because there still won't be moral facts.
Skepdick
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am 1 I wrote: a truth-claim is always contextual and conventional.
That's a super-peculiar premise. What determines the context and convention of a truth-claim?
Age
Posts: 13421
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am
Age wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:57 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:38 am
I have no idea what absolute truth is, or what distinction the word absolute makes. A truth-claim is always contextual and conventional.
Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?

If yes, then where or when?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:38 am You claim to know what makes morality objective, so you claim that there are moral facts, independent from opinion.
you are Wrong, ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:38 am Why not produce one example? That would end the discussion.
ALREADY HAVE.

you either really do NOT read what I write or you do but just forget.

Also noted here is your INABILITY to SEE and HEAR due to your current BELIEF.
1 I wrote: a truth-claim is always contextual and conventional.
You replied: Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?
Now, I wonder what you think my answer will be. Der.
WHY even BEGIN TO WONDER?

WHY NOT just WRITE DOWN what YOUR answer IS, EXACTLY?

Or, can 'you' NOT STOP, and thus help, "yourself" FROM ASSUMING?

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am Otoh, if you think a claim of any kind can be non-contextual and non-conventional, please produce one. Or stfu.
What is ALL of this ASSUMING and DETRACTION FOR, EXACTLY?

Are 'you' AFRAID of some thing particular here "peter holmes"?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am 2 I wrote: You claim to know what makes morality objective, so you claim that there are moral facts, independent from opinion.
You replied: you are Wrong, ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN.
This seems to mean you don't claim morality is objective because there are moral facts.
What seems-like, to 'you', is NOT necessarily what is ACTUALLY True, AT ALL.

As ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED previously.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am I then asked: Why not produce one example? That would end the discussion.
Your reply: ALREADY HAVE. So, you don't claim morality is objective because there are moral facts - but you've already produced an example of a moral fact.
If you say so.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am Now, this kind of farting about may entertain you. But it gets us nowhere.
LOL This is getting 'ME' and has gotten 'US' EXACTLY where I WANTED.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am The claim that you've already produced an example of a moral fact is a lie. You're a liar, or a self-deluded twat.
LOL NOT a SINGLE ATTEMPT AT CLARIFICATION, but INSTEAD just a JUMP to A CONCLUSION. And, based on an ASSUMPTION, of all things.

Oh, and by the way, do 'you' recall STATING:
'I NEVER understand what you're on about, and I hate your use of block caps - SO I'VE GIVEN UP READING YOUR COMMENTS'?

If yes, or no, then was this A LIE?

If no, then how could it NOT BE A LIE?

'you' ARE, STILL, reading my comments, correct?

So, if 'you' ARE STILL reading my comments, then it would be A LIE to STATE and CLAIM that 'you' have GIVEN UP reading my comments, right?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am There. Abuse helps, doesn't it?
What 'abuse'. I do NOT SEE NOR FEEL ANY anywhere.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am We can do this to the crack of doom.
What does the 'this' word refer to here, EXACTLY?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am And morality still won't be objective, because there still won't be moral facts.
But 'morality' can be objective. And, 'morality' IS objective, by the ACTUAL 'moral' Fact.

Oh, by the way, and STILL:
Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2653
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:38 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am
Age wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:57 am

Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?

If yes, then where or when?


you are Wrong, ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN.


ALREADY HAVE.

you either really do NOT read what I write or you do but just forget.

Also noted here is your INABILITY to SEE and HEAR due to your current BELIEF.
1 I wrote: a truth-claim is always contextual and conventional.
You replied: Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?
Now, I wonder what you think my answer will be. Der.
WHY even BEGIN TO WONDER?

WHY NOT just WRITE DOWN what YOUR answer IS, EXACTLY?

Or, can 'you' NOT STOP, and thus help, "yourself" FROM ASSUMING?

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am Otoh, if you think a claim of any kind can be non-contextual and non-conventional, please produce one. Or stfu.
What is ALL of this ASSUMING and DETRACTION FOR, EXACTLY?

Are 'you' AFRAID of some thing particular here "peter holmes"?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am 2 I wrote: You claim to know what makes morality objective, so you claim that there are moral facts, independent from opinion.
You replied: you are Wrong, ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN.
This seems to mean you don't claim morality is objective because there are moral facts.
What seems-like, to 'you', is NOT necessarily what is ACTUALLY True, AT ALL.

As ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED previously.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am I then asked: Why not produce one example? That would end the discussion.
Your reply: ALREADY HAVE. So, you don't claim morality is objective because there are moral facts - but you've already produced an example of a moral fact.
If you say so.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am Now, this kind of farting about may entertain you. But it gets us nowhere.
LOL This is getting 'ME' and has gotten 'US' EXACTLY where I WANTED.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am The claim that you've already produced an example of a moral fact is a lie. You're a liar, or a self-deluded twat.
LOL NOT a SINGLE ATTEMPT AT CLARIFICATION, but INSTEAD just a JUMP to A CONCLUSION. And, based on an ASSUMPTION, of all things.

Oh, and by the way, do 'you' recall STATING:
'I NEVER understand what you're on about, and I hate your use of block caps - SO I'VE GIVEN UP READING YOUR COMMENTS'?

If yes, or no, then was this A LIE?

If no, then how could it NOT BE A LIE?

'you' ARE, STILL, reading my comments, correct?

So, if 'you' ARE STILL reading my comments, then it would be A LIE to STATE and CLAIM that 'you' have GIVEN UP reading my comments, right?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am There. Abuse helps, doesn't it?
What 'abuse'. I do NOT SEE NOR FEEL ANY anywhere.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am We can do this to the crack of doom.
What does the 'this' word refer to here, EXACTLY?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am And morality still won't be objective, because there still won't be moral facts.
But 'morality' can be objective. And, 'morality' IS objective, by the ACTUAL 'moral' Fact.

Oh, by the way, and STILL:
Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?
Pay attention. To repeat. A claim is always contextual and conventional.

Of what could a context-free and convention-free claim consist?
Skepdick
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:57 am Pay attention. To repeat. A claim is always contextual and conventional.
It's almost as if you refuse to address the problem with that.

What determines context and convention; and how?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:57 am Of what could a context-free and convention-free claim consist?
In what context/convention are you asking this question; and why?
Age
Posts: 13421
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:57 am
Age wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:38 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am
1 I wrote: a truth-claim is always contextual and conventional.
You replied: Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?
Now, I wonder what you think my answer will be. Der.
WHY even BEGIN TO WONDER?

WHY NOT just WRITE DOWN what YOUR answer IS, EXACTLY?

Or, can 'you' NOT STOP, and thus help, "yourself" FROM ASSUMING?

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am Otoh, if you think a claim of any kind can be non-contextual and non-conventional, please produce one. Or stfu.
What is ALL of this ASSUMING and DETRACTION FOR, EXACTLY?

Are 'you' AFRAID of some thing particular here "peter holmes"?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am 2 I wrote: You claim to know what makes morality objective, so you claim that there are moral facts, independent from opinion.
You replied: you are Wrong, ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN.
This seems to mean you don't claim morality is objective because there are moral facts.
What seems-like, to 'you', is NOT necessarily what is ACTUALLY True, AT ALL.

As ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED previously.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am I then asked: Why not produce one example? That would end the discussion.
Your reply: ALREADY HAVE. So, you don't claim morality is objective because there are moral facts - but you've already produced an example of a moral fact.
If you say so.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am Now, this kind of farting about may entertain you. But it gets us nowhere.
LOL This is getting 'ME' and has gotten 'US' EXACTLY where I WANTED.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am The claim that you've already produced an example of a moral fact is a lie. You're a liar, or a self-deluded twat.
LOL NOT a SINGLE ATTEMPT AT CLARIFICATION, but INSTEAD just a JUMP to A CONCLUSION. And, based on an ASSUMPTION, of all things.

Oh, and by the way, do 'you' recall STATING:
'I NEVER understand what you're on about, and I hate your use of block caps - SO I'VE GIVEN UP READING YOUR COMMENTS'?

If yes, or no, then was this A LIE?

If no, then how could it NOT BE A LIE?

'you' ARE, STILL, reading my comments, correct?

So, if 'you' ARE STILL reading my comments, then it would be A LIE to STATE and CLAIM that 'you' have GIVEN UP reading my comments, right?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am There. Abuse helps, doesn't it?
What 'abuse'. I do NOT SEE NOR FEEL ANY anywhere.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am We can do this to the crack of doom.
What does the 'this' word refer to here, EXACTLY?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:27 am And morality still won't be objective, because there still won't be moral facts.
But 'morality' can be objective. And, 'morality' IS objective, by the ACTUAL 'moral' Fact.

Oh, by the way, and STILL:
Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?
Pay attention. To repeat. A claim is always contextual and conventional.
Now that I have FINALLY noticed you answered the question, I can now, finally, 'pay attention'.

But for now, WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY, did you write that 'A claim is ALWAYS contextual and conventional', previously? I have MISSED it.

The answer you gave, previously, to my question, which I noticed, was VERY DIFFERENT.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:57 am Of what could a context-free and convention-free claim consist?
But I have NEVER even thought there was one, let alone said nor suggested that there was one, ANYWHERE.

You wrote, "a truth-claim is always contextual and conventional".

I have just been WAITING for you to answer my question, and now that you FINALLY have, the 'truth' word in your claim here is completely redundant, correct?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2653
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:57 am
Age wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:38 pm

WHY even BEGIN TO WONDER?

WHY NOT just WRITE DOWN what YOUR answer IS, EXACTLY?

Or, can 'you' NOT STOP, and thus help, "yourself" FROM ASSUMING?




What is ALL of this ASSUMING and DETRACTION FOR, EXACTLY?

Are 'you' AFRAID of some thing particular here "peter holmes"?


What seems-like, to 'you', is NOT necessarily what is ACTUALLY True, AT ALL.

As ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED previously.



If you say so.


LOL This is getting 'ME' and has gotten 'US' EXACTLY where I WANTED.


LOL NOT a SINGLE ATTEMPT AT CLARIFICATION, but INSTEAD just a JUMP to A CONCLUSION. And, based on an ASSUMPTION, of all things.

Oh, and by the way, do 'you' recall STATING:
'I NEVER understand what you're on about, and I hate your use of block caps - SO I'VE GIVEN UP READING YOUR COMMENTS'?

If yes, or no, then was this A LIE?

If no, then how could it NOT BE A LIE?

'you' ARE, STILL, reading my comments, correct?

So, if 'you' ARE STILL reading my comments, then it would be A LIE to STATE and CLAIM that 'you' have GIVEN UP reading my comments, right?



What 'abuse'. I do NOT SEE NOR FEEL ANY anywhere.


What does the 'this' word refer to here, EXACTLY?


But 'morality' can be objective. And, 'morality' IS objective, by the ACTUAL 'moral' Fact.

Oh, by the way, and STILL:
Is there ANY claim, which is NOT contextual NOR conventional?
Pay attention. To repeat. A claim is always contextual and conventional.
Now that I have FINALLY noticed you answered the question, I can now, finally, 'pay attention'.

But for now, WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY, did you write that 'A claim is ALWAYS contextual and conventional', previously? I have MISSED it.

The answer you gave, previously, to my question, which I noticed, was VERY DIFFERENT.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:57 am Of what could a context-free and convention-free claim consist?
But I have NEVER even thought there was one, let alone said nor suggested that there was one, ANYWHERE.

You wrote, "a truth-claim is always contextual and conventional".

I have just been WAITING for you to answer my question, and now that you FINALLY have, the 'truth' word in your claim here is completely redundant, correct?
Why is it redundant? A truth-claim is one kind of claim. And, since we're discussing the truth-aptness of moral assertions (claims) - whether a moral assertion is indeed a truth-claim at all - it seems pertinent to focus on the nature of truth-claims.
Age
Posts: 13421
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am
Age wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:57 am
Pay attention. To repeat. A claim is always contextual and conventional.
Now that I have FINALLY noticed you answered the question, I can now, finally, 'pay attention'.

But for now, WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY, did you write that 'A claim is ALWAYS contextual and conventional', previously? I have MISSED it.

The answer you gave, previously, to my question, which I noticed, was VERY DIFFERENT.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:57 am Of what could a context-free and convention-free claim consist?
But I have NEVER even thought there was one, let alone said nor suggested that there was one, ANYWHERE.

You wrote, "a truth-claim is always contextual and conventional".

I have just been WAITING for you to answer my question, and now that you FINALLY have, the 'truth' word in your claim here is completely redundant, correct?
Why is it redundant?
BECAUSE if EVERY claim is ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then there is NO use distinguishing ANY claim.

By the way, why did you NOT say nor show WHEN and/nor WHERE you allegedly previously wrote 'that'?

Do you have some thing to HIDE here?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am A truth-claim is one kind of claim.
OF COURSE it is, that was the POINT of my clarifying question posed to you, depending on your answer.

If ALL claims are ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then there is NO use expressing EACH different kind of claim as being ALWAYS contextual and conventional.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am And, since we're discussing the truth-aptness of moral assertions (claims) - whether a moral assertion is indeed a truth-claim at all - it seems pertinent to focus on the nature of truth-claims.
But if you want to use the EXCUSE that truth-claims can NEVER be 'objective' because they are ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then this EXCUSE, OBVIOUSLY, ALWAYS APPLIES to ALL claims AS WELL.

Including the claim that 'water' is 'h2o', correct?

Or, are you trying to claim some thing else here?

If yes, then will you explain more?

Also, what would you like to claim is the 'nature' of truth-claims, and does this 'nature' of truth-claims differentiate from the 'nature' of other claims?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY? And, which claims are different in this regard?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2653
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:26 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am
Age wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:25 am

Now that I have FINALLY noticed you answered the question, I can now, finally, 'pay attention'.

But for now, WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY, did you write that 'A claim is ALWAYS contextual and conventional', previously? I have MISSED it.

The answer you gave, previously, to my question, which I noticed, was VERY DIFFERENT.


But I have NEVER even thought there was one, let alone said nor suggested that there was one, ANYWHERE.

You wrote, "a truth-claim is always contextual and conventional".

I have just been WAITING for you to answer my question, and now that you FINALLY have, the 'truth' word in your claim here is completely redundant, correct?
Why is it redundant?
BECAUSE if EVERY claim is ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then there is NO use distinguishing ANY claim.

By the way, why did you NOT say nor show WHEN and/nor WHERE you allegedly previously wrote 'that'?

Do you have some thing to HIDE here?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am A truth-claim is one kind of claim.
OF COURSE it is, that was the POINT of my clarifying question posed to you, depending on your answer.

If ALL claims are ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then there is NO use expressing EACH different kind of claim as being ALWAYS contextual and conventional.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am And, since we're discussing the truth-aptness of moral assertions (claims) - whether a moral assertion is indeed a truth-claim at all - it seems pertinent to focus on the nature of truth-claims.
But if you want to use the EXCUSE that truth-claims can NEVER be 'objective' because they are ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then this EXCUSE, OBVIOUSLY, ALWAYS APPLIES to ALL claims AS WELL.

Including the claim that 'water' is 'h2o', correct?

Or, are you trying to claim some thing else here?

If yes, then will you explain more?

Also, what would you like to claim is the 'nature' of truth-claims, and does this 'nature' of truth-claims differentiate from the 'nature' of other claims?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY? And, which claims are different in this regard?
Ah, perhaps we're at cross purposes here. Here are my explanations of term.

Objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So the terms 'objective' and 'factual' or 'fact-based' are often synonymous.

A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion, such as the chemical constitution of water.

A factual assertion is one that claims a feature of reality is or was the case, such as 'water is H2O'. It's true if the feature of reality is or was the case, regardless of opinion, and false if it isn't or wasn't.

BUT, a factual assertion - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional: 'given the way we use these signs in this context'. That a description is always dependent on a context is trivially true and so inconsequential. And it in no way compromises or undermines objectivity.
Skepdick
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am Ah, perhaps we're at cross purposes here. Here are my explanations of term.

Objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So the terms 'objective' and 'factual' or 'fact-based' are often synonymous.

A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion, such as the chemical constitution of water.

A factual assertion is one that claims a feature of reality is or was the case, such as 'water is H2O'. It's true if the feature of reality is or was the case, regardless of opinion, and false if it isn't or wasn't.

BUT, a factual assertion - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional: 'given the way we use these signs in this context'. That a description is always dependent on a context is trivially true and so inconsequential. And it in no way compromises or undermines objectivity.
What is the purpose of defining your terms that way?

The context absolutely udnermines your notion of "objectivity": why have you arbitrarily chosen to exclude the future from factuality; yet you've chosen to admit the past and present. Why?

Why are claims of features of reality which WILL be the case not facts according to you?
Age
Posts: 13421
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am
Age wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:26 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am
Why is it redundant?
BECAUSE if EVERY claim is ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then there is NO use distinguishing ANY claim.

By the way, why did you NOT say nor show WHEN and/nor WHERE you allegedly previously wrote 'that'?

Do you have some thing to HIDE here?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am A truth-claim is one kind of claim.
OF COURSE it is, that was the POINT of my clarifying question posed to you, depending on your answer.

If ALL claims are ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then there is NO use expressing EACH different kind of claim as being ALWAYS contextual and conventional.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:39 am And, since we're discussing the truth-aptness of moral assertions (claims) - whether a moral assertion is indeed a truth-claim at all - it seems pertinent to focus on the nature of truth-claims.
But if you want to use the EXCUSE that truth-claims can NEVER be 'objective' because they are ALWAYS contextual and conventional, then this EXCUSE, OBVIOUSLY, ALWAYS APPLIES to ALL claims AS WELL.

Including the claim that 'water' is 'h2o', correct?

Or, are you trying to claim some thing else here?

If yes, then will you explain more?

Also, what would you like to claim is the 'nature' of truth-claims, and does this 'nature' of truth-claims differentiate from the 'nature' of other claims?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY? And, which claims are different in this regard?
Ah, perhaps we're at cross purposes here. Here are my explanations of term.

Objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.
AND, we have ALREADY gone through this.

Considering the Fact that absolutely EVERY 'thought' expressed verbally, signed, and/or written IS just an 'opinion', then, to 'you', "peter holmes", there is NO 'objectivity' AT ALL.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am So the terms 'objective' and 'factual' or 'fact-based' are often synonymous.
SO WHAT if they are 'often' synonymous. Which is ALSO just YOUR opinion.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion, such as the chemical constitution of water.
BUT, ALL of that just comes from AGREED UPON 'opinion'. For all 'you' KNOW some thing ELSE could be going on, which then OVERRIDES this supposed and alleged 'fact', which 'you' talk about here, through and FROM YOUR OPINIONS.

ALSO, 'reality', itself, is VERY DEPENDENT UPON 'opinion'. For example, what you call 'reality' "others" do NOT. So, which one is Right?

Furthermore, saying and CLAIMING, " A fact is a feature of 'reality' ", does NOT mean that you KNOW, OBJECTIVELY, what 'reality' IS, EXACTLY.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am A factual assertion is one that claims a feature of reality is or was the case, such as 'water is H2O'.
you REALLY can NOT move beyond this, can you?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am It's true if the feature of reality is or was the case, regardless of opinion, and false if it isn't or wasn't.
ANOTHER 'feature of reality' is 'you', human beings, INSTINCTIVELY, and OBJECTIVELY, KNOW what IS Right and what is Wrong in Life. Therefore, what IS 'morally' Right AND Wrong in Life, is ALSO OBJECTIVELY KNOWN, contrary to YOUR OWN OPINION and BELIEF.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am BUT, a factual assertion - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional: 'given the way we use these signs in this context'.
But 'you' CLAIM that ALL CLAIMS are ALWAYS contextual and conventional.

And, who and/or what does the 'we' word refer to here, in YOUR OPINION.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:47 am That a description is always dependent on a context is trivially true and so inconsequential. And it in no way compromises or undermines objectivity.
And what IS 'objectivity', to you?

Also, what DOES the word 'objectivity' refer to, to you?

By the way, it is NOTED that you did NOT respond to the questions I posed and asked you. Why was this?

WHY do 'you' REFUSE to answer the questions posed to 'you' by "skepdick" and 'I'?
Post Reply