What could make morality objective?
-
- Posts: 3899
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
VA agrees with the following formulation of her/his argument.
P1 A fact exists only within a 'framework and system of knowledge'. (False, so the argument is unsound.)
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'. (Assumes the conclusion, and so begs the question.)
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective. (Unsupported by the premises.)
VA has not demonstrated the existence of moral facts that can, therefore, be known. All we have is a fictitious 'morality framework and system of knowledge', into which can be fed scientific facts, and out of which moral facts emerge like shit. And how this happens is alimentary.
The actual moment when a scientific (physical) fact transubstantiates into a moral conclusion is a sacred mystery, not to be tarnished by rational scrutiny, or insulted by the skeptical demand for evidence. Shit just happens.
P1 A fact exists only within a 'framework and system of knowledge'. (False, so the argument is unsound.)
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'. (Assumes the conclusion, and so begs the question.)
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective. (Unsupported by the premises.)
VA has not demonstrated the existence of moral facts that can, therefore, be known. All we have is a fictitious 'morality framework and system of knowledge', into which can be fed scientific facts, and out of which moral facts emerge like shit. And how this happens is alimentary.
The actual moment when a scientific (physical) fact transubstantiates into a moral conclusion is a sacred mystery, not to be tarnished by rational scrutiny, or insulted by the skeptical demand for evidence. Shit just happens.
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
We? No idea, I just thought it would be a laugh to see if you rose to the bait.
I haven't really studied Peter Holmes's notion of objectivity, but from the little I have gleaned, it looks like a fairly standard correspondence theory. You know - there is a world independent of language and it is possible to construct bits of language that accurately describe features of that world.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 amYes, I know I already have. Which is why I have already dismissed Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's notion of objectivity.
Which is why I said if we accept it. Then we can reject Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's notion of objectivity.
Presumably it's you and some unspecified others that may or may not include me, and excludes Peter Holmes.
It's potato/potaoh I suppose, happy to use your language, but it's not that there are no privileged positions, we just don't know which, if any string of language we assemble actually describes what we might think it describes. You can argue that any description may serve some function, which is true, and that therefore all descriptions are equally valid, which is a point of view you have described and might even have endorsed for the two minutes after you wrote this:
Clearly the people who believe the world is flat do so for a reason.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 amGiven that there are no provileged descriptions - e.g given that all descriptions are of equivalent utility. Then the terms objective and subjective are of equivalent utility also.
If truth is useful then something that's subjectively true is as useful as something that's objectively true.
Yep, two minutes:Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 amYou mean other than the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about? And since I am the most damn charitable person on this forum I can't assume that he's stupid/ignorant/irrational.tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:33 pmWhat reason do you have to doubt the effectiveness of his use of any term?
-
- Posts: 12928
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
That is Circular!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:14 am Same old confusion. We use the word fact in two completely different ways, as the following dictionary definition demonstrates:
Fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.
Now, words can mean only what we use them to mean. And a thing that is known to exist, or to have occurred, is a thing that exists, or has occurred.
After all,
a thing can't be known to exist or have occurred if it doesn't exist, or didn't occur
- unless, of course, we deny that the word knowledge and its cognates mean what we use them to mean.
To bank merely on a dictionary in a philosophy forum is kindergartenish & 'cheap'.
Your 'what is fact' as feature of reality, that is the case is the illusory noumenon, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.
Existence is not a predicate.
Existence is "is" which is merely a copula to join a thing with its predicate.
This is what theists insist, i.e. God Exists! but supply no predicates.
As such,
a thing [subject or object] exists [is] as X [predicate].
e.g.
this thing exists as an apple.
What is apple [thing] must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The FSK can be common sense, conventional sense, science-biology [most realistic].
All FSKs are established and maintained by human subjects on a intersubjective basis, thus objective.
Thus, a fact; a thing that is known to exist which must be conditioned upon a specific FSK and it cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
So,
P1 A fact emerges from a 'framework and system of knowledge' [objective].
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'. [Justified elsewhere]
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Aside from the fact that correspondence is incoherent until you tell me how you've determined whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color, Peter Holmes himself. claims he rejects correspondence.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:14 pm I haven't really studied Peter Holmes's notion of objectivity, but from the little I have gleaned, it looks like a fairly standard correspondence theory. You know - there is a world independent of language and it is possible to construct bits of language that accurately describe features of that world.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 9:40 am Correspondence or representationalist theories of truth are mistakes.
Which is precisely the issue of whether whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:14 pm It's potato/potaoh I suppose, happy to use your language, but it's not that there are no privileged positions, we just don't know which, if any string of language we assemble actually describes what we might think it describes.
Which is precisely why I said that there are no privileged descriptions. Not positions.
Clearly there are situations in which it's useful to believe that.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:14 pm Clearly the people who believe the world is flat do so for a reason.
And there are situations in which it's not useful to believe that.
There are also situations in which it's useful to believe that yet people don't; in which case they are mistaken not to believe it.
And there are situations in which it's not useful to believe that yet people do; in which case they are mistaken to believe it.
But, of course - if you are heavily biased towards the context-invariant variety of 'objective truth' promulgated by philosophy in general, one might understand why you keep terminating thought at utility, when it's merely the starting point.
Seems your watch is broken. As is your thinking equipment.
If the adjectives "subjective" and "objective" are of equivalent utility when (further) qualifying the adjective 'true' then it's even more useful to discard them and let the qualifier 'true' do all the useful work.
Unless you think that using one or the other adjective is more useful for some particular purpose, in which case it would be incredibly useful to inform your interlocutors what that purpose is.
What is the purpose of using more words to say the same thing when less words would suffice? Oh, I know!
The primary purpose of stacking adjectives in philosophy is to leave an escape hatch open for when your words fail.
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Oh good, neither Peter Holmes nor myself advocate correspondence, so you can save your silly 'what colour is this' schtick for people who do.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amAside from the fact that correspondence is incoherent until you tell me how you've determined whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color, Peter Holmes himself. claims he rejects correspondence.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 9:40 am Correspondence or representationalist theories of truth are mistakes.
It's not an issue between people who are not advocating correspondence.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amWhich is precisely the issue of whether whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:14 pmIt's potato/potaoh I suppose, happy to use your language, but it's not that there are no privileged positions, we just don't know which, if any string of language we assemble actually describes what we might think it describes.
Potato/potaoh.
Depends what you mean by 'philosophy in general'. There certainly have been philosophers, who for convenience I will put under the umbrella term rationalists, who have attempted to discover some context invariant objective truth. The most famous example being Descartes whose method of doubt brought him to 'I think, therefore I am'. Then there are others who take the Socratic method to heart. Plato's major works include many that pit someone who believes there are privileged descriptions against Socrates who invariably dismantles whatever not so privileged description is being touted. Among contemporary philosophers, most rationalists will concede that their best hope is inference to the best explanation, the exceptions are often religious philosophers for whom the belief in an objective god serves some function. "Context-invariant variety of 'objective truth' promulgated by philosophy in general" is not an objective truth anywhere but the context you invent according to which that's exactly what it means.
I have thoughts that serve no useful function all the time. If I express a thought, it is usually for a reason, and usually in terms I hope whoever is listening might understand, including you. And then you keep making up stuff about how I "keep terminating thought at utility".
Re: What could make morality objective?
Oh good! Since you don't advocate for correspondence I wonder what leads you to assume my "schtick" has anything to do with correspondence?tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 amOh good, neither Peter Holmes nor myself advocate correspondence, so you can save your silly 'what colour is this' schtick for people who do.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amAside from the fact that correspondence is incoherent until you tell me how you've determined whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color, Peter Holmes himself. claims he rejects correspondence.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 9:40 am Correspondence or representationalist theories of truth are mistakes.
I am simply asking an open ended question: What makes it true that this color is red?
You are free to answer with a truth-theory that isn't the correspondence theory. Or if you want to agree to my theory - just the same: truth is the property of all true things.
Semantics really isn't going to help you avoid inserting this cactus into your rectum.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am It's not an issue between people who are not advocating correspondence.
What makes it true that this color is red?
To avoid getting lost in abstract generalities lets narrow the scope down a little, shall we? Lets talk about you.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am Depends what you mean by 'philosophy in general'. There certainly have been philosophers, who for convenience I will put under the umbrella term rationalists, who have attempted to discover some context invariant objective truth.
You seem to have settled on some context invariant "utility".
And he was an idiot for doing so. I think therefore I am hinges his existence on the assumption that his assertion "I think" is correct.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am The most famous example being Descartes whose method of doubt brought him to 'I think, therefore I am'.
But what makes the particular description "I think" "correct"? Does it mean that if Descartes wasn't thinking (maybe he was computing? Or reasoning? Maybe something else entirely?) then he wasn't?
Uhuh.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am Then there are others who take the Socratic method to heart. Plato's major works include many that pit someone who believes there are privileged descriptions against Socrates who invariably dismantles whatever not so privileged description is being touted. Among contemporary philosophers, most rationalists will concede that their best hope is inference to the best explanation, the exceptions are often religious philosophers for whom the belief in an objective god serves some function. "Context-invariant variety of 'objective truth' promulgated by philosophy in general" is not an objective truth anywhere but the context you invent according to which that's exactly what it means.
And what makes any of those theories "correct"?
I have thoughts that serve no useful function all the time.
[/quote]
Great. Do you want to tell us all about your classification rule?
The one which helps you classify some thoughts as "useful" and other thoughts as "not useful"
Yet you never seem to be able to articulate that reason. Even when prompted to switch modes of communication from abstract generalities to concrete particulars.
I wonder why.
Am I making it up?
You still haven't made your utility function explicit.
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
And I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
So it's true because it's true. Fine by me.
It's true because it's true.
It may seem like that to you, but to me it wouldn't be utility if it were context invariant.
Descartes just bundled all experience into the word think. The context was that there was some sort of consciousness, part of which was an experience of Descartesness, which Descartes took to be himself. Now, you can argue that all that the experience of Descartesness could conclude is that there was an experience of Descartesness, which does not necessarily correspond to any supplementary Descartes.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amAnd he was an idiot for doing so. I think therefore I am hinges his existence on the assumption that his assertion "I think" is correct.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am The most famous example being Descartes whose method of doubt brought him to 'I think, therefore I am'.
But what makes the particular description "I think" "correct"? Does it mean that if Descartes wasn't thinking (maybe he was computing? Or reasoning? Maybe something else entirely?) then he wasn't?
Certainly: whatever I find useful, whenever I find it useful, for whatever purpose I find it useful.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amDo you want to tell us all about your classification rule?
The one which helps you classify some thoughts as "useful" and other thoughts as "not useful"
Re: What could make morality objective?
Ah, even better!tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 amAnd I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
So you don't think this color is red? What do you think it is?
So.. do you think it's true that murder is wrong?
That's a pretty weird conception to me. In the context of time what makes something useful now and not useful in the very next moment?tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am It may seem like that to you, but to me it wouldn't be utility if it were context invariant.
And you are just doing the same sort of bundling into the word "experience".tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Descartes just bundled all experience into the word think.
Yeah. I am not sure what the difference is between "Experiencing", "Being conscious", "being aware". Because there are no privileged descriptions...so they all seem the same to me.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am The context was that there was some sort of consciousness, part of which was an experience of Descartesness, which Descartes took to be himself. Now, you can argue that all that the experience of Descartesness could conclude is that there was an experience of Descartesness, which does not necessarily correspond to any supplementary Descartes.
So you you can't tell us how you distinguish between useful and non-useful things without falling into circularity?tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Certainly: whatever I find useful, whenever I find it useful, for whatever purpose I find it useful.
That's useless to us.
-
- Posts: 3899
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
P1 is false, so the argument is unsound. The end. But -Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:36 am
P1 A fact emerges from a 'framework and system of knowledge' [objective].
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'. [Justified elsewhere]
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.
P2 is unjustified, and anyway begs the question. And -
C is unsupported by the premises.
Re: What could make morality objective?
No it isn't.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:26 amP1 is false.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:36 am
P1 A fact emerges from a 'framework and system of knowledge' [objective].
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'. [Justified elsewhere]
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.
What makes it a fact that your body; or that the world is "physical"?
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
It's red because it's red.
It's wrong because it's wrong.
I don't have the same requirements all of the time. To me it would be pretty weird if you do.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 amThat's a pretty weird conception to me. In the context of time what makes something useful now and not useful in the very next moment?tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am It may seem like that to you, but to me it wouldn't be utility if it were context invariant.
Yep.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 amAnd you are just doing the same sort of bundling into the word "experience".tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Descartes just bundled all experience into the word think.
So you too are happy to bundle them into the same bundle.
Poor you. What usefulness are you missing out on?
Re: What could make morality objective?
So this color is red but it's not true that it's red?
You sound very fucking confused.
So murder is wrong but it's not true that it's wrong?
You sound very fucking confused.
It sounds like you didn't understand the question. I didn't ask you what requirements you had "all" the time.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm I don't have the same requirements all of the time. To me it would be pretty weird if you do.
I asked you about the change from usefulness to non-usefulness from one moment to the next.
What could possibly cause such a change?
I am not. I am asking if there's a difference.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm So you too are happy to bundle them into the same bundle.
If there is a difference - they they go in different bundles.
If there is no difference - they go into the same bundle.
Is there a difference?
Knowing your classification rule for classifying things as "useful" and "not useful".
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:17 pmSo this color is red but it's not true that it's red?
You sound very fucking confused.
How useful to have a parachute. I have landed safely.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:17 pmIt sounds like you didn't understand the question. I didn't ask you what requirements you had "all" the time.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm I don't have the same requirements all of the time. To me it would be pretty weird if you do.
I asked you about the change from usefulness to non-usefulness from one moment to the next.
What could possibly cause such a change?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amI am not. I am asking if there's a difference.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm So you too are happy to bundle them into the same bundle.
If there is a difference - they they go in different bundles.
If there is no difference - they go into the same bundle.
Is there a difference?
You sound very confused. It was me that wrote that.
Ah well. What do you imagine I might gain from telling you?Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 am Knowing your classification rule for classifying things as "useful" and "not useful".
Re: What could make morality objective?
Yes those are my words.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:35 pm
Here are your words.
So it follows from your words that you don't think it's true that this color is red.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am And I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
Yes indeed. Those are my words.
Here are your words.
So it follows from your words that you don't think it's true that murder is wrong.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am And I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
There we go! A fucking use-case!. Finally.
So when does it stop being useful saying that murder is objectively wrong? When do we "land safety" metaphorically speaking?
You forgot this part:
For the stupid kid in the conversation (you). Things seeming the same and me looking for a difference between then are not mutually exclusive.
I imagine letting other people know what you want helps tremendously with other people helping you get it.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Ah well. What do you imagine I might gain from telling you?
I also imagine it helps aligning priorities.
You know - all sorts of social/cooperative stuff. Totally unlike adversarial philosophy.
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
You seem very confused. Whatever logic you have used to arrive at that conclusion, I do not think it will be useful to me.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:52 pmYes those are my words.
Here are your words.So it follows from your words that you don't think it's true that this color is red.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am And I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
Who said murder is objectively wrong? And anyway:
So you ask the stupid kid in the conversation to find the difference for you. Are you sure I'm the stupid kid?
What do you have that you think I might want?Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:52 pmI imagine letting other people know what you want helps tremendously with other people helping you get it.tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Ah well. What do you imagine I might gain from telling you?