A Critique on Objective Morality

[Terrapin Station]

<sigh>, so was that a yes or no?

That was a "yes." But it had conditions, one of which was that such an explanation had to exist, and another that, if the claimant was asked by a rational challenger, that rational explanation had to be presented or it didn't count for anything.

The question was only about whether Q is implied by P though. Either Q is implied by P in this case or it isn't.

[Immanuel Can]

The question was only about whether Q is implied by P though. Either Q is implied by P in this case or it isn't.

Let me make it dead simple: an "explanation" that doesn't exist even for the claimant is simply not real. An "explanation" that exists but will never be offered is useless in advancing any point. And neither has any value in a rational discussion.

Now, if that isn't clear enough, I don't think I can make it simpler.

[Terrapin Station]

The question was only about whether Q is implied by P though. Either Q is implied by P in this case or it isn't.

Let me make it dead simple: an "explanation" that doesn't exist even for the claimant is simply not real. An "explanation" that exists but will never be offered is useless in advancing any point. And neither has any value in a rational discussion.

Now, if that isn't clear enough, I don't think I can make it simpler.

None of that has anything to do with what I asked though.

[Immanuel Can]

None of that has anything to do with what I asked though.

Maybe that's because the question wasn't the right one. If you check back, you'll see we were discussing "burden of proof." My answer is on target for that.

If you had a different issue in mind, then what was it?

[Terrapin Station]

None of that has anything to do with what I asked though.

Maybe that's because the question wasn't the right one.

It's the question I was interested in at that moment. If you can't follow along and answer simple questions like that, I'm not interested.

[Immanuel Can]

It's the question I was interested in at that moment. If you can't follow along and answer simple questions like that, I'm not interested.

Well, given that we WERE talking about "burden of proof," as you can see, then I'm certainly not failing to "follow along." I just thought your question was partaking of a fallacy...the false dichotomy...an artificially-contrived "yes-or-no," with no conditions allowed, in circumstances wherein other alternatives actually exist. I was asking you to adopt a more subtle position, not rejecting your idea outright.

I thought the right answer is a bit more nuanced than the question you were prepared to offer.

[Walker]

Objective morality is nothing more than survival of the fittest, by any means necessary.

In context, there, it wouldn't be at all clear to me what you're using "objective" to refer to.

Morality

[Terrapin Station]

Well, given that we WERE talking about "burden of proof,"

But when I ask something like this: "do you agree that the mere fact that someone hasn't stated reasons or evidence for a claim doesn't imply that they do not have reasons or evidence that they consider justification for the claim" I'm not asking anything about burden of proof. I'm ONLY asking exactly what that question says.

[Terrapin Station]

Objective morality is nothing more than survival of the fittest, by any means necessary.

In context, there, it wouldn't be at all clear to me what you're using "objective" to refer to.

Morality

"Morality morality is nothing more than survival of the fittest"???

That's what you get when you substitute "morality" for "objective," if "morality" is what you're referring to with the term "objective."

[Immanuel Can]

...I'm not asking anything about burden of proof. I'm ONLY asking exactly what that question says.

Well, that's what I said...the topic was "burden of proof," and you are now saying you were off the topic. Meanwhile, I was answering on topic.

Mais, excusez-moi!

If you want a different topic, just say so. What's your new topic?

[Walker]

In context, there, it wouldn't be at all clear to me what you're using "objective" to refer to.

Morality

"Morality morality is nothing more than survival of the fittest"???

That's what you get when you substitute "morality" for "objective," if "morality" is what you're referring to with the term "objective."

No. Objective morality means survival of the fittest, by any means necessary. You omitted any means necessary.

This is the objective morality of life.

Look up the meaning of the word objective, and don't pick the one that least applies.

[Terrapin Station]

If you want a different topic, just say so. What's your new topic?

Well, in general, the topic of each of my sentences is only what the sentence is specifically about. Just so I don't have to keep announcing that with each sentence in each post/thread.

So, we agree that the mere fact that someone hasn't stated reasons or evidence for a claim doesn't imply that they do not have reasons or evidence that they consider justification for the claim.

And just to be clear, in that sentence, there's no topic that's not mentioned. That sentence is ONLY about just what it says.

Okay, next (topic): do you agree that "burden of proof" comments often occur in conversations, so that people say things like "you have the burden of proof" when someone makes a claim and doesn't immediately offer their reasons or evidence for it?

(Note that that (topic) is ONLY about what it's asking--whether those comments often occur in conversations.)

[Terrapin Station]

No. Objective morality means survival of the fittest, by any means necessary. You omitted any means necessary.

My last comment was about "morality" not making sense as a substitution for "objective." It wasn't about the semantic content of that sentence as a whole. "Morality morality" is enough to show that there's a problem. I just quoted a bit more than "Morality morality" because you might not have any idea why I'm putting the same word repeated two times in quotation marks otherwise.

Look up the meaning of the word objective, and don't pick the one that least applies.

The whole point of me making this comment to you this in the first place: "In context, there, it wouldn't be at all clear to me what you're using 'objective' to refer to" is that you don't appear to be using the term "objective" in anything like any conventional sense of it. So looking it up in a dictionary isn't going to do any good, because that will just give the conventional senses that I'm already familiar with, that your usage doesn't resemble. (Well, unless you're not at all using it in the philosophical context, but why the hell would you be doing that? The philosophical context is what this thread is clearly about, and you're on a philosophy message board.)

[Immanuel Can]

So, we agree that the mere fact that someone hasn't stated reasons or evidence for a claim doesn't imply that they do not have reasons or evidence that they consider justification for the claim.

Of course; but it doesn't imply that they do either. There would not be a way of knowing. And the claimant could not win any argument...at least, not a rational one. He would have to hope to succeed through propaganda, bluster or subterfuge of some kind. And that's not what philosophers ought to do.

Okay, next (topic): do you agree that "burden of proof" comments often occur in conversations, so that people say things like "you have the burden of proof" when someone makes a claim and doesn't immediately offer their reasons or evidence for it?

I thought you said you were not talking about "burden of proof."

But of course: and when they do, they're quite right. The claimant owes evidence and reasons. If he can't "pay up," then it's not reasonable to be persuaded by his view. Nobody rational should accept a view that has no evidence or reasons associated with it, and nobody should expect someone to do so.

[Walker]

No. Objective morality means survival of the fittest, by any means necessary. You omitted any means necessary.

My last comment was about "morality" not making sense as a substitution for "objective." It wasn't about the semantic content of that sentence as a whole. "Morality morality" is enough to show that there's a problem. I just quoted a bit more than "Morality morality" because you might not have any idea why I'm putting the same word repeated two times in quotation marks otherwise.

Look up the meaning of the word objective, and don't pick the one that least applies.

The whole point of me making this comment to you this in the first place: "In context, there, it wouldn't be at all clear to me what you're using 'objective' to refer to" is that you don't appear to be using the term "objective" in anything like any conventional sense of it. So looking it up in a dictionary isn't going to do any good, because that will just give the conventional senses that I'm already familiar with, that your usage doesn't resemble. (Well, unless you're not at all using it in the philosophical context, but why the hell would you be doing that? The philosophical context is what this thread is clearly about, and you're on a philosophy message board.)

That’s pathetic.