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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:47 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:29 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:22 pm Kant was wrong;
I find Kant's status as an anti-realist controversial..
Kant is an empirical realist about the world we experience; we can know objects as they appear to us. He gives a robust defense of science and the study of the natural world from his argument about the mind’s role in making nature. All discursive, rational beings must conceive of the physical world as spatially and temporally unified, he argues. And the table of categories is derived from the most basic, universal forms of logical inference, Kant believes. Therefore, it must be shared by all rational beings. So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects. Hence, objective knowledge of the scientific or natural world is possible. Indeed, Kant believes that the examples of Newton and Galileo show it is actual. So Berkeley’s claims that we do not know objects outside of us and that such knowledge is impossible are both mistaken.
On the standard view, idealism and realism are incompatible philosophical theories. For Kant, however, they are not. He rather claims that transcendental idealism and empirical realism form a unity, i.e., only in combination they demonstrate that objects of external perception are real: Transcendental idealists hold that the objects as we represent them in space and time are appearances and not things-in-themselves. This, according to Kant, implies empirical realism, i.e., the view that the represented objects of our spatio-temporal system of experience are real beings outside us. Whereas transcendental idealism lays out the way we represent objects, i.e., the transcendental conditions of our cognition of them, empirical realism expounds that objects, although cognizable only under these conditions, exist independently of us in space and time. Therefore, Kant argues, the combination of transcendental idealism and empirical realism avoids sceptical consequences with respect to the existence of the external world.
Forget the mind - a non-physical fiction for the actual existence of which there's no evidence - and the need to synthesise realism and idealism - and to solve the mind/body problem - evaporates. If we're just objects among objects - Wittgenstein's prophylactic - then how we can perceive, know and describe objects isn't such a hard question.
Suggest you read the related article before you condemn Kant's view [provided you can understand (not necessary agree with it) Kant thoroughly].

https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/

Kant and the forms of realism
Dietmar Heidemann
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-02502-4

Otherwise you are merely making noises.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas,

[/quote] There are only objective moral facts if a conscious subject manifests them in the physical world, the physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject.
[/quote]
True because it is so obvious and a 'conscious subject' is a truism. There is no human being in general that is not conscious in some ways.
For the suicidal who is conscious, the world is utterly meaningless, thus ending their life.
[/quote]

Veritas,
You have really messed the meanings up here. You go off on a tangent about someone in depression this is not relevant to the dialogue. The fact is in the absence of a conscious subject the world is utterly meaningless. In the relation between the subject and the world as an object meaning is the sole property of the subject. Meaning is never the property of the world as an object until the subject bestows its meaning upon a meaningless world manifesting it in some objective sense in the outer world.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 8:43 am "I think, therefore I am." All meaning is a reaction to what might be called ultimate reality, the limited aspects of that which constitutes ultimate reality that we are able to sense is meaning, and is then projected upon a meaningless world. The interpretation, read the biological readout of that which is sensed is apparent reality, it is the relation between subject and object. All meaning is the subjective property of the subject and never the property of the world as object until it is bestowed upon a meaningless world by the conscious subject. In other words, the subject's subjective meaning is made objective by projection. Morality is to be understood as meaning.
That the pronoun 'I' and the parsing of the verb 'to be' exist does not imply that a subject of experience exists. Subjects and objects are not ontic categories they are social constructs.

"Therefore I am " does not follow from "think": there is no subject of experience or no object of experience, there is only experience.

Like Descartes may have exclaimed "Lighting candles!" so Descartes may have exclaimed "Thinking!" .

Like Descartes may have commanded "Pour some wine!" so Descartes may have commanded "Thinking!".

Like Descartes may have asked a companion " Feeling hungry?" so Descartes may have asked a companion "Thinking?"

Subject and object dichotomy is true only so far as experience is remembered experience.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

That the pronoun 'I' and the parsing of the verb 'to be' exist does not imply that a subject of experience exists. Subjects and objects are not ontic categories they are social constructs.

"Therefore I am " does not follow from "think": there is no subject of experience or no object of experience, there is only experience.

Like Descartes may have exclaimed "Lighting candles!" so Descartes may have exclaimed "Thinking!" .

Like Descartes may have commanded "Pour some wine!" so Descartes may have commanded "Thinking!".

Like Descartes may have asked a companion " Feeling hungry?" so Descartes may have asked a companion "Thinking?"

Subject and object dichotomy is true only so far as experience is remembered experience.
[/quote]

Belinda,

It is true there is no separation between subject on object thus they are a functional means to try to understand the relation of the parts and the whole, as in part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts, semantics can further confuse the issue. All experience if it is available is remembered experience. Perhaps Descartes was an unfortunate interjection but the terms of subject and object are necessary in understanding relations.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 4:56 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 6:45 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 10:29 am There are Objective Moral Facts
Veritas,
Marvellous.
That is good news.
Can you give an example please?
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
That is good news.
Can you give an example please?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 9:28 am That the pronoun 'I' and the parsing of the verb 'to be' exist does not imply that a subject of experience exists. Subjects and objects are not ontic categories they are social constructs.

"Therefore I am " does not follow from "think": there is no subject of experience or no object of experience, there is only experience.

Like Descartes may have exclaimed "Lighting candles!" so Descartes may have exclaimed "Thinking!" .

Like Descartes may have commanded "Pour some wine!" so Descartes may have commanded "Thinking!".

Like Descartes may have asked a companion " Feeling hungry?" so Descartes may have asked a companion "Thinking?"

Subject and object dichotomy is true only so far as experience is remembered experience.
Belinda,

It is true there is no separation between subject on object thus they are a functional means to try to understand the relation of the parts and the whole, as in part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts, semantics can further confuse the issue. All experience if it is available is remembered experience. Perhaps Descartes was an unfortunate interjection but the terms of subject and object are necessary in understanding relations.
[/quote]

I agree. "Understanding relations" is why we dichotomise subjects and objects.The most basic dichotomy for survival is me and not-me.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda,

It is true there is no separation between subject on object thus they are a functional means to try to understand the relation of the parts and the whole, as in part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts, semantics can further confuse the issue. All experience if it is available is remembered experience. Perhaps Descartes was an unfortunate interjection but the terms of subject and object are necessary in understanding relations.
[/quote]

I agree. "Understanding relations" is why we dichotomise subjects and objects.The most basic dichotomy for survival is me and not-me.

[/quote]

I think the realization should be me and not me is folly.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 12:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 4:56 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 6:45 pm
Marvellous.
That is good news.
Can you give an example please?
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
That is good news.
Can you give an example please?
In case you missed it, here's a VA go-to example: humans ought not to kill humans. And here's the reasoning.

Supposedly, humans are programmed with the potential to behave in certain ways - to do X and not to do Y. So 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' is a fact of human nature.

Then, supposedly, processed through a 'credible moral framework and system of knowledge', this is a moral fact.

But that has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. The 'ought' in 'humans ought not to kill humans' doesn't make a moral assertion. It's purely instrumental, referring to conformity to programming.

So. Supposedly, there are moral facts that have nothing to do with morality: the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

Hope that helps.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:47 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:29 pm I find Kant's status as an anti-realist controversial..

Forget the mind - a non-physical fiction for the actual existence of which there's no evidence - and the need to synthesise realism and idealism - and to solve the mind/body problem - evaporates. If we're just objects among objects - Wittgenstein's prophylactic - then how we can perceive, know and describe objects isn't such a hard question.
Suggest you read the related article before you condemn Kant's view [provided you can understand (not necessary agree with it) Kant thoroughly].

https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/

Kant and the forms of realism
Dietmar Heidemann
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-02502-4

Otherwise you are merely making noises.
Suggest you read and think about these quoted passages, because they don't support you conclusion about the significance of Kant's work. Here they are again.

'Kant is an empirical realist about the world we experience; we can know objects as they appear to us. He gives a robust defense of science and the study of the natural world from his argument about the mind’s role in making nature. All discursive, rational beings must conceive of the physical world as spatially and temporally unified, he argues. And the table of categories is derived from the most basic, universal forms of logical inference, Kant believes. Therefore, it must be shared by all rational beings. So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects. Hence, objective knowledge of the scientific or natural world is possible. Indeed, Kant believes that the examples of Newton and Galileo show it is actual. So Berkeley’s claims that we do not know objects outside of us and that such knowledge is impossible are both mistaken.

On the standard view, idealism and realism are incompatible philosophical theories. For Kant, however, they are not. He rather claims that transcendental idealism and empirical realism form a unity, i.e., only in combination they demonstrate that objects of external perception are real: Transcendental idealists hold that the objects as we represent them in space and time are appearances and not things-in-themselves. This, according to Kant, implies empirical realism, i.e., the view that the represented objects of our spatio-temporal system of experience are real beings outside us. Whereas transcendental idealism lays out the way we represent objects, i.e., the transcendental conditions of our cognition of them, empirical realism expounds that objects, although cognizable only under these conditions, exist independently of us in space and time. Therefore, Kant argues, the combination of transcendental idealism and empirical realism avoids sceptical consequences with respect to the existence of the external world.'

My objection to Kant's approach is that he felt the need to overcome or re-form empiricist skepticism by synthesising it with transcendental idealism. To put it simply: if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. And Kant's solution - his supposed Copernican Revolution with regard to what we call knowledge - his 'critique of pure reason' - creates its own problems, which have plagued philosophy ever since. We've been haunted by the ghost of 'things-in-themselves' - the infamous 'objects' - which don't and can't exist, but still need to be exorcised.

I know this is deep stuff, and that there are Kantians here who rightly reject VA's misuse of Kant's ideas. But I think the ideas themselves invite misuse. (And as for Kant on morality - the 'moral law within' - that's up at the shallow end - sadly unimpressive.)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

double posted.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Jul 03, 2022 5:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:47 pm
Forget the mind - a non-physical fiction for the actual existence of which there's no evidence - and the need to synthesise realism and idealism - and to solve the mind/body problem - evaporates. If we're just objects among objects - Wittgenstein's prophylactic - then how we can perceive, know and describe objects isn't such a hard question.
Suggest you read the related article before you condemn Kant's view [provided you can understand (not necessary agree with it) Kant thoroughly].

https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/

Kant and the forms of realism
Dietmar Heidemann
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-02502-4

Otherwise you are merely making noises.
Suggest you read and think about these quoted passages, because they don't support you conclusion about the significance of Kant's work. Here they are again.

'Kant is an empirical realist about the world we experience; we can know objects as they appear to us.
He gives a robust defense of science and the study of the natural world from his argument about the mind’s role in making nature.
All discursive, rational beings must conceive of the physical world as spatially and temporally unified, he argues.
And the table of categories is derived from the most basic, universal forms of logical inference, Kant believes.
Therefore, it must be shared by all rational beings.
So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects.
Hence, objective knowledge of the scientific or natural world is possible.
Indeed, Kant believes that the examples of Newton and Galileo show it is actual.
So Berkeley’s claims that we do not know objects outside of us and that such knowledge is impossible are both mistaken.'
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
It is rather shameful that you made the above assertions without thorough knowledge of Kant's work.

Note the following statements re Kant from above;
  • 1. the mind’s role in making nature

    2. So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects
Kant is an Empirical Realist as such he believes in the external world in one sense, but ultimately, the whole of the external world is entangled with the human conditions as implied in the above statement.
If you read the whole article, you will realize that is Kant's view which support my understanding of Kant's view.
On the standard view, idealism and realism are incompatible philosophical theories. For Kant, however, they are not.
He rather claims that transcendental idealism and empirical realism form a unity, i.e., only in combination they demonstrate that objects of external perception are real: Transcendental idealists hold that the objects as we represent them in space and time are appearances and not things-in-themselves.
This, according to Kant, implies empirical realism, i.e., the view that the represented objects of our spatio-temporal system of experience are real beings outside us.
Whereas transcendental idealism lays out the way we represent objects, i.e., the transcendental conditions of our cognition of them, empirical realism expounds that objects, although cognizable only under these conditions, exist independently of us in space and time.
Therefore, Kant argues, the combination of transcendental idealism and empirical realism avoids sceptical consequences with respect to the existence of the external world.'
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-02502-4
Typically idealism and realism are incompatible, especially subjective idealism [e.g. Berkeley's] with metaphysical/philosophical realism [your views regardless of your denial].
Kant's Empirical Realism is a special type of realism which is more realistic, not the norm.

Note my point above,
Kant is an Empirical Realist as such he believes in the external world in one sense, but ultimately, the whole of the external world is entangled with the human conditions as implied in the above statement.
My objection to Kant's approach is that he felt the need to overcome or re-form empiricist skepticism by synthesising it with transcendental idealism. To put it simply: if there's no problem, we don't need to solve it. And Kant's solution - his supposed Copernican Revolution with regard to what we call knowledge - his 'critique of pure reason' - creates its own problems, which have plagued philosophy ever since. We've been haunted by the ghost of 'things-in-themselves' - the infamous 'objects' - which don't and can't exist, but still need to be exorcised.

I know this is deep stuff, and that there are Kantians here who rightly reject VA's misuse of Kant's ideas. But I think the ideas themselves invite misuse. (And as for Kant on morality - the 'moral law within' - that's up at the shallow end - sadly unimpressive.)
Kant's purpose for his 'Copernican Revolution' in the Critique is to overcome this scandal to Philosophy;
Kant in CPR wrote:However .......,
it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof. B54
The above scandal is related to your 'Metaphysical Realism' of an independent external world of facts, thus no moral facts.
GE Moore tried to take the above challenge but failed miserably. Even Wittgenstein critique Moore severely for his ineffective challenge.

So far you have not produced any 'proof' [justification and sound argument'] to justify your 'fact-in-itself'.

The "the mind’s role in making nature" as attributed to Kant in the link above, is implication that humans are the "co-creator" of reality.

Kant wrote this (which will make you go berserk!!);
Kant wrote in CPR wrote:Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
CPR A126
What counters do you have for all of the above?

Don't shame yourself by making any assertion related to Kant until you have spent the necessary time and effort in understanding [not necessary agree with] Kant's work.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 5:40 am Note the following statements re Kant from above;
  • 1. the mind’s role in making nature

    2. So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects
So you simply ignore the fact that today we know that the mind doesn't make nature, the mind makes its experience of nature inside the head? So there is no such shared field?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes, you highlighted this without realizing that Kant is actually kicking your back;
Suggest you read and think about these quoted passages, because they don't support you conclusion about the significance of Kant's work. Here they are again.

"Kant is an empirical realist about the world we experience; we can know objects as they appear to us.
He gives a robust defense of science and the study of the natural world from his argument about the mind’s role in making nature."
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
Surely you will not agree with Kant as an empirical realist who claim that the mind has a role in making nature?

Kant has labelled those who disagree with him on the above as a Transcendental Realist who is also an 'empirical idealist'.
The Transcendental Realist thus interprets Outer Appearances (their Reality being taken as granted) as Things-in-Themselves,
which exist independently of us and of our Sensibility, and
which are therefore Outside us
the phrase 'outside us' being interpreted in conformity with Pure Concepts of Understanding [Categories].

It is, in fact, this Transcendental Realist who afterwards plays the part of Empirical Idealist.
After wrongly supposing that Objects of the Senses, if they are to be External, must have an Existence-by-themselves, and independently of the Senses,
he [the Transcendental Realist] finds that, judged from this point of view [Transcendental Realism], all our sensuous Representations are inadequate to establish their Reality.
This is why you [as transcendental realist and empirical idealist] is chasing after an illusion that is external and independent of the human conditions.
Transcendental Realism, on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism,
in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves,
treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
On such a view [Transcendental Realism] as this, however clearly we may be conscious 1 of our Representation of these Things, [but] it is still far from certain that, if the Representation exists, there exists also the Object corresponding to it.
So don't be too arrogant in condemning and mocking idealists when you are actually an idealist-in-essence.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 5:40 am Note the following statements re Kant from above;
  • 1. the mind’s role in making nature

    2. So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects
So you simply ignore the fact that today we know that the mind doesn't make nature, the mind makes its experience of nature inside the head? So there is no such shared field?
The point was Peter Holmes tried to use the above that Kant disagreed with my views of Kant.

In addition, with your point, you are so ignorant.

Note I have explained elsewhere the above does not imply in the literal sense, but the point is reality cannot be independent but rather is entangled with the human conditions.

I show you a link where Kant is touted as the "Godfather of Cognitive Science."

Since Kant's time to the present, there was and is stronger and stronger realization that reality is entangled with the human conditions, .e.g.

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
We Are All Hallucinating All The Time
"In a sense, we are all hallucinating all the time," Dr. Ramachandran said. "What we call normal vision is our selecting the hallucination that best fits reality."

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

Also the imputation of such principle in the progress from Newtonian to Eisteinian to QM in Physics.

There are tons of literatures which are going into the direction Kant was proposing [human entanglement with reality].
It is nothing new anyway, the Buddhists, Jains and others had been proposing this principle long ago since >2500 years ago.

What is critical is the above views has a greater utility for the progress of mankind in contrast to your constipated view [useful and net-pros in the past but not for the future].
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:24 am
Atla wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 5:40 am Note the following statements re Kant from above;
  • 1. the mind’s role in making nature

    2. So those beings also share judgments of an intersubjective, unified, public realm of empirical objects
So you simply ignore the fact that today we know that the mind doesn't make nature, the mind makes its experience of nature inside the head? So there is no such shared field?
The point was Peter Holmes tried to use the above that Kant disagreed with my views of Kant.

In addition, with your point, you are so ignorant.

Note I have explained elsewhere the above does not imply in the literal sense, but the point is reality cannot be independent but rather is entangled with the human conditions.

I show you a link where Kant is touted as the "Godfather of Cognitive Science."

Since Kant's time to the present, there was and is stronger and stronger realization that reality is entangled with the human conditions, .e.g.

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
We Are All Hallucinating All The Time
"In a sense, we are all hallucinating all the time," Dr. Ramachandran said. "What we call normal vision is our selecting the hallucination that best fits reality."

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

Also the imputation of such principle in the progress from Newtonian to Eisteinian to QM in Physics.

There are tons of literatures which are going into the direction Kant was proposing [human entanglement with reality].
It is nothing new anyway, the Buddhists, Jains and others had been proposing this principle long ago since >2500 years ago.

What is critical is the above views has a greater utility for the progress of mankind in contrast to your constipated view [useful and net-pros in the past but not for the future].
You are completely ignorant of the last 100 years of science, it was thoroughly debunked that mind makes nature. No, we aren't "hallucinating", that "hallucination" is the experience of reality constructed in the head.
Post Reply