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

Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:25 am Color qualia are indeed components of our visual maps of reality. They are visual symbols, in the same exact way that words are verbal symbols, that we use to construct our representations of reality.
Disagree, when contrasted with each other, words are abstract symbols, but color qualia have concrete existence, they aren't symbols. Color qualia are part of the natural (indirect realism) representation, and words are used to construct a representation within the above representation.
By definition, they are things that exist within minds, so they are subjective.
Yes we are talking about the contents of our minds which can always be seen as subjective.
As such, there is no such thing as color qualia existing "out there" where by "out there" I mean outside of our minds.
I don't see why not. The inanimate external world seems to be made of the same materials as the human brain, just in different compositions. So occasionally, when the conditions are right, why couldn't the same color qualia occur in the external world?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:25 am In the case of "This apple is red", the subject is clearly "this apple" and the predicate is obviously "red". The language is telling us that the portion of reality we're describing is the apple. The predicate further indicates that we're really really only describing a single aspect of that apple, namely, its color. So, if we want to be precise, the subject of the statement "This apple is red" is the color of that apple.

This does not mean that the language that we're using is indicating that the word "color" means "color qualia that exists outside of minds".
It merely indicates that the word "color" is defined as a property of physical objects.
It indicates that the word "color" does not refer to color qualia, but rather, to an aspect of physical objects that causes us to perceive them in certain ways under certain conditions.
Specifically, it indicates that the word "color" means "the texture of a physical object".
Red, green, blue, black, white, yellow, orange, magenta, etc. are merely different names for different textures.
In the same exact way, the visual symbols that our brains use to construct our visual perceptions of reality, what we call color qualia, are merely different visual symbols for different types of light ( color qualia do not represent textures, they merely represent light. )
As I had claimed [pragmatism aside] all philosophical issues are reducible to Philosophical Realism [an evolutionary default] versus anti-Philosophical-Realism.
There are many kinds of anti-Philosophical-Realism but is central theme is that it is NOT Philosophical Realism, i.e. a mind-independent reality.
Philosophical realism is ... about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
That why you stated;
MA: It indicates that the word "color" does not refer to color qualia, but rather, to an aspect of physical objects that causes us to perceive them in certain ways under certain conditions.

As per Philosophical Realism, both the aspect [textures] and its physical object exist as a mind-independent objective reality [fact] outside the human mind's perception, beliefs, opinions and judgments.

When asked what is this independent objective fact, people like Peter Holmes will merely blabber, that independent object fact is a feature of reality that is 'just-is', being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs, and the like without any other details and explanatory force. Why Philosophical Realists are so dogmatic with this mind-independent stance is driven by an evolutionary default of external-ness independent of internal-ness [mind].

The point is, what is reality CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent, somehow that reality that is perceived as external is 'entangled' with the human conditions. Note I am not using the term 'dependent' as it can be very misleading.
It is that what is reality cannot be disentangled from the human conditions.
  • Reality is all-there-is.
    All humans are part and parcel [not independent] of all-there-is - determinism [not absolute].
    Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions.
Philosophical Realism that claims reality is independent of the human condition is not realistic, as in you claiming colors and its object are independent from the human conditions and humans are merely effected by the independent things via perception.

Anti-philosophical-realists [mine is Kantian] claimed reality and the things therein cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions.

But human conditions are vulnerable to fallibility and varied which mean we could have 8 billion individual versions of reality, i.e. it is thus subjective.

To ensure objectivity, whatever reality, facts, truth, knowledge and objectivity must be conditioned upon specific human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK has the most credible and reliable thus most objective degree of reality and knowledge.

Note also, before any thing is perceived, known and described, it has to go through the prior process of realization and emergence; this is conditioned upon an inevitable history of 13.7 billion years of conditions since the Big Bang to the present.

Re Skepdick question, as I read it, he is asking what FSK are you conditioning your sense of reality? A trichromat or a tetrachromat or whatever which you must qualified with whatever your answer.
You just cannot claim, because 'I said so' as if you are God.

For any proposition [general] I state about color, in this case with a need for rigor, I will qualify it to the science-physic FSK - the most credible; i.e. it is because the science-physic FSK said so, not because I said so.
In this case, what is color is the color wavelengths reflected of the physical texture as qualified to the human based science-physic FSK; this is not mind-independent because the human based science-physic FSK is not mind-independent but based on a collective of subjective minds in consensus.

One can say this color is "red" is true but only qualified within its defined human-based FSK and its conditions, i.e. redefining the names assigned to the various range of color wavelengths.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:27 am
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:49 amAway from your conceptual error.
I won't answer your question if you can't show it's worth answering.
Yeah, keep moving those goal posts and shifting the burden instead of admitting to being wrong.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Atla wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:43 am
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:25 am Color qualia are indeed components of our visual maps of reality. They are visual symbols, in the same exact way that words are verbal symbols, that we use to construct our representations of reality.
Disagree, when contrasted with each other, words are abstract symbols, but color qualia have concrete existence, they aren't symbols.
Let me try to parse you. You're saying:

1) Words are abstract symbols.

2) Color qualia have concrete existence.

3) Color qualia aren't symbols.

It appears that you're deducing ( 3 ) from ( 2 ) but I'm not sure. Can you confirm that?

I don't know what you mean by "abstract symbol".

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "concrete existence".

Can you define these terms?

As I understand it, a thing is said to be concrete if and only if it is tangible, i.e. if it can be touched. This basically means that only physical objects are concrete.

Are color qualia physical objects? Can you touch them? You can't, right? So they aren't really concrete. But what about words? A written word is an ink on paper. Can you touch that? You can. So written words are concrete things. What about spoken words? They are air vibrations. Can you touch a vibration? You can't. But you can touch particles that are vibrating. So are spoken words concrete? Since speech conveys information via particle motion, rather than particles themselves, I'd say that they are not.

Most importantly, I don't understand why it matters whether or not color qualia are concrete. The same applies to words. Why does it matter whether or not words are concrete? Anything that can convey information can be a symbol, which means, pretty much anything can be a symbol, regardless of whether or not it is a concrete object.
Color qualia are part of the natural (indirect realism) representation, and words are used to construct a representation within the above representation.
Every representation is made out of nothing but symbols. Therefore, if color qualia are part of our visual representations of reality, it follows that color qualia are symbols. Yet, you're claiming that color qualia aren't symbols.
I don't see why not. The inanimate external world seems to be made of the same materials as the human brain, just in different compositions. So occasionally, when the conditions are right, why couldn't the same color qualia occur in the external world?
Because the term "color qualia" is defined as something subjective, i.e. existing within minds.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 6:22 amYeah, keep moving those goal posts and shifting the burden instead of admitting to being wrong.
You have to show me that I am wrong. You haven't done that.

Right now, you're being an arrogant pr-ck demanding that the other side admits that they are wrong. I can do the same but I have more interest in these issues, and more generally, in resolving disagreements through dialog, than I do in dick contests.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:55 pm
Atla wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:43 am
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:25 am Color qualia are indeed components of our visual maps of reality. They are visual symbols, in the same exact way that words are verbal symbols, that we use to construct our representations of reality.
Disagree, when contrasted with each other, words are abstract symbols, but color qualia have concrete existence, they aren't symbols.
Let me try to parse you. You're saying:

1) Words are abstract symbols.

2) Color qualia have concrete existence.

3) Color qualia aren't symbols.

It appears that you're deducing ( 3 ) from ( 2 ) but I'm not sure. Can you confirm that?

I don't know what you mean by "abstract symbol".

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "concrete existence".

Can you define these terms?

As I understand it, a thing is said to be concrete if and only if it is tangible, i.e. if it can be touched. This basically means that only physical objects are concrete.

Are color qualia physical objects? Can you touch them? You can't, right? So they aren't really concrete. But what about words? A written word is an ink on paper. Can you touch that? You can. So written words are concrete things. What about spoken words? They are air vibrations. Can you touch a vibration? You can't. But you can touch particles that are vibrating. So are spoken words concrete? Since speech conveys information via particle motion, rather than particles themselves, I'd say that they are not.

Most importantly, I don't understand why it matters whether or not color qualia are concrete. The same applies to words. Why does it matter whether or not words are concrete? Anything that can convey information can be a symbol, which means, pretty much anything can be a symbol, regardless of whether or not it is a concrete object.
Color qualia are part of the natural (indirect realism) representation, and words are used to construct a representation within the above representation.
Every representation is made out of nothing but symbols. Therefore, if color qualia are part of our visual representations of reality, it follows that color qualia are symbols. Yet, you're claiming that color qualia aren't symbols.
I don't see why not. The inanimate external world seems to be made of the same materials as the human brain, just in different compositions. So occasionally, when the conditions are right, why couldn't the same color qualia occur in the external world?
Because the term "color qualia" is defined as something subjective, i.e. existing within minds.
So again I should explain indirect realism. And now the abstract/concrete dichotomy. And then why our faulty definition of "subjective" doesn't override reality. Let's agree to disagree.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:00 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 6:22 amYeah, keep moving those goal posts and shifting the burden instead of admitting to being wrong.
You have to show me that I am wrong. You haven't done.

Right now, you're being an arrogant pr-ck demanding that the other side admits that they are wrong. I can do the same but I have more interest in these issues, and more generally, in resolving disagreements through dialog, than I do in dick contests.
What could be more arrogant than somebody who can’t recognize their own error, even after it has been explained to them?
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:13 pmWhat could be more arrogant than somebody who can’t recognize their own error, even after it has been explained to them?
Someone who enters conversations with the conviction that they are right and that the other person is wrong.
Such as, for example, you.

Someone who says something and expects others to be immediately convinced by it.
Such as, for example, you.

Do you understand that I can say the same exact thing about you? I, too, can complain about you not being able to recognize your own error after it has been explained to you. But I don't do that because it is not only pointless but it actually destroys the quality of conversations. It's what leads to dick contests.

If other people aren't convinced by what you're saying, it's because one of the following:

1) what you did wasn't enough for them to become aware of their mistake ( so you have to try again, perhaps after asking them to explain to you why they aren't convicned )

2) they didn't make a mistake, it's merely you erroneously thinking that they did ( which you can discover by asking them to explain to you why they aren't convinced by your arguments )

If you're going to ask someone a question, you should know that if they don't see the relevance of your question, they won't answer it. That's how things work in reality. People aren't answering machines. They aren't there to answer whatever questions you want them to answer. If you want them to answer your question, you have to convince them that your question is a relevant one. You're refusing to do that. And that's your prerogative. But then, don't complain about them not being the way you want them to be.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:47 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:13 pmWhat could be more arrogant than somebody who can’t recognize their own error, even after it has been explained to them?
Someone who enters conversations with the conviction that they are right and that the other person is wrong.
Such as, for example, you.

Someone who says something and expects others to be immediately convinced by it.
Such as, for example, you.

Do you understand that I can say the same exact thing about you? I, too, can complain about you not being able to recognize your own error after it has been explained to you. But I don't do that because it is not only pointless but it actually destroys the quality of conversations. It's what leads to dick contests.

If other people aren't convinced by what you're saying, it's because one of the following:

1) what you did wasn't enough for them to become aware of their mistake ( so you have to try again, perhaps after asking them to explain to you why they aren't convicned )

2) they didn't make a mistake, it's merely you erroneously thinking that they did ( which you can discover by asking them to explain to you why they aren't convinced by your arguments )

If you're going to ask someone a question, you should know that if they don't see the relevance of your question, they won't answer it. That's how things work in reality. People aren't answering machines. They aren't there to answer whatever questions you want them to answer. If you want them to answer your question, you have to convince them that your question is a relevant one. You're refusing to do that. And that's your prerogative. But then, don't complain about them not being the way you want them to be.
It isn’t arrogance when the person is right about you being wrong.

It isn’t arrogance when the person is right about you being arrogant either.

What I said is enough to convince a reasonable person, but it’s not enough to convince you.

What is the color of this question?

... and why isn't it on the visible spectrum?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, so, how on earth could morality be objective unless the conscious subject created it outside himself/herself? Let stop beating this horse, its dead. Morality is biological extension, an expression of humanity, the subjective meaning made objective in his outer world in behavioral norms, rules/laws, and institutions/churches/temples to make these subjective sentiments sacred, and to be used in the judgment of others.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 6:56 pm The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, so, how on earth could morality be objective unless the conscious subject created it outside himself/herself?
That's precisely the point! The notion of "objectivity", and the subjective-objective distinction is utterly meaningless without humans.

Objectivity is a social construct. Outside of human affairs nothing is "objective" or "subjective", so searching for objecective morals outside of humanity is a conceptual confusion of highest degree.

Humans exist.
Humans are part of reality.
Humans have morals.
Those morals have causal effect on behaviour and human interaction - they are as objective as any other phenomenon.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:21 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 6:56 pm The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, so, how on earth could morality be objective unless the conscious subject created it outside himself/herself?
That's precisely the point! The notion of "objectivity", and the subjective-objective distinction is utterly meaningless without humans.

Objectivity is a social construct. Outside of human affairs nothing is "objective" or "subjective", so searching for objecective morals outside of humanity is a conceptual confusion of highest degree.

Humans exist.
Humans are part of reality.
Humans have morals.
Those morals have causal effect on behaviour and human interaction - they are as objective as any other phenomenon.
What if anything are you objecting to?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:50 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:21 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 6:56 pm The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, so, how on earth could morality be objective unless the conscious subject created it outside himself/herself?
That's precisely the point! The notion of "objectivity", and the subjective-objective distinction is utterly meaningless without humans.

Objectivity is a social construct. Outside of human affairs nothing is "objective" or "subjective", so searching for objecective morals outside of humanity is a conceptual confusion of highest degree.

Humans exist.
Humans are part of reality.
Humans have morals.
Those morals have causal effect on behaviour and human interaction - they are as objective as any other phenomenon.
What if anything are you objecting to?
Your misunderstanding of how we-the-subjects construct that which we call "objectivity".
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:52 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:50 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:21 pm
That's precisely the point! The notion of "objectivity", and the subjective-objective distinction is utterly meaningless without humans.

Objectivity is a social construct. Outside of human affairs nothing is "objective" or "subjective", so searching for objecective morals outside of humanity is a conceptual confusion of highest degree.

Humans exist.
Humans are part of reality.
Humans have morals.
Those morals have causal effect on behaviour and human interaction - they are as objective as any other phenomenon.
What if anything are you objecting to?
Your misunderstanding of how we-the-subjects construct that which we call "objectivity".
So, point out where my reasoning goes astray, that is what we are here for.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:06 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:52 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:50 pm

What if anything are you objecting to?
Your misunderstanding of how we-the-subjects construct that which we call "objectivity".
So, point out where my reasoning goes astray, that is what we are here for.
I did already.

Objectivity is only a meaningful notion in a social context.

It's objectively true that today is the Sunday, 28th May 2023 and that the time is 19:12 GMT, even though without humans time, calendars or weekdays wouldn't exist.
Post Reply