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

popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

"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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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.
"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."

If you exclude the term "conscious" from the above, the sentence above is still meaningful and understandable.

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 [-] subject.
Morality is to be understood as meaning.
Every term or word have a meaning to it.
Thus there is nothing unique with "Morality is to be understood as meaning."

What is critical with Morality & Ethics [in their specific meaning] is how to translate them into actions that will generate optimal net-good continuously for humanity.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 4:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 10:26 am 1 Here is your non sequitur fallacy.

Premise: We necessarily perceive, know and describe what we call reality in a human way.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the human conditions'; and we can never know what reality really is.
Your above is a strawman and I have never argued in the above manner.
You're the real beggar!

Your "what we call reality in a human way" is exactly the same as the geocentrists claim of what we [geocentrists] call reality in a human way.
It is also the same with theists claiming 'what they call god given reality in a human way'.

You are begging the question that reality exists are real in a human way without providing any justifications that there is such a real reality as yours.

Your "what we call reality in a human way" also a give-away that imply there is some sort of human dependence or entanglement in some way.

Your argument can be presented in another way which is acceptable, i.e.;
  • Premise 1: We necessarily perceive, know and describe what we call reality in a human way.
    Premise 2: Human way means entangled with humans.
    Conclusion: Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the human conditions'; and we can never know 'what reality really is' without any human entanglement.
Point is there is no absolute independent reality-in-itself or reality-by-itself and no reality is an "island-by-itself".
Reality is always entangled with the human conditions in some ways.

What is really real is the reality that emerges with the human conditions within the human FSK and realized as facts [non-realists] within other specific FSK.

Kant had already called for a shift in paradigm of understanding what is reality with his Copernican Revolution; unfortunately his call was too advance for his time.

Why you are the beggar of your supposed independent reality is because you and all humans are necessarily hardwired for that via evolution. But such a view of independent reality is only optimal for the past but not the future.
We have to shift paradigm to understand reality as it is, i.e. entangled with the human conditions to face impending future global and galactic threats to humanity.

2 You misunderstand the aim of metaphysics, which is precisely to describe reality as it really is - 'the fundamental nature of reality'. And given this, you should oppose metaphysical realism just as much as you oppose physical realism.
Yes, metaphysics is to be critical and understand reality as it really is, which is entangled with the human conditions.

What you are thinking of "reality as it really is" is based on some ancient evolutionary impulse which was necessary and optimal for the evolutionary past: but towards the future there is a gradual turning to what is really realistic. i.e. reality as it really is is entangled with the human conditions.

For 3.5 billion years since our single-celled ancestors to the current phase of evolution it was necessary for humans to view reality "outward" as independent from the human conditions and it is still necessary in some ways, e.g. Newtonian Physics and the likes.
But to deal with future global and galactical threats humanity need to gravitate to the more realistic view of reality, i.e. reality as entangled with the human conditions.
I have discussed the pros of this view that is outweighing the past views.
3 To repeat, 'a credible moral framework and system of knowledge' is your own question-begging invention. It's a chateau de sable que les vagues vont detruire.
Strawman.

I have argued the most credible facts are the scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also the mathematical FSK] based on acceptable criteria.
My proposed moral FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts will be of near equivalence to the scientific FSK.
My moral FSK as credible is valid in principle and I agree I will have to justify this near-equivalence.

Note I have mentioned this a 000s times already, my moral facts are not based on individuals or groups opinions or beliefs on moral issues,
but rather they are moral facts emerging from the moral FSK are based on a matter-of-fact of moral potentiality as justified by science and are represented by physical neural correlates in the brain and body.
P1 Cockroaches necessarily perceive {know and describe what they call] reality in a cockroach-way.
P2 Cockroach-way means entangled with cockroaches.
C Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the cockroach conditions'; and cockroaches can never know 'what reality really is' without any cockroach entanglement.

P1 is true, and P2 merely restates it, adding the vague metaphor of 'entanglement'. Entanglement of what with what? Perception with that-which-is-perceived? But then, what is it that's perceived? Erm. Error. Reboot.

But the conclusion makes two different claims:

1 Reality - the existence and nature of things - is entangled with the cockroach conditions. This means: reality is as cockroaches perceive it.

Question: Are humans living in the reality as cockroaches perceive it? (If not, then this claim is false.)

2 Cockroaches can never know 'what reality really is' without any cockroach entanglement. This means: cockroaches can know reality only as they perceive it.

Questions: What is the 'reality-as-it-really-is' that cockroaches can never know? Is it something that could exist, but happens not to?

Dig deep, VA. Try really really really hard.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas,

The topic post is, " Is morality objective or subjective."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
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 9:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 4:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 10:26 am 1 Here is your non sequitur fallacy.

Premise: We necessarily perceive, know and describe what we call reality in a human way.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the human conditions'; and we can never know what reality really is.
Your above is a strawman and I have never argued in the above manner.
You're the real beggar!

Your "what we call reality in a human way" is exactly the same as the geocentrists claim of what we [geocentrists] call reality in a human way.
It is also the same with theists claiming 'what they call god given reality in a human way'.

You are begging the question that reality exists are real in a human way without providing any justifications that there is such a real reality as yours.

Your "what we call reality in a human way" also a give-away that imply there is some sort of human dependence or entanglement in some way.

Your argument can be presented in another way which is acceptable, i.e.;
  • Premise 1: We necessarily perceive, know and describe what we call reality in a human way.
    Premise 2: Human way means entangled with humans.
    Conclusion: Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the human conditions'; and we can never know 'what reality really is' without any human entanglement.
Point is there is no absolute independent reality-in-itself or reality-by-itself and no reality is an "island-by-itself".
Reality is always entangled with the human conditions in some ways.

What is really real is the reality that emerges with the human conditions within the human FSK and realized as facts [non-realists] within other specific FSK.

Kant had already called for a shift in paradigm of understanding what is reality with his Copernican Revolution; unfortunately his call was too advance for his time.

Why you are the beggar of your supposed independent reality is because you and all humans are necessarily hardwired for that via evolution. But such a view of independent reality is only optimal for the past but not the future.
We have to shift paradigm to understand reality as it is, i.e. entangled with the human conditions to face impending future global and galactic threats to humanity.

2 You misunderstand the aim of metaphysics, which is precisely to describe reality as it really is - 'the fundamental nature of reality'. And given this, you should oppose metaphysical realism just as much as you oppose physical realism.
Yes, metaphysics is to be critical and understand reality as it really is, which is entangled with the human conditions.

What you are thinking of "reality as it really is" is based on some ancient evolutionary impulse which was necessary and optimal for the evolutionary past: but towards the future there is a gradual turning to what is really realistic. i.e. reality as it really is is entangled with the human conditions.

For 3.5 billion years since our single-celled ancestors to the current phase of evolution it was necessary for humans to view reality "outward" as independent from the human conditions and it is still necessary in some ways, e.g. Newtonian Physics and the likes.
But to deal with future global and galactical threats humanity need to gravitate to the more realistic view of reality, i.e. reality as entangled with the human conditions.
I have discussed the pros of this view that is outweighing the past views.
3 To repeat, 'a credible moral framework and system of knowledge' is your own question-begging invention. It's a chateau de sable que les vagues vont detruire.
Strawman.

I have argued the most credible facts are the scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also the mathematical FSK] based on acceptable criteria.
My proposed moral FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts will be of near equivalence to the scientific FSK.
My moral FSK as credible is valid in principle and I agree I will have to justify this near-equivalence.

Note I have mentioned this a 000s times already, my moral facts are not based on individuals or groups opinions or beliefs on moral issues,
but rather they are moral facts emerging from the moral FSK are based on a matter-of-fact of moral potentiality as justified by science and are represented by physical neural correlates in the brain and body.
P1 Cockroaches necessarily perceive {know and describe what they call] reality in a cockroach-way.
P2 Cockroach-way means entangled with cockroaches.
C Therefore, reality - the existence and nature of things - is 'entangled with the cockroach conditions'; and cockroaches can never know 'what reality really is' without any cockroach entanglement.

P1 is true, and P2 merely restates it, adding the vague metaphor of 'entanglement'. Entanglement of what with what? Perception with that-which-is-perceived? But then, what is it that's perceived? Erm. Error. Reboot.

But the conclusion makes two different claims:

1 Reality - the existence and nature of things - is entangled with the cockroach conditions. This means: reality is as cockroaches perceive it.

Question: Are humans living in the reality as cockroaches perceive it? (If not, then this claim is false.)

2 Cockroaches can never know 'what reality really is' without any cockroach entanglement. This means: cockroaches can know reality only as they perceive it.

Questions: What is the 'reality-as-it-really-is' that cockroaches can never know? Is it something that could exist, but happens not to?

Dig deep, VA. Try really really really hard.
Rather you should be the one who has to dig deeply and widely.

Note Thomas Nagel wrote,
What Is It Like to Be a Bat?

The generic issue is thus;

What Is It Like to Be a [X]?
'X' in this case is any living entity.
So you can input "cockroaches" as X.

'X' can range from a one-celled organisms, virus,
to human beings,
to possibly intelligent human-like aliens 1 million times more advanced than humans.

The entangled reality for one-celled would probably a world of molecules, not macro-objects and its concepts humans are entangled with its human FSK.

Possible intelligent human-like alien will definitely entangled with a reality which is nothing like what present humans are experiencing.

Now WHO ARE YOU to conclude the supposed-reality entangled and experienced by any entities,
should be what humans like fallible you [recently evolved and continuing to evolve] think or speculate it should ultimately be? You are playing God here!

Point is, no rational entities should beg the question that there is an absolute independent ultimate reality [reality-as-it-really-is] [e.g. God created reality as claimed by theists] without a rational justification which can only be objective to its existing FSK.

Thus the hasty concluding [bottom-up] of there is a reality-as-it-really-is is a non-starter as an absolute independent reality is an impossibility.

Thus what is most realistic is the top-down approach i.e. each entity if they have the ability to claim "what is reality", then they can only justify what-is-reality based on their best credible FSK which is entangled with themselves respectively.

If 'cockroaches' can reach human-like abilities in 1 million years from now, rationally they can only claim reality is entangled with the evolved cockroach conditions.

My point;
What is realistic for humans at present is the reality that emerges from the human FSK and its sub-FSKs wherein that reality has to be entangled with the human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 9:12 am The topic post is, " Is morality objective or subjective."
There is no need to invoke the term 'consciousness' for the OP.
Appreciate if you could critique this thread which is relevant.
There are Objective Moral Facts
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6593
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 10:06 am Possible intelligent human-like alien will definitely entangled with a reality which is nothing like what present humans are experiencing.
Here we have VA explaining what MUST BE the case about the experience of an intelligent alien.
This alien will be entangled with a reality which is nothing like what present humans are experiencing.

VA is, of course, not this potential alien. Yet, somehow he knows what this alien, who is a part of reality, cannot be experiencing.

Since he believes there is no independent reality how can he make unqualified statements about that reality?
How can he possibly know there will be no overlap?

Does VA realize that he is making metaphysical claims about the nature of REALITY while claiming that there is no common reality? And with great certainty?

Why is this a common experience: someone is telling you you cannot (epistemologically) know certain things while at the same time, expressing with certainty about similar things?

Why is this a common experience: someone who thinks there is no reality except that specific one experienced by a specific body, telling or implying all sorts of things that must be true for AAAAALLLLLLL!?

And with great certainty.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 10:06 am Possible intelligent human-like alien will definitely entangled with a reality which is nothing like what present humans are experiencing.
Here we have VA explaining what MUST BE the case about the experience of an intelligent alien.
This alien will be entangled with a reality which is nothing like what present humans are experiencing.

VA is, of course, not this potential alien. Yet, somehow he knows what this alien, who is a part of reality, cannot be experiencing.

Since he believes there is no independent reality how can he make unqualified statements about that reality?
How can he possibly know there will be no overlap?

Does VA realize that he is making metaphysical claims about the nature of REALITY while claiming that there is no common reality? And with great certainty?

Why is this a common experience: someone is telling you you cannot (epistemologically) know certain things while at the same time, expressing with certainty about similar things?

Why is this a common experience: someone who thinks there is no reality except that specific one experienced by a specific body, telling or implying all sorts of things that must be true for AAAAALLLLLLL!?

And with great certainty.
Agreed. And I'd put it like this.

If reality-as-it-really-is is not something that could exist, but happens not to, then it's pointless to deny its existence. And contrasting reality-as-it-really-is with what we call reality is ridiculous.

Kant was wrong; anti-realism is a profound mistake; and an anti-realist argument for moral realism/objectivism is absurd.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6593
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

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.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

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.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 10:29 am
popeye1945 wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 9:12 am The topic post is, " Is morality objective or subjective."
There is no need to invoke the term 'consciousness' for the OP.
Appreciate if you could critique this thread which is relevant.
There are Objective Moral Facts
Veritas,

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.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

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?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
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 12:22 pm If reality-as-it-really-is is not something that could exist, but happens not to, then it's pointless to deny its existence. And contrasting reality-as-it-really-is with what we call reality is ridiculous.

Kant was wrong; anti-realism is a profound mistake; and an anti-realist argument for moral realism/objectivism is absurd.
You are too blind and dogmatic to understand reality-per-se due to selective attention disorder and confirmation bias arising from an evolutionary necessity of the past which due date is expiring soon.

As with "what is fact", there are two readings of "reality-as-it-really-is", i.e.
  • 1. the realists' version which is not realistic per se.

    2. the anti-realists' version [Kantian] which is realistic per se.
Note there are many forms of anti-realisms and mine is of the Kantian version. The other forms of anti-realisms had different degrees of credibility to some which are absurd, e.g. Berkeley's Subjective Idealism.

It is only with your unrealistic version of "reality-as-it-really-is" that you conclude
"contrasting reality-as-it-really-is with what we call "reality" [R] is ridiculous" because your initial premise in ridiculous in the first place.
Your "reality' R is a non-starter which is the same as theists claiming for God [G] as the most real.

With the Kantian version of "reality-as-it-really-is" there is nothing to compare to except what-is-reality-is-what-is-experienced [WIRIWIE]. This must be supported by rational philosophical reasonings within the respective FSKs.
As such what is reality to any other living entities from one-celled to possible human-like aliens of 1000x more intelligent than humans, what is reality is confined to their respective entangled WIRIWIE.

What is critical for Kantian "reality-as-it-is" is whether the experience of it and its conception can be transformed into actions net-good on a continuous trend optimally for humanity.
One of this is the moral FSK to guide moral actions systematically [note the 'S' in FSK] for the net-good on a continuous trend optimally for humanity.

With your unrealistic and illusory inference of reality-as-it-is which is independent of the human conditions, everything is a topsy-turvy and in a mess that will enable evil of the worst to manifest for humanity now [as evident] and in the future.

Btw, have you any counter to my claim;
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 6:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 10:29 am
popeye1945 wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 9:12 am The topic post is, " Is morality objective or subjective."
There is no need to invoke the term 'consciousness' for the OP.
Appreciate if you could critique this thread which is relevant.
There are Objective Moral Facts
Veritas,

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.
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.
Post Reply