Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

Do you understand equivocation? Using a word in two or more different ways? If you do, you can see why your question is incoherent, as I explained with the example of mathematical objects. The premise 'if there are mathematical objects, then mathematical objects exist' is a conceptual mess, given a physical use of the word 'exist'.

If, as a physicalist, you say that mathematical objects - or any other abstract things, such as meanings - exist, then you must clarify your use of the word 'exist' in that context. In other words, if you think they exist in a non-physical way, you must, as a physicalist, justify that claim.

Try these claims:

1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist.
2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist.
3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.
4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.

You've said that I may be deaf to the use of language in these contexts. But if you really can see no difference between the uses of 'exist' in 1 and 2, and its uses in 3 and 4, then I suggest the problem is yours.

Your views are in a mess because you are grounding your claims based on an assumption of Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which is grounded on a psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis.

'Exist' or existence is not a predicate.
"Exist" or "is" is merely a copula that joins the subject to the predicate.

Whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Thus

• 1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
  2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist, as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
  3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
  4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.

Whatever the proper meaning of any term it must be conditioned by the Semantics FSK and whether the term and its meaning say 'cat' exists as real, it must be conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.

So, whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Objective moral principles exist as conditioned by the Moral FSK which is a near equivalent to the credible Scientific FSK.

No, we've done all this many times already.

A description of a real thing is a truth-claim, and a description is always contextual.

But, as you say, existence is not a predicate; a thing either does or doesn't exist. So the existence of a thing is not 'conditioned' or dependent on a descriptive context. That a thing exists has nothing to do with how it is described.

We have empirical evidence for the actual existence of cats, claws and sentences. But, to my knowledge, we have no evidence for the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness.

An opinion - even one held by everyone - is still an opinion, which is subjective. But a fact - such as the existence of cats, claws and sentences - even one acknowledged by nobody - is still a fact, how ever we name and describe it.

[Skepdick]

Why wouldn't I argue that my thirst is a subjective experience?

Obviously you would because in the trivial sense it's "all private information".

But from a physiological standpoint it's pretty idiotic to argue that thirst is subjective.

You can't ignore your thirst like you can ignore the beauty of a painting.

[Skepdick]

All experience is subjective experience for only biological consciousness is able to experience, and experience is knowledge/meaning, the objective world is meaningless, in the absence of a conscious subject.

You are trapped in the connotation of your own distinction.

I am an object. TO YOU.
I am an object to every other biological consciousness out there.
Everything true about me is objectively true.

It is objectively true that I experience pain when I stub my toe.
It is objectively true that I like pancakes

It is objectively true that I find knowledge meaningful, and it is objectively true that not everybody finds knowledge meaningful.

[Age]

Why wouldn't I argue that my thirst is a subjective experience?

Obviously you would because in the trivial sense it's "all private information".

But from a physiological standpoint it's pretty idiotic to argue that thirst is subjective.

You can't ignore your thirst like you can ignore the beauty of a painting.

And, this 'private information' compared to 'shared information' is WHY there STILL exists CONFUSION about 'objective' and 'subjective', in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

All experience is subjective experience for only biological consciousness is able to experience, and experience is knowledge/meaning, the objective world is meaningless, in the absence of a conscious subject.

You are trapped in the connotation of your own distinction.

I am an object. TO YOU.
I am an object to every other biological consciousness out there.
Everything true about me is objectively true.

And, what does this 'object' look like, EXACTLY?

It is objectively true that I experience pain when I stub my toe.
It is objectively true that I like pancakes

And, what do 'you' base the 'objectivity' here on, EXACTLY?

It is objectively true that I find knowledge meaningful, and it is objectively true that not everybody finds knowledge meaningful.

To you, is it 'objectively true' that 'morality' is objective? Or, is it objectively true' that 'morality' is subjective? Is it 'objectively true' that 'morality' is BOTH objective AND subjective", Or, is it 'objectively true' that 'morality' is NEITHER objective NOR subjective?

And, how do you differentiate between what is 'subjectively true' and what is 'objectively true'?

[Age]

Do you understand equivocation? Using a word in two or more different ways? If you do, you can see why your question is incoherent, as I explained with the example of mathematical objects. The premise 'if there are mathematical objects, then mathematical objects exist' is a conceptual mess, given a physical use of the word 'exist'.

If, as a physicalist, you say that mathematical objects - or any other abstract things, such as meanings - exist, then you must clarify your use of the word 'exist' in that context. In other words, if you think they exist in a non-physical way, you must, as a physicalist, justify that claim.

Try these claims:

1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist.
2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist.
3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.
4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.

You've said that I may be deaf to the use of language in these contexts. But if you really can see no difference between the uses of 'exist' in 1 and 2, and its uses in 3 and 4, then I suggest the problem is yours.

Your views are in a mess because you are grounding your claims based on an assumption of Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which is grounded on a psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis.

'Exist' or existence is not a predicate.
"Exist" or "is" is merely a copula that joins the subject to the predicate.

Whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Thus

• 1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
  2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist, as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
  3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
  4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.

Whatever the proper meaning of any term it must be conditioned by the Semantics FSK and whether the term and its meaning say 'cat' exists as real, it must be conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.

So, whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Objective moral principles exist as conditioned by the Moral FSK which is a near equivalent to the credible Scientific FSK.

No, we've done all this many times already.

A description of a real thing is a truth-claim, and a description is always contextual.

But, as you say, existence is not a predicate; a thing either does or doesn't exist. So the existence of a thing is not 'conditioned' or dependent on a descriptive context. That a thing exists has nothing to do with how it is described.

We have empirical evidence for the actual existence of cats, claws and sentences.

Does proof, to you, outweigh evidence?

But, to my knowledge, we have no evidence for the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness.

This is because you have the underlying BELIEF that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that 'moral rightness and wrongness' could even exist. So, this STOPS you from SEEING what thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

An opinion - even one held by everyone - is still an opinion, which is subjective.

But this is just YOUR opinion, which is subjective.

Even a 'thing' in the shape of what you call a 'cat' is STILL just your opinion, and even if that opinion what held by everyone, it is still just an opinion, which is subjective, right?

But a fact - such as the existence of cats, claws and sentences - even one acknowledged by nobody - is still a fact, how ever we name and describe it.

But this is just your opinion, which is subjective.

How can the existence of cats be a fact, when what a cat is is just your opinion, which is subjective?

You seem to be saying that when you say something is true, then that is a fact, which is objective. But, if someone else something is true, and you do not accept that, then that is just an opinion, which is subjective.

Which the HYPOCRISY here, and the CONTRADICTION of, is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

[Age]

Flash,

The physical world is an objective world, an objective world is a meaningless world, and it remains so in the absence of a conscious subject. The physical world is not a myth on its own, on its own it is meaningless. Biological consciousness feels, thinks, understands, and imagines thus is able to create in that outer world manifestations, moral structures, and systems that are meaningful to itself, for all meaning belongs to a self, a biological consciousness. Biological consciousness creates in the outer world, what it creates in the world becomes objective reality and is still only known to itself and only valued by itself.

Just to jump in here...

Consciousness doesn't 'create in the outer world' so it doesn't create 'objective reality'. Unless, of course, you have evidence for this claim. Features of reality (facts) just exist. And we (conscious beings) can know them and say true things about them.

Say some 'thing' true about them.

And that's what what we call objectivity amounts to.

Who or what is the 'we' here?

And, are you SURE EVERY one in that 'we' will agree that that is what we call objectivity amounts to?

And the point is, there are no moral structures in reality - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

Where is the PROOF that there are NO 'moral structures in reality'?

Or is this just your opinion, which is just subjective also?

[popeye1945]

"You are trapped in the connotation of your own distinction.
I am an object. TO YOU.
I am an object to every other biological consciousness out there.
Everything true about me is objectively true.

It is objectively true that I experience pain when I stub my toe.
It is objectively true that I like pancakes
It is objectively true that I find knowledge meaningful, and it is objectively true that not everybody finds knowledge meaningful.
[/quote]

Skepdick,
Yes, you are part of my objective world, but, I experience you as part of my objective world subjectively. All experience of the objective world is experience subjectively. It is objectively true that you stub your toe, but the pain is experienced subjectively. The pancakes are objective reality your pleasure in eating them is subjective. Experience is subjective and is knowledge. Your statement about others not finding knowledge meaningful is illogical, if it wasn't meaningful it would not be knowledge.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick,
Yes, you are part of my objective world, but, I experience you as part of my objective world subjectively. All experience of the objective world is experience subjectively. It is objectively true that you stub your toe, but the pain is experienced subjectively. The pancakes are objective reality your pleasure in eating them is subjective. Experience is subjective and is knowledge. Your statement about others not finding knowledge meaningful is illogical, if it wasn't meaningful it would not be knowledge.

Do you understand that it is a statement of fact that I like pancakes?

The objective/subjective distinction is practically irrelevant.

It is irrelevant whether you charaterise my preference as "objective" or "subjective" when it is a fact that I like pancakes.

The moment you attempt to characterise it any further than mere factuality you are playing a language game of connotation, not denotation.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick,
Yes, you are part of my objective world, but, I experience you as part of my objective world subjectively. All experience of the objective world is experience subjectively. It is objectively true that you stub your toe, but the pain is experienced subjectively. The pancakes are objective reality your pleasure in eating them is subjective. Experience is subjective and is knowledge. Your statement about others not finding knowledge meaningful is illogical, if it wasn't meaningful it would not be knowledge.

To put it in language which you may understand...

If that which observes is the subject then that which belongs to the observer is subjective.
If that which is being observed is the object then that which belongs to the object is objective.

What happens to the subject/object distinction when you are observing yourself?

Characterising your experience of yourself as objective or subjective is a meaningles distinction.

Am I objectively or subjectively thirsty? I am thirsty! Neither objectively nor subjectively - I am just thirsty.

These are the confusions of language Wittgenstein warned us about.

[popeye1945]

Consciousness doesn't 'create in the outer world' so it doesn't create 'objective reality'. Unless, of course, you have evidence for this claim. Features of reality (facts) just exist. And we (conscious beings) can know them and say true things about them.

Age,

Consciousness is a major part of the process of creativity. While consciousness does not create objects in the physical world from pure consciousness, it manifests its concepts of such objects through the physical creation of physical objects. All objects are part of the physical world, and thus are objective.

[popeye1945]

To put it in language which you may understand...
If that which observes is the subject then that which belongs to the observer is subjective.
If that which is being observed is the object then that which belongs to the object is objective.
What happens to the subject/object distinction when you are observing yourself?
Characterising your experience of yourself as objective or subjective is a meaningles distinction.
Am I objectively or subjectively thirsty? I am thirsty! Neither objectively nor subjectively - I am just thirsty.

These are the confusions of language Wittgenstein warned us about.
[/quote]

Skepdick,
First point- agreed. Second point- the properties which belong to the object, belong to the object, but one must be a little careful here, for color is not a property of the physical world and neither is sound. Your body is an object in the physical world, and it is through this object body that you come to know the physical world on a subjective level. Characterizing one's self as subject and the world as object is an old philosophical tradition done for the purpose of examination, but in fact subject and object stand or fall together, they can never be truly separated. Thirst is a subjective experience, it is not an object, but a sensation.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick,
First point- agreed. Second point- the properties which belong to the object, belong to the object, but one must be a little careful here, for color is not a property of the physical world and neither is sound.

Color and sound are properties of the system.

They are emergent phenomena resulting from the interaction between subject/object.

Both components are necessary for color.

Thirst is a subjective experience, it is not an object, but a sensation.

Special pleading. I can say the exact same thing about light. And infrared waves. And sound waves.

The distinction loses its purpose/relevance once clarity has been attained.

I am experiencing thirst. The moment you acknowledge my thirst its subjectivity/objectivity is immaterial.

[popeye1945]

We have no ground to work on here, so I'll sign off here.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why wouldn't I argue that my thirst is a subjective experience?

Obviously you would because in the trivial sense it's "all private information".

But from a physiological standpoint it's pretty idiotic to argue that thirst is subjective.

You can't ignore your thirst like you can ignore the beauty of a painting.

Yeah, well the point I was arguing for popeye's benefit was to do with our natural language containing a way in which we use the concepts of of subjective/objective. So that's what I'm sticking with and I don't really care very much to redefine things purposelessly in physiologocal terms.