Is morality objective or subjective?

[popeye1945]

Claim: Subject and object stand or fall together.

Implication: If the object falls, then so does the subject.

Conclusion: If there's no such thing as objectivity, then there's no such thing as subjectivity, and the claim that all meaning is subjective is incoherent.

Peter,
Peter, which is the owner of the meanings derived by the subject from the physical world or the world of energies, are meanings just laying about awaiting someone to collect them like fallen apples from a tree? What do you think of Spinoza's statement, that the body is the idea of the mind and it is through the body that we come to know the physical world? Meaning is always the property of a conscious subject and never, read never is it the property of the physical world is an object. It is true that the physical world or its energies are the fuel of the mind without which there is no consciousness, without consciousness, there is no physical world. On a subjective rational level, you simply cannot deny this, we only know the world subjectively there simply is no other way. Apparent reality is the relation between subject and object, object/energy is cause, consciousness is reaction and all creatures are reactionary creatures, if this were not so, evolutionary development would not be possible, and so much for freewill---- lol!!

[FlashDangerpants]

That all meaning is subjective kind of leaves no doubt that morality is subjective.

Is that supposed to be an objective statement?

Seriously, it's the kiss of death when Belinda congratulates one of these people.

FlashDangerpants

Nothing is objective

Objectively speaking, that is necessarily opinion not fact.

[popeye1945]

Is that supposed to be an objective statement?

Seriously, it's the kiss of death when Belinda congratulates one of these people.

FlashDangerpants

Nothing is objective

Objectively speaking, that is necessarily opinion not fact.

Flash,

A subjective statement of fact, as all meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never that of the object.

[seeds]

Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, belief in its existence is irrational. If you have or can cite such evidence, do share.

If you want evidence of something that appears to be "non-physical",...

(as in not being made of a substance that is measurable by any scientific means)

...then I suggest that you look no further than that aspect of your inner-being that experienced the three-dimensional, multi-sensory phenomena of that vivid dream you may have had last night...

Meanwhile, some questions:

How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect?

Every time you raise an arm to scratch an itch on your head, it is an example of a non-physical cause...

(i.e., a willful decision made by your non-physical "I Am-ness" that sits at the throne of your consciousness)

...to relieve itself of the annoying tickle that is demanding its [your] attention.

How can a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause?

What?...You've never heard of how "dark energy," even though it doesn't seem to possess any measurable properties, nevertheless, has an effect on regular physical matter?

According to the website EarthSky:

Dark energy is the name given to the mysterious force that's causing the rate of expansion of our universe to accelerate over time, rather than to slow down.

Indeed, the same mysteriousness applies to "dark matter."

According to the website Cern:

...researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.

The point is that if approximately 96% of the universe is made up of some sort of "dark substance" whose existence can only be "inferred" by reason of the effect it has on regular matter,...

...then the same inference can also be made as to the existence of the substance underlying mind and consciousness (another form of "dark energy") by reason of the fact that it too has an obvious effect on matter as per my itch-scratching example.

Now, seeing how I provided you with some fairly good examples of non-physical things, how about you provide me with that irrefutable source of information I asked for earlier; you know, the one that has proven - once and for all - that the mind/body "problem" has been resolved in favor of pure materialism?
_______

[popeye1945]

How indeed is a mind-body problem maintained when the body is part of mind as the mind interprets what is happening to the body without body there is no mind. What is the distinction that causes a problem, I am quite sincere in my ignorance here, please enlighten.

[Peter Holmes]

Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, belief in its existence is irrational. If you have or can cite such evidence, do share.

If you want evidence of something that appears to be "non-physical",...

(as in not being made of a substance that is measurable by any scientific means)

...then I suggest that you look no further than that aspect of your inner-being that experienced the three-dimensional, multi-sensory phenomena of that vivid dream you may have had last night...

Meanwhile, some questions:

How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect?

Every time you raise an arm to scratch an itch on your head, it is an example of a non-physical cause...

(i.e., a willful decision made by your non-physical "I Am-ness" that sits at the throne of your consciousness)

...to relieve itself of the annoying tickle that is demanding its [your] attention.

How can a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause?

What?...You've never heard of how "dark energy," even though it doesn't seem to possess any measurable properties, nevertheless, has an effect on regular physical matter?

According to the website EarthSky:

Dark energy is the name given to the mysterious force that's causing the rate of expansion of our universe to accelerate over time, rather than to slow down.

Indeed, the same mysteriousness applies to "dark matter."

According to the website Cern:

...researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.

The point is that if approximately 96% of the universe is made up of some sort of "dark substance" whose existence can only be "inferred" by reason of the effect it has on regular matter,...

...then the same inference can also be made as to the existence of the substance underlying mind and consciousness (another form of "dark energy") by reason of the fact that it too has an obvious effect on matter as per my itch-scratching example.

Now, seeing how I provided you with some fairly good examples of non-physical things, how about you provide me with that irrefutable source of information I asked for earlier; you know, the one that has proven - once and for all - that the mind/body "problem" has been resolved in favor of pure materialism?
_______

What evidence do you have that a dream, an itch, dark energy and dark matter are non-physical things, or have non-physical causes? Or that there's a non-physical 'substance underlying mind and consciousness'?

These are just speculative claims without evidence - so far, and to my knowledge. The myth of so-called non-physical or abstract things runs deep and strong. Witness - what you say.

Here's an argument: We have no physical explanation for this phenomenon; therefore, this phenomenon must be non-physical.

I assume you understand why that's a fallacy.

[popeye1945]

Peter,

Do you consider various energy forms non-physical?

[Peter Holmes]

Peter,

Do you consider various energy forms non-physical?

No. Energy and the form of energy we call matter are physical things - things that physicists study.

[popeye1945]

Peter,

Do you consider various energy forms non-physical?

No. Energy and the form of energy we call matter are physical things - things that physicists study.

Peter,
Many energy forms we do not perceive, not as object not a energy, again the senses not only enable but limit, why do we not perceive the full spectrum of what is out there either as energy or the energy form of object/energy/mass?

[Peter Holmes]

Peter,

Do you consider various energy forms non-physical?

No. Energy and the form of energy we call matter are physical things - things that physicists study.

Peter,
Many energy forms we do not perceive, not as object not a energy, again the senses not only enable but limit, why do we not perceive the full spectrum of what is out there either as energy or the energy form of object/energy/mass?

I don't understand what you say here. But - the fact that we're not equipped to perceive something doesn't mean it is or must be a non-physical thing. Obviously.

[popeye1945]

No. Energy and the form of energy we call matter are physical things - things that physicists study.

Peter,
Many energy forms we do not perceive, not as object not a energy, again the senses not only enable but limit, why do we not perceive the full spectrum of what is out there either as energy or the energy form of object/energy/mass?

I don't understand what you say here. But - the fact that we're not equipped to perceive something doesn't mean it is or must be a non-physical thing. Obviously.

Peter, just trying to establish the significance of our biological processes, we are still talking about our apparent reality --- no? Obviously these energies do not manifest for us as physical things in our apparent reality----agreed?

[seeds]

In the most commonly held definition of objective- objectivity is impossible.
We just need to clarify what we mean by objectivity to make the word useful.
To be objective requires a definable context, and bound by agreed criteria.

To me, "objective" (as in "objective reality") refers to anything that exists outside of (as in not a part of) one's own mind.

The obvious problem with that is the whilst everything in fact lives outside your "mind", you cannot know anything because we can only know these things as "objects" IN the mind's eye, and therefore all is subject to our world view.

That's a good point, Sculptor, however, it's only a problem if one is silly enough to think that their mind (and only their mind) is the only mind in existence (solipsism).

Now I realize that none of us can know the answer with absolute certainty, nevertheless, do you honestly think that solipsism is logical? And if you do, then which one of us is having this strange and lonely conversation with himself/herself/itself?

On the other hand, if you believe (as I do) that solipsism is nonsense, then it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that other minds exist in an objective state relative to our own mind.
_______

[seeds]

That all meaning is subjective kind of leaves no doubt that morality is subjective. This despite what you may believe about the manifestation of the physical world. all meaning is subjective.

Agreed.

I mean, how could it be any other way if it is indeed possible (as I asserted earlier) that literally all of what we call "reality" is subjectively derived (one way or another)?
_______

[seeds]

If by "these people" do you mean people who are unremittingly sceptical? If so let's discuss the approach to reality that is facilitated by doubting the evidence of our senses.

I first noticed it when Vaginal Aquafresh was doing his notorious "oughtness to breathe" thing, and absolutely nobody was stupid enough to agree with that argument as it is pitiful dogshit. Until you came along and just endorsed it for no reason except that you wanted to offer offer your own accompanying 'moral fact' to go with it, one that was more or less as stupid as VA's and yet didn't bother to use even vaguely similar logic.

Since then I've noticed that every time you congratulate somebody on making a good point, they have kind of always been a madman with a silly point.

I don't remember the occasion and in any case maybe I changed my mind
Sane philosophers are unremittingly sceptical.

Philosophers are "sane"?
_______

[seeds]

_______



_______