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: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:15 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:59 am
And the answer is 'no'. If there are physical mechanisms in the brain that make us behave in certain ways, that fact has no moral implication. It doesn't mean we ought to behave in those ways - as I have demonstrated a thousand times.
So you ought not to breathe, eat, and drink water?

I have told you a 'million' times, what is a moral fact is specific to a moral FSK.
Oh, ffs.

Fact: if humans don't breathe, eat and drink water, they die.

Conclusion: therefore, humans ought to breathe, eat and drink water.

But why ought humans to breathe, eat and drink water? Why should humans - or any living things - live? Why is it right for them to do so, and wrong for them not to do so? Where is the oughtness here?

Try this: things exist; therefore things ought to exist - it's right for them to exist and wrong for them not to exist.

Does that strike you as a sound argument?
That ALL humans are "programmed" to live till the inevitable is so glaringly obvious.
Where is your evidence that babies want to die in the womb or the day they are born.
Where is your evident that ALL 'normal' human want to die prematurely?

You can make decisions whether to breathe, eat or drink, that has nothing to do nor extirpate the related physical mechanisms that is inherent in human nature within all humans.
This inherent program is a human fact and its existence can be verified, tested and justified, i.e. any human who do not breathe will die in time.

Note the typical meaning of ought as obligation, correct, proper and
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought
- as a logical consequence.

You are so ignorant to understand within whatever is "programmed" the list of actions necessary ought-to or must follow in sequential order.
As such, as long as there is a program there is an implied "oughtness' within.

The above applies similarly to moral elements inherent within all human beings, i.e. within a biological "program".
Try this: things exist; therefore things ought to exist - it's right for them to exist and wrong for them not to exist.
Does that strike you as a sound argument?
This is stupid because not all things [e.g. rock, water, etc.] are human beings.
Morality-proper is only related primarily to the human species [with exception to other living things where humans has a vested interest].
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: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:01 pm Here's a moral assertion: capital punishment is wrong.

Can a moral objectivist here explain how that assertion could be false?

What would have to be different in reality (not in what people think about reality), in order for it to be false - or a false inductive conclusion - or a false polished conjecture.

If, as I maintain, that (or any) moral assertion can't be false, then the claim that it's true is incoherent. And the claim 'X is morally right/wrong' isn't a factual assertion with a truth-value at all.
I have already told you a "million" times, assertions in the form of judgment like
"capital punishment is wrong" is not effective for morality-proper.

The moral standard from a justified moral fact is;
'no human ought to kill humans'.
Capitial punishment involve killing humans.
therefore,
'no human ought to pass laws on capital punishment'.

As such 'no human ought to pass laws on capital punishment' is a moral fact within a credible moral FSK.

This is the same as,
'Laws on capital punishment was enacted and exists in country X' is a legal fact within a credible legal FSK.
e.g. It is a fact [legal fact] China, Iran & Saudi Arabia has laws on capital punishment.
The statement is a legal fact conditioned by its respective legal FSK.
Do you deny the above statement?
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: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:04 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:01 pm Here's a moral assertion: capital punishment is wrong.

Can a moral objectivist here explain how that assertion could be false?

What would have to be different in reality (not in what people think about reality), in order for it to be false - or a false inductive conclusion - or a false polished conjecture.

If, as I maintain, that (or any) moral assertion can't be false, then the claim that it's true is incoherent. And the claim 'X is morally right/wrong' isn't a factual assertion with a truth-value at all.
I have already told you a "million" times, assertions in the form of judgment like
"capital punishment is wrong" is not effective for morality-proper.

The moral standard from a justified moral fact is;
'no human ought to kill humans'.
Capitial punishment involve killing humans.
therefore,
'no human ought to pass laws on capital punishment'.

As such 'no human ought to pass laws on capital punishment' is a moral fact within a credible moral FSK.

This is the same as,
'Laws on capital punishment was enacted and exists in country X' is a legal fact within a credible legal FSK.
e.g. It is a fact [legal fact] China, Iran & Saudi Arabia has laws on capital punishment.
The statement is a legal fact conditioned by its respective legal FSK.
Do you deny the above statement?
Ffs. Let's try again. Here's a moral assertion: no human ought to kill humans.

If that assertion is true, what would make it false? In other words: what would have to be different in reality (not in what people think or say about reality) for that moral assertion to be false?

Let's assume the 'thing that would have to be different' has been or can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible morality FSK. No need to repeat that. Concentrate just on what the thing is.
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: Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:04 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:01 pm Here's a moral assertion: capital punishment is wrong.

Can a moral objectivist here explain how that assertion could be false?

What would have to be different in reality (not in what people think about reality), in order for it to be false - or a false inductive conclusion - or a false polished conjecture.

If, as I maintain, that (or any) moral assertion can't be false, then the claim that it's true is incoherent. And the claim 'X is morally right/wrong' isn't a factual assertion with a truth-value at all.
I have already told you a "million" times, assertions in the form of judgment like
"capital punishment is wrong" is not effective for morality-proper.

The moral standard from a justified moral fact is;
'no human ought to kill humans'.
Capitial punishment involve killing humans.
therefore,
'no human ought to pass laws on capital punishment'.

As such 'no human ought to pass laws on capital punishment' is a moral fact within a credible moral FSK.

This is the same as,
'Laws on capital punishment was enacted and exists in country X' is a legal fact within a credible legal FSK.
e.g. It is a fact [legal fact] China, Iran & Saudi Arabia has laws on capital punishment.
The statement is a legal fact conditioned by its respective legal FSK.
Do you deny the above statement?
Ffs. Let's try again. Here's a moral assertion: no human ought to kill humans.

If that assertion is true, what would make it false? In other words: what would have to be different in reality (not in what people think or say about reality) for that moral assertion to be false?

Let's assume the 'thing that would have to be different' has been or can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible morality FSK. No need to repeat that. Concentrate just on what the thing is.
There are so may ways to demonstrate the assertion could be false.

1. Glaringly and evidently the above would be false if the >7+ billion humans start killing human arbitrarily because there is no inhibitors i.e. 'ought-non_ness' to inhibit them killing humans.

2. It is not false because as an increasing trend, the majority of humans has always been pacifists.

3. There is the increasing trend of human populations since humans first emerged and in the past history of mankind there was never a threat of the extinction of the human race due to humans killing each other.
[there is a possibility of human extinction from WMDs, but that is from some deviants not from the majority who are pacifists]

3. That malignant psychopaths kill arbitrarily on impulse indicate damage to the above oughtness 'no human ought to kill humans'.

I believe the above few crude views are sufficient. There are many other ways to demonstrate how it can be false.
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: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:04 am
I have already told you a "million" times, assertions in the form of judgment like
"capital punishment is wrong" is not effective for morality-proper.

The moral standard from a justified moral fact is;
'no human ought to kill humans'.
Capitial punishment involve killing humans.
therefore,
'no human ought to pass laws on capital punishment'.

As such 'no human ought to pass laws on capital punishment' is a moral fact within a credible moral FSK.

This is the same as,
'Laws on capital punishment was enacted and exists in country X' is a legal fact within a credible legal FSK.
e.g. It is a fact [legal fact] China, Iran & Saudi Arabia has laws on capital punishment.
The statement is a legal fact conditioned by its respective legal FSK.
Do you deny the above statement?
Ffs. Let's try again. Here's a moral assertion: no human ought to kill humans.

If that assertion is true, what would make it false? In other words: what would have to be different in reality (not in what people think or say about reality) for that moral assertion to be false?

Let's assume the 'thing that would have to be different' has been or can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible morality FSK. No need to repeat that. Concentrate just on what the thing is.
There are so may ways to demonstrate the assertion could be false.

1. Glaringly and evidently the above would be false if the >7+ billion humans start killing human arbitrarily because there is no inhibitors i.e. 'ought-non_ness' to inhibit them killing humans.

2. It is not false because as an increasing trend, the majority of humans has always been pacifists.

3. There is the increasing trend of human populations since humans first emerged and in the past history of mankind there was never a threat of the extinction of the human race due to humans killing each other.
[there is a possibility of human extinction from WMDs, but that is from some deviants not from the majority who are pacifists]

3. That malignant psychopaths kill arbitrarily on impulse indicate damage to the above oughtness 'no human ought to kill humans'.

I believe the above few crude views are sufficient. There are many other ways to demonstrate how it can be false.
So, here are formulations of your shitty argument for the supposed moral fact: no human ought to kill humans.

1 Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily; therefore the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.

2 If most humans did kill humans arbitrarily, then the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill humans' would be false.

3 Most humans are programmed not to kill humans; therefore the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.

4 If most humans were not programmed not to kill humans, then the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill humans' would be false.

Perhaps someone else can explain why this amounts to anything more than a pile of steaming cack. Perhaps I'm missing some nuanced sweetness.
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: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:11 am

Ffs. Let's try again. Here's a moral assertion: no human ought to kill humans.

If that assertion is true, what would make it false? In other words: what would have to be different in reality (not in what people think or say about reality) for that moral assertion to be false?

Let's assume the 'thing that would have to be different' has been or can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible morality FSK. No need to repeat that. Concentrate just on what the thing is.
There are so may ways to demonstrate the assertion could be false.

1. Glaringly and evidently the above would be false if the >7+ billion humans start killing human arbitrarily because there is no inhibitors i.e. 'ought-non_ness' to inhibit them killing humans.

2. It is not false because as an increasing trend, the majority of humans has always been pacifists.

3. There is the increasing trend of human populations since humans first emerged and in the past history of mankind there was never a threat of the extinction of the human race due to humans killing each other.
[there is a possibility of human extinction from WMDs, but that is from some deviants not from the majority who are pacifists]

3. That malignant psychopaths kill arbitrarily on impulse indicate damage to the above oughtness 'no human ought to kill humans'.

I believe the above few crude views are sufficient. There are many other ways to demonstrate how it can be false.
So, here are formulations of your shitty argument for the supposed moral fact: no human ought to kill humans.

1 Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily; therefore the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.

2 If most humans did kill humans arbitrarily, then the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill humans' would be false.

3 Most humans are programmed not to kill humans; therefore the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.

4 If most humans were not programmed not to kill humans, then the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill humans' would be false.

Perhaps someone else can explain why this amounts to anything more than a pile of steaming cack. Perhaps I'm missing some nuanced sweetness.
As usual, you are creating strawmen.

PH: 1. Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily; therefore the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.

I NEVER made nor admit to the above statement.

What I stated and implied is;
  • 1. The moral physical mechanisms [moral fact] that inhibit all humans from killing humans [ought-not_ness] as "programmed" exists in the brain.
    2. Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily [very strong evidence]
    3. therefore the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.
You had embarrassed yourself so many times [..I should have prepared a full listing of these deceptions of yours] in deliberately creating strawmen to my arguments and therefrom shout 'victory'! My foot to your stupidity!!!

You should get back to philosophy kindergarten and brush up on 'hermeneutics' i.e. the philosophy of interpretation, in this case, interpreting my arguments correctly.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:42 am
  • 1. The moral physical mechanisms [moral fact] that inhibit all humans from killing humans [ought-not_ness] as "programmed" exists in the brain.
    2. Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily [very strong evidence]
    3. therefore the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.
How is it not obvious to you that (3) is a non-sequitur?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Okay, here's your actual argument, rather than my strawman version.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:42 am 1. The moral physical mechanisms [moral fact] that inhibit all humans from killing humans [ought-not_ness] as "programmed" exists in the brain.
2. Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily [very strong evidence]
3. therefore the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.
And here's why your argument is a pile of steaming cack.

1 Your expression 'moral physical mechanism' begs the question. If it exists, this programming in the brain is just a physical mechanism which, like any physical mechanism, has no moral significance whatsoever. The 'oughtness' you confusingly refer to isn't a moral 'oughtness'. It doesn't imply any kind of obligation. There's nothing here of the not-evil or evil you claim to be what 'morality-proper' is about.

All you're saying is: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we [ought to/should] follow that programming, and not kill humans. And you haven't justified why we [ought to/should] follow that programming. Your analogy with breathing, eating and drinking also doesn't establish any kind of obligation or 'oughtness'. The argument - we must breathe or we die; therefore we ought to breathe - is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Tell you what, why not just address that little detail? Please thinkk really, really hard, and try to show why you think it does follow. Here it is again:

We must breathe or we die: therefore we ought to breathe.

2 The fact that most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily may be very strong evidence that we're programmed not to kill humans. But it isn't evidence that we [ought not to/shouldn't] kill humans. Again, you assume a connection between a fact and a moral conclusion, then forget the assumption and merely assert the conclusion. You've been doing it all along. It's your trademark intellectual failure.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:08 am Okay, here's your actual argument, rather than my strawman version.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:42 am 1. The moral physical mechanisms [moral fact] that inhibit all humans from killing humans [ought-not_ness] as "programmed" exists in the brain.
2. Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily [very strong evidence]
3. therefore the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.
And here's why your argument is a pile of steaming cack.

1 Your expression 'moral physical mechanism' begs the question. If it exists, this programming in the brain is just a physical mechanism which, like any physical mechanism, has no moral significance whatsoever. The 'oughtness' you confusingly refer to isn't a moral 'oughtness'. It doesn't imply any kind of obligation. There's nothing here of the not-evil or evil you claim to be what 'morality-proper' is about.

All you're saying is: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we [ought to/should] follow that programming, and not kill humans. And you haven't justified why we [ought to/should] follow that programming. Your analogy with breathing, eating and drinking also doesn't establish any kind of obligation or 'oughtness'. The argument - we must breathe or we die; therefore we ought to breathe - is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Tell you what, why not just address that little detail? Please thinkk really, really hard, and try to show why you think it does follow. Here it is again:

We must breathe or we die: therefore we ought to breathe.

2 The fact that most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily may be very strong evidence that we're programmed not to kill humans. But it isn't evidence that we [ought not to/shouldn't] kill humans. Again, you assume a connection between a fact and a moral conclusion, then forget the assumption and merely assert the conclusion. You've been doing it all along. It's your trademark intellectual failure.
Yeah, as I've pointed out to him repeatedly, it's just the same old "this is how things (normally) are, therefore this is how they should be" crap, without realizing that nothing justifies the "therefore this is how they should be" part. There's an unanalyzed assumption that things should be as they normally are or as they have been.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:12 am Yeah, as I've pointed out to him repeatedly, it's just the same old "this is how things (normally) are, therefore this is how they should be" crap, without realizing that nothing justifies the "therefore this is how they should be" part. There's an unanalyzed assumption that things should be as they normally are or as they have been.
That's just infinite sophistry.

All it takes to dismiss your grand standing is to erase free will from the map.

Things were, are and will be what things were, are and will always be. That's how reality works!

Or you can admit free will into the equation and then....

Things were getting better, are better and will continue getting better. Because we choose to make them better.

That's what humans do!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:42 am
  • 1. The moral physical mechanisms [moral fact] that inhibit all humans from killing humans [ought-not_ness] as "programmed" exists in the brain.
    2. Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily [very strong evidence]
    3. therefore the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.
How is it not obvious to you that (3) is a non-sequitur?
Did not have intention to be rigorous in the above.
There are missing premises which I have posted elsewhere.
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: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:08 am Okay, here's your actual argument, rather than my strawman version.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:42 am 1. The moral physical mechanisms [moral fact] that inhibit all humans from killing humans [ought-not_ness] as "programmed" exists in the brain.
2. Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily [very strong evidence]
3. therefore the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.
And here's why your argument is a pile of steaming cack.

1 Your expression 'moral physical mechanism' begs the question. If it exists, this programming in the brain is just a physical mechanism which, like any physical mechanism, has no moral significance whatsoever. The 'oughtness' you confusingly refer to isn't a moral 'oughtness'. It doesn't imply any kind of obligation. There's nothing here of the not-evil or evil you claim to be what 'morality-proper' is about.

All you're saying is: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we [ought to/should] follow that programming, and not kill humans. And you haven't justified why we [ought to/should] follow that programming. Your analogy with breathing, eating and drinking also doesn't establish any kind of obligation or 'oughtness'. The argument - we must breathe or we die; therefore we ought to breathe - is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Tell you what, why not just address that little detail? Please thinkk really, really hard, and try to show why you think it does follow. Here it is again:

We must breathe or we die: therefore we ought to breathe.

2 The fact that most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily may be very strong evidence that we're programmed not to kill humans. But it isn't evidence that we [ought not to/shouldn't] kill humans. Again, you assume a connection between a fact and a moral conclusion, then forget the assumption and merely assert the conclusion. You've been doing it all along. It's your trademark intellectual failure.
Too tired to repeat the '1000' times I have explained above.
When I repeat I am labelled a telemarketer [terrapin] and being too repetitive [pantflasher].
You can search for my previous post on the above.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:08 am Okay, here's your actual argument, rather than my strawman version.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:42 am 1. The moral physical mechanisms [moral fact] that inhibit all humans from killing humans [ought-not_ness] as "programmed" exists in the brain.
2. Most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily [very strong evidence]
3. therefore the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' is true.
And here's why your argument is a pile of steaming cack.

1 Your expression 'moral physical mechanism' begs the question. If it exists, this programming in the brain is just a physical mechanism which, like any physical mechanism, has no moral significance whatsoever. The 'oughtness' you confusingly refer to isn't a moral 'oughtness'. It doesn't imply any kind of obligation. There's nothing here of the not-evil or evil you claim to be what 'morality-proper' is about.

All you're saying is: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we [ought to/should] follow that programming, and not kill humans. And you haven't justified why we [ought to/should] follow that programming. Your analogy with breathing, eating and drinking also doesn't establish any kind of obligation or 'oughtness'. The argument - we must breathe or we die; therefore we ought to breathe - is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Tell you what, why not just address that little detail? Please thinkk really, really hard, and try to show why you think it does follow. Here it is again:

We must breathe or we die: therefore we ought to breathe.

2 The fact that most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily may be very strong evidence that we're programmed not to kill humans. But it isn't evidence that we [ought not to/shouldn't] kill humans. Again, you assume a connection between a fact and a moral conclusion, then forget the assumption and merely assert the conclusion. You've been doing it all along. It's your trademark intellectual failure.
Yeah, as I've pointed out to him repeatedly, it's just the same old "this is how things (normally) are, therefore this is how they should be" crap, without realizing that nothing justifies the "therefore this is how they should be" part. There's an unanalyzed assumption that things should be as they normally are or as they have been.
The reason why you cannot understand my views is because you are ignorant and is dogmatically stuck with the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.

Note:
  • The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer
Note the above views had been crushed long time ago and yet you are still a stooge of the LPs in the above stance.

Point is you, Peter, Sculptor, Pantflasher had been brainwashed into the LPs paradigm and will spontaneously deem moral realists claims as meaningless nonsense. You will suffer a cold turkey if you were to think otherwise.

As stated I am not expected you & et.al. to change your dogmatic views but I am merely using you & et. al. as sparring partners in a philosophical ring/arena purely for my own personal selfish interests.
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: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:50 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:08 am Okay, here's your actual argument, rather than my strawman version.

And here's why your argument is a pile of steaming cack.

1 Your expression 'moral physical mechanism' begs the question. If it exists, this programming in the brain is just a physical mechanism which, like any physical mechanism, has no moral significance whatsoever. The 'oughtness' you confusingly refer to isn't a moral 'oughtness'. It doesn't imply any kind of obligation. There's nothing here of the not-evil or evil you claim to be what 'morality-proper' is about.

All you're saying is: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we [ought to/should] follow that programming, and not kill humans. And you haven't justified why we [ought to/should] follow that programming. Your analogy with breathing, eating and drinking also doesn't establish any kind of obligation or 'oughtness'. The argument - we must breathe or we die; therefore we ought to breathe - is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Tell you what, why not just address that little detail? Please thinkk really, really hard, and try to show why you think it does follow. Here it is again:

We must breathe or we die: therefore we ought to breathe.

2 The fact that most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily may be very strong evidence that we're programmed not to kill humans. But it isn't evidence that we [ought not to/shouldn't] kill humans. Again, you assume a connection between a fact and a moral conclusion, then forget the assumption and merely assert the conclusion. You've been doing it all along. It's your trademark intellectual failure.
Yeah, as I've pointed out to him repeatedly, it's just the same old "this is how things (normally) are, therefore this is how they should be" crap, without realizing that nothing justifies the "therefore this is how they should be" part. There's an unanalyzed assumption that things should be as they normally are or as they have been.
The reason why you cannot understand my views is because you are ignorant and is dogmatically stuck with the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.

Note:
  • The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer
Note the above views had been crushed long time ago and yet you are still a stooge of the LPs in the above stance.

Point is you, Peter, Sculptor, Pantflasher had been brainwashed into the LPs paradigm and will spontaneously deem moral realists claims as meaningless nonsense. You will suffer a cold turkey if you were to think otherwise.

As stated I am not expected you & et.al. to change your dogmatic views but I am merely using you & et. al. as sparring partners in a philosophical ring/arena purely for my own personal selfish interests.
Straw man. I don't think non-factual assertions are meaningless nonsense - and I don't suppose the others you libel do either.

Your failure to demonstrate that moral and aesthetic assertions are factual - so that there are moral facts - presumably leaves you with no choice but to straw-man those of us who expose your failure. After all, changing your mind isn't an option.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:50 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:08 am Okay, here's your actual argument, rather than my strawman version.

And here's why your argument is a pile of steaming cack.

1 Your expression 'moral physical mechanism' begs the question. If it exists, this programming in the brain is just a physical mechanism which, like any physical mechanism, has no moral significance whatsoever. The 'oughtness' you confusingly refer to isn't a moral 'oughtness'. It doesn't imply any kind of obligation. There's nothing here of the not-evil or evil you claim to be what 'morality-proper' is about.

All you're saying is: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we [ought to/should] follow that programming, and not kill humans. And you haven't justified why we [ought to/should] follow that programming. Your analogy with breathing, eating and drinking also doesn't establish any kind of obligation or 'oughtness'. The argument - we must breathe or we die; therefore we ought to breathe - is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Tell you what, why not just address that little detail? Please thinkk really, really hard, and try to show why you think it does follow. Here it is again:

We must breathe or we die: therefore we ought to breathe.

2 The fact that most humans don't kill humans arbitrarily may be very strong evidence that we're programmed not to kill humans. But it isn't evidence that we [ought not to/shouldn't] kill humans. Again, you assume a connection between a fact and a moral conclusion, then forget the assumption and merely assert the conclusion. You've been doing it all along. It's your trademark intellectual failure.
Yeah, as I've pointed out to him repeatedly, it's just the same old "this is how things (normally) are, therefore this is how they should be" crap, without realizing that nothing justifies the "therefore this is how they should be" part. There's an unanalyzed assumption that things should be as they normally are or as they have been.
The reason why you cannot understand my views is because you are ignorant and is dogmatically stuck with the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.

Note:
  • The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer
Note the above views had been crushed long time ago and yet you are still a stooge of the LPs in the above stance.

Point is you, Peter, Sculptor, Pantflasher had been brainwashed into the LPs paradigm and will spontaneously deem moral realists claims as meaningless nonsense. You will suffer a cold turkey if you were to think otherwise.

As stated I am not expected you & et.al. to change your dogmatic views but I am merely using you & et. al. as sparring partners in a philosophical ring/arena purely for my own personal selfish interests.
Aside from the fact that I don't agree with any of the views you're attributing to me there, your comments here don't even begin to address what you quoted from me above.
Post Reply