Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

That's a switch (and a perfectly valid one) from truth function to utility function.

Check out that sneaky fucker!

It's not a switch from truth-function to utility-function. It's a switch from one truth-theory to another truth-theory.

Which truth-theory is the truest theory of truth?

[Peter Holmes]

Just to say thanks, FDP and IWP - I'm enjoying this discussion.

The inability to have difficult conversations (especially ones you aren't enjoying) with people you very much dislike is part and parcel of what makes you come across as an intolerant and intolerable idiot.

Conflict avoidance undermines conflict resolution.

I don't want to have a conversation with you, because I think you're a stupid, attention-seeking wanker. And I'd rather converse with people who have interesting things to say on this issue.

[Skepdick]

I don't want to have a conversation with you, because I think you're a stupid, attention-seeking wanker.

The fucking irony! Have you noticed who's got the longest thread on the forum. And the 2nd longest?

700 pages of sophistry encouraged by none other than yourself.

And I'd rather converse with people who have interesting things to say on this issue.

You are pursuing amusement not truth? Have you tried Porn Hub? This is a philosophy forum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just to say thanks, FDP and IWP - I'm enjoying this discussion.

And just to emphasise something that I reckon is much more important than we realise: outside language, features of reality, or states-of-affairs, or situations - whatever we call them - have no truth-value. They just are or were the case, neither (classically) true nor false. The truth isn't out there, any more than falsehood is. Only assertions (usually linguistic expressions) can have truth-value.

Ignorant again.

There are NO features of reality, or states-of-affairs, or situations, just-is, being-so, that are independent of a human based FSK.

There are two-stages you must be aware of.
Take scientific facts which must emerged from a human-based scientific FSK that is grounded way back to the Big Bang. You just cannot ignore this human-based cosmological fact.
It is only then, the the human-based linguistic FSK is used to describe and communicate the human-based scientific facts.

I suggest that, in rather different ways, VA and the side-kick-dick don't recognise the radical difference and separation between the way things are and what we say about them - and that conflation explains much of their confusion - mistaking models for the modelled, descriptions for the described, names for the named.

Strawman again! the "million+10" times.

I deliberately raised this and similar thread to counter your usual strawman on this issue.
VA: The Description is not The-Described.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40039

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925

[Peter Holmes]

Just to say thanks, FDP and IWP - I'm enjoying this discussion.

And just to emphasise something that I reckon is much more important than we realise: outside language, features of reality, or states-of-affairs, or situations - whatever we call them - have no truth-value. They just are or were the case, neither (classically) true nor false. The truth isn't out there, any more than falsehood is. Only assertions (usually linguistic expressions) can have truth-value.

Ignorant again.

There are NO features of reality, or states-of-affairs, or situations, just-is, being-so, that are independent of a human based FSK.

False. The big bang, quantum events and the chemical constitution of water were and are independent from 'a human-based framework and system of knowledge'. And you know this, because you agree that a description is not the described. And what that means is that the description water is H2O is indeed 'within' the discipline of chemistry. But what it describes is not 'within' that discipline.

There are two-stages you must be aware of.
Take scientific facts which must emerged from a human-based scientific FSK that is grounded way back to the Big Bang. You just cannot ignore this human-based cosmological fact.
It is only then, the the human-based linguistic FSK is used to describe and communicate the human-based scientific facts.

Nonsense. You've constructed a strangely mystical myth that somehow conflates the history of human development, including the emergence of human knowledge about facts of reality, with the nature of those facts. Okay, so if there were no big bang, there would be no humans. But that doesn't mean the fact of the big bang is 'entangled with the human conditions'. What rubbish.

I suggest that, in rather different ways, VA and the side-kick-dick don't recognise the radical difference and separation between the way things are and what we say about them - and that conflation explains much of their confusion - mistaking models for the modelled, descriptions for the described, names for the named.

Strawman again! the "million+10" times.

I deliberately raised this and similar thread to counter your usual strawman on this issue.
VA: The Description is not The-Described.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40039

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925

Nothing to see here. Your argument for moral objectivism is demonstrably unsound, or not shown to be sound. I and others have shown repeatedly why your premises are unjustified. You do nothing to rebut our refutations, but merely regurgitate the same falsehoods and fallacies.

[Skepdick]

Nothing to see here. Your argument for moral objectivism is demonstrably unsound, or not shown to be sound.

Nothing to see here either. The argument is demonstrably sound, or at least not shown to be unsound.

I and others have shown repeatedly why your premises are unjustified.

You have failed to justify why his premises are justified.

VA says X is Y.
PDH says: X is NOT Y.
VA says: B is NOT C
PDH says: B is C

And so on, and so forth... that's how default choice works. So fucking lame and formulaic *yawn*

Shall we flip a coin already?

Code: Select all

In [1]: from random import choice

In [2]: choice(['VA is an idiot - PDH is right', 'PDH is an idiot - VA is right'
   ...: ])
Out[2]: 'VA is an idiot - PDH is right'

There we have it. The computer has spoken! Of course, I vehemently disagree with the conclusion but...

Code: Select all

In [3]: choice(['Your disagreement matters.', "Your disagreement doesn't matter"
   ...: ])
Out[3]: "Your disagreement doesn't matter"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just to say thanks, FDP and IWP - I'm enjoying this discussion.

And just to emphasise something that I reckon is much more important than we realise: outside language, features of reality, or states-of-affairs, or situations - whatever we call them - have no truth-value. They just are or were the case, neither (classically) true nor false. The truth isn't out there, any more than falsehood is. Only assertions (usually linguistic expressions) can have truth-value.

Ignorant again.

There are NO features of reality, or states-of-affairs, or situations, just-is, being-so, that are independent of a human based FSK.

False. The big bang, quantum events and the chemical constitution of water were and are independent from 'a human-based framework and system of knowledge'. And you know this, because you agree that a description is not the described. And what that means is that the description water is H2O is indeed 'within' the discipline of chemistry. But what it describes is not 'within' that discipline.

Nah you are ignorant again.
If the big bang is not conditioned upon the human-based cosmological FSK,
the quantum events not conditioned upon the human-based QM FSK, and
the chemical constitution of water not conditioned upon the human-based science chemistry FSK,
how can their specific facts emerged and then described as their specific FSK facts.

Surely, the big bang is not an human-based economic-Fact? and so on with the others?
Surely, the fact that 'water is H20' [crude truth] is not so because your father, mother and you said so?

Note I wrote below;
There are two-stages you must be aware of in the emergence of a human-based FSK fact and the description of it.

There are two-stages you must be aware of.
Take scientific facts which must emerged from a human-based scientific FSK that is grounded way back to the Big Bang. You just cannot ignore this human-based cosmological fact.
It is only then, the the human-based linguistic FSK is used to describe and communicate the human-based scientific facts.

Nonsense. You've constructed a strangely mystical myth that somehow conflates the history of human development, including the emergence of human knowledge about facts of reality, with the nature of those facts. Okay, so if there were no big bang, there would be no humans. But that doesn't mean the fact of the big bang is 'entangled with the human conditions'. What rubbish.

First I have argued, you have not defended, your basis of "what is fact" is illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and non-sensical.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

I suggest you deal with above 2 critical arguments.
You have not demonstrated your independent facts which is a feature of reality exist as real; you merely blabber it is just-is, being-so, that is the case, blah, blah...

From a TOP-DOWN [not Bottom-Up] basis,
The Big Bang Hypothesis emerged from a human-based science cosmological FSK.
Humans emerged and are entangled with humans via the human-based science cosmological FSK.
If there is no human-based science cosmological FSK and its associated credible fact, then there is no humans.

I suggest that, in rather different ways, VA and the side-kick-dick don't recognise the radical difference and separation between the way things are and what we say about them - and that conflation explains much of their confusion - mistaking models for the modelled, descriptions for the described, names for the named.

Strawman again! the "million+10" times.

I deliberately raised this and similar thread to counter your usual strawman on this issue.
VA: The Description is not The-Described.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40039

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925

Nothing to see here. Your argument for moral objectivism is demonstrably unsound, or not shown to be sound. I and others have shown repeatedly why your premises are unjustified. You do nothing to rebut our refutations, but merely regurgitate the same falsehoods and fallacies.

Don't give that "I and others" crap!
What sort of authority are you relying upon?
Show me [specific references] where I have failed to rebut your refutations.

[Skepdick]

False. The big bang, quantum events and the chemical constitution of water were and are independent from 'a human-based framework and system of knowledge'. And you know this, because you agree that a description is not the described. And what that means is that the description water is H2O is indeed 'within' the discipline of chemistry. But what it describes is not 'within' that discipline.

Who's more likely to know what they are talking about? Some dude on a Philosophy forum; or an Oxford philosophy professor?

https://youtu.be/kH785oawwkk?t=422

What we call truth depends both on what there is and on the contribution of the thinker; of the mind...There is a human contribution, a mental contribution to what we call truth. Theories aren't simply dictated to us by the facts as it were.

[Veritas Aequitas]

False. The big bang, quantum events and the chemical constitution of water were and are independent from 'a human-based framework and system of knowledge'. And you know this, because you agree that a description is not the described. And what that means is that the description water is H2O is indeed 'within' the discipline of chemistry. But what it describes is not 'within' that discipline.

Who's more likely to know what they are talking about? Some dude on a Philosophy forum; or an Oxford philosophy professor?

https://youtu.be/kH785oawwkk?t=422

What we call truth depends both on what there is and on the contribution of the thinker; of the mind...There is a human contribution, a mental contribution to what we call truth. Theories aren't simply dictated to us by the facts as it were.

Re what is stated in the video, that is what I have arguing with.
Note I stated, it is not just 'of the mind' but the whole of the individual and humanity back to the Big Bang.

PH must watch this video and provide his refutations to support his 'mirroring' [PH deny this but he is ignorant he is right on target with mirroring] theory.

[Peter Holmes]

False. The big bang, quantum events and the chemical constitution of water were and are independent from 'a human-based framework and system of knowledge'. And you know this, because you agree that a description is not the described. And what that means is that the description water is H2O is indeed 'within' the discipline of chemistry. But what it describes is not 'within' that discipline.

Who's more likely to know what they are talking about? Some dude on a Philosophy forum; or an Oxford philosophy professor?

https://youtu.be/kH785oawwkk?t=422

What we call truth depends both on what there is and on the contribution of the thinker; of the mind...There is a human contribution, a mental contribution to what we call truth. Theories aren't simply dictated to us by the facts as it were.

Re what is stated in the video, that is what I have arguing with.
Note I stated, it is not just 'of the mind' but the whole of the individual and humanity back to the Big Bang.

PH must watch this video and provide his refutations to support his 'mirroring' [PH deny this but he is ignorant he is right on target with mirroring] theory.

So, an Oxford philosophy professor doesn't understand the difference between features of reality and descriptions of them - only the second of which can have truth-value. Now, how can that be?

And how can it be that some dude on a philosophy forum has to point out that screamingly obvious and fundamental difference? What are these professors playing at?

And how can it be that the demonstrable failure of correspondence theory isn't widely recognised?

Happy to go through the failure of correspondence theory, representationalism, nomenclaturism, mirroring, and so on - of course. Happy to help.

[Skepdick]

So, an Oxford philosophy professor doesn't understand the difference between features of reality and descriptions of them - only the second of which can have truth-value. Now, how can that be?

You should all spot the trend by now.

Step 1: Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes misrepresents other's positions
Step 2: Who fucking cares?

Somebody please explain the difference between truth and truth-values to the fucking idiot. You might be wasting your time but if you are hopeful...

[Magnus Anderson]

Skepdick is a retard.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick is a retard.

This is a philosophy forum - it's a retard race.

Congrats on taking the lead.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Who's more likely to know what they are talking about? Some dude on a Philosophy forum; or an Oxford philosophy professor?
https://youtu.be/kH785oawwkk?t=422

Re what is stated in the video, that is what I have arguing with.
Note I stated, it is not just 'of the mind' but the whole of the individual and humanity back to the Big Bang.

PH must watch this video and provide his refutations to support his 'mirroring' [PH deny this but he is ignorant he is right on target with mirroring] theory.

So, an Oxford philosophy professor doesn't understand the difference between features of reality and descriptions of them - only the second of which can have truth-value. Now, how can that be?

As usual you are strawmaning from your ignorance or whatever the desperation; it is too blatantly rhetorical;

What Hillary Putnam is stating here reflect my position;
VA: The Description is not The-Described.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40039

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925

So, what Hilary Putnam did not claim 'only the description has truth values'.

Hilary Putnam mentioned Kant in that video, this anti-philosophical realism idea has existed way back >1000 years in Greece before Kant and > 2500 years ago in India.

It is only with this point that I agree with Hilary Putnam, not his whole philosophy.

And how can it be that some dude on a philosophy forum has to point out that screamingly obvious and fundamental difference? What are these professors playing at?

The state of human-independence of reality is an evolutionary default thus primal and proto, thus the tendency to the ideology of Philosophical-realism for therapeutic reasons.
However as human evolve and progress they have to wean off the ideology of philosophical realism which is not realistic nor tenable; we can accept the human-independence of reality but should not adopt it as an ideology as philosophical realism which you are doing.

And how can it be that the demonstrable failure of correspondence theory isn't widely recognised?

Happy to go through the failure of correspondence theory, representationalism, nomenclaturism, mirroring, and so on - of course. Happy to help.

Then open a thread to justify why YOUR Correspondence Theory of Truth [mirroring] is realistic and tenable.

Note:

In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.[1]

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.
WIKI

Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century.
But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified).
The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism [aka Philosophical Realism].
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trut ... spondence/

Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century.

Objections
One attack on the theory claims that the correspondence theory succeeds in its appeal to the real world only in so far as the real world is reachable by us.

The direct realist believes that we directly know objects as they are. Such a person can wholeheartedly adopt a correspondence theory of truth.

The rigorous idealist believes that there are no real, mind-independent objects. The correspondence theory appeals to imaginary undefined entities, so it is incoherent.

Other positions hold that we have some type of awareness, perception, etc. of real-world objects which in some way falls short of direct knowledge of them. But such an indirect awareness or perception is itself an idea in one's mind, so that the correspondence theory of truth reduces to a correspondence between ideas about truth and ideas of the world, whereupon it becomes a coherence theory of truth.[20]

Vagueness or circularity
Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or they do not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It would in this case be difficult to see how a candid truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, as soon as the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, they are operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But, the only way to support the truth of this world-theory that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth, is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is inescapably circular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... Objections

[Peter Holmes]

Yes, correspondence or maker-bearer theories of truth are circular.

'The assertion 'snow is white' is true because the stuff we call snow is the colour we call white.'

And such theories demonstrate the original and foundational philosophical delusion of mistaking what we say for the way things are.

A name no more corresponds with what it names - or a description with what it describes - than an arrow corresponds with its target.

Wittgenstein's insight that meaning is use has profound and ramifying implications.