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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:11 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:05 am What and where is the concept of a house?
Describe the concept of a house. Is that different from describing a house?

Mantra-mumbling. Of course there are concepts. We talk about them all the time.
But, if, "the meaning of a sign is its use - in the way(s) we use it," ala Wittgenstein, and that is how Popeye is using it, how can he be wrong?
We use the word 'fairy' in certain ways. Does that mean fairies exist?

If any abstract things, such as concepts, exist, I'm asking what and where they are, and in what way they exist. Our inability to answer those questions casts doubt on the rationality of belief in their existence. Existence comes first. The use of words is secondary and separate.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by RCSaunders »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:11 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:05 am What and where is the concept of a house?
Describe the concept of a house. Is that different from describing a house?

Mantra-mumbling. Of course there are concepts. We talk about them all the time.
But, if, "the meaning of a sign is its use - in the way(s) we use it," ala Wittgenstein, and that is how Popeye is using it, how can he be wrong?
We use the word 'fairy' in certain ways. Does that mean fairies exist?

If any abstract things, such as concepts, exist, I'm asking what and where they are, and in what way they exist. Our inability to answer those questions casts doubt on the rationality of belief in their existence. Existence comes first. The use of words is secondary and separate.
Of course. I'm just teasing you about Wittgenstein.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:11 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:05 am What and where is the concept of a house?
Describe the concept of a house. Is that different from describing a house?

Mantra-mumbling. Of course there are concepts. We talk about them all the time.
But, if, "the meaning of a sign is its use - in the way(s) we use it," ala Wittgenstein, and that is how Popeye is using it, how can he be wrong?
We use the word 'fairy' in certain ways. Does that mean fairies exist?

If any abstract things, such as concepts, exist, I'm asking what and where they are, and in what way they exist. Our inability to answer those questions casts doubt on the rationality of belief in their existence. Existence comes first. The use of words is secondary and separate.
Yes, but do we create what exists or do things exist apart from minds? The usual illustration is the question about whether our room exists after we have left if and before we return to it. Also, in physics we have uncertainty that is introduced by arbitrary variables in experiments and observations.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:38 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:11 pm
But, if, "the meaning of a sign is its use - in the way(s) we use it," ala Wittgenstein, and that is how Popeye is using it, how can he be wrong?
We use the word 'fairy' in certain ways. Does that mean fairies exist?

If any abstract things, such as concepts, exist, I'm asking what and where they are, and in what way they exist. Our inability to answer those questions casts doubt on the rationality of belief in their existence. Existence comes first. The use of words is secondary and separate.
Yes, but do we create what exists or do things exist apart from minds? The usual illustration is the question about whether our room exists after we have left if and before we return to it. Also, in physics we have uncertainty that is introduced by arbitrary variables in experiments and observations.
Is there any reason to think that we create what exists, or that things don't exist apart from minds? Is such doubt/skepticism rational? And if it is, what can it mean to say that things start existing only when they're perceived? What's the causal mechanism? (I think this nonsense is an extreme and self-defeating consequence of empiricist skepticism.)
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:07 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 6:24 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:28 pm
The reason I think so, is because, "words," are only symbols, marks on paper or other material, sounds one makes, gestures or signs, or electronic states on magnetic material or some solid state material. On there own they have no use or function. A Symbol might be an interesting little picture or design, but it does not mean anything.

When a word is used in a language, it is used to indicate or identify something, some entity, for example, like a planet, a person, or an apple. What a word is used to indicate or identify is usually referred to as what the word means. When we use a word in language, it is not the words, the symbols themselves, that one discusses, but what the words mean. "Joe loves apples," does not mean, "the word, 'Joe,' has an affection for the word, 'apples.'" It is not, "symbols," one uses them to think about, it's what the symbols (words) mean one uses them to think about. It is what words mean that is meant by their, "conception," because without it, words have no meaning and are just empty marks, sounds, gestures, or signs.

So, for me, there must be a distinction between a mere word, as a symbol, and a word's meaning, as a concept--the identification of something. The word, "house," for example, has no meaning on it's own, and only has a meaning because it is used as a symbol for the identification of a specific kind of existent, which is the concept. It is not the symbol that has the meaning, it is the concept the symbol represents.

Though it is generally assumed word are defined, it is not actually words that are defined but the concepts words are only the symbols for. From my old essay, "Epistemology, Concepts:"



For me, failing to make a distinction between words as symbols, and concepts (the meanings words are used as symbols for) leads to endless confusion (like logical positivism, or Kant's absurd assumption that words mean their definitions).

I'm only answering your question of why I regard concepts as important to understand epistemology. I'm not trying to convince you my view is right.

Thanks for showing your interest.
And thanks for setting out your position. As explained, the word 'concept' usually refers to a supposed mental thing - so your use of the word is non-standard. And that's fine, because you explain how you use it.

Perhaps our disagreement is as follows. I agree with Wittgenstein that the meaning of a sign is its use - in the way(s) we use it. Whereas you think the meaning of a sign is the concept it denotes. My counter is that we don't use signs to denote concepts, because concepts don't exist. For example, we use the word 'house' to talk about what we call a house, which is a real, physical thing. That the word 'maison' is also used to talk about a house doesn't mean there's another thing - a concept - which both words denote.

But if what you call a concept is nothing more than 'the way we use a word', then I guess we're on the same page.
We're definitely not on the same page, but if you buy Wittgenstein, we are never going to be. That's OK, of course, everyone has to come to their own understanding of things.

For me, you've described what I mean by the word concept when you said, "the word, 'maison' is also used to talk about a house...which both words denote. What I mean by a concept is a words, "donation."
Sorry for the delay - but I've just been thinking about your last remarks here. If what you call a concept is 'what a word denotes', that seems to be a nomenclaturist view of language: words (and other signs) are names of things, so that the meaning of a word is what it names.

And I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of how language works - the misunderstanding that the later Wittgenstein set out to correct - including in his earlier Tractatus. I put it this way: there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. So the meaning of a word is not what it denotes, but rather the way we use it, for example to denote (talk about) things.

And one huge advantage of this approach is that questions about supposed abstract things - such as truth, knowledge, identity, goodness, and so on - are radically transformed, because (misnamed) abstract nouns don't denote things which can therefore be described.

For example, if a concept is, as you say, 'what a word denotes', what does the word 'knowledge' denote? (We're already down the rabbit hole.)
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=569973 time=1651312314 user_id=15099]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=568842 time=1650456458 user_id=16196]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=568812 time=1650432283 user_id=15099]

And thanks for setting out your position. As explained, the word 'concept' usually refers to a supposed mental thing - so your use of the word is non-standard. And that's fine, because you explain how you use it.

Perhaps our disagreement is as follows. I agree with Wittgenstein that the meaning of a sign is its use - in the way(s) we use it. Whereas you think the meaning of a sign is the concept it denotes. My counter is that we don't use signs to denote concepts, because concepts don't exist. For example, we use the word 'house' to talk about what we call a house, which is a real, physical thing. That the word 'maison' is also used to talk about a house doesn't mean there's another thing - a concept - which both words denote.

But if what you call a concept is nothing more than 'the way we use a word', then I guess we're on the same page.
[/quote]
We're definitely not on the same page, but if you buy Wittgenstein, we are never going to be. That's OK, of course, everyone has to come to their own understanding of things.

For me, you've described what I mean by the word concept when you said, "the word, 'maison' is also used to talk about a house...which both words [i][b]denote[/b][/i]. What I mean by a concept is a words, "donation."
[/quote]
Sorry for the delay - but I've just been thinking about your last remarks here. If what you call a concept is 'what a word denotes', that seems to be a nomenclaturist view of language: words (and other signs) are names of things, so that the meaning of a word is what it names.

And I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of how language works - the misunderstanding that the later Wittgenstein set out to correct - including in his earlier Tractatus. I put it this way: there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. So the meaning of a word is not what it denotes, but rather the way we use it, for example to denote (talk about) things.

And one huge advantage of this approach is that questions about supposed abstract things - such as truth, knowledge, identity, goodness, and so on - are radically transformed, because (misnamed) abstract nouns don't denote things which can therefore be described.

For example, if a concept is, as you say, 'what a word denotes', what does the word 'knowledge' denote? (We're already down the rabbit hole.)
[/quote]

Knowledge = justified belief.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Advocate wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:58 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:51 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 1:07 pm
We're definitely not on the same page, but if you buy Wittgenstein, we are never going to be. That's OK, of course, everyone has to come to their own understanding of things.

For me, you've described what I mean by the word concept when you said, "the word, 'maison' is also used to talk about a house...which both words denote. What I mean by a concept is a words, "donation."
Sorry for the delay - but I've just been thinking about your last remarks here. If what you call a concept is 'what a word denotes', that seems to be a nomenclaturist view of language: words (and other signs) are names of things, so that the meaning of a word is what it names.

And I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of how language works - the misunderstanding that the later Wittgenstein set out to correct - including in his earlier Tractatus. I put it this way: there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. So the meaning of a word is not what it denotes, but rather the way we use it, for example to denote (talk about) things.

And one huge advantage of this approach is that questions about supposed abstract things - such as truth, knowledge, identity, goodness, and so on - are radically transformed, because (misnamed) abstract nouns don't denote things which can therefore be described.

For example, if a concept is, as you say, 'what a word denotes', what does the word 'knowledge' denote? (We're already down the rabbit hole.)
Knowledge = justified belief.
Usually, the recipe for knowledge is justified true belief (JTB) - but I think that's a conceptual mess, for several reasons. If you're interested, I discuss the JTB at http://www.peasum.co.uk/435531068 .
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by RCSaunders »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:51 am For example, if a concept is, as you say, 'what a word denotes', what does the word 'knowledge' denote? (We're already down the rabbit hole.)
What I said was:
For me, you've described what I mean by the word concept when you said, "the word, 'maison' is also used to talk about a house...which both words denote. What I mean by a concept is a words, "denotation."
I've corrected the word denotation, which may have caused the confusion.

I did not say a concept is what a word denotes, because that is not true. A word only represents a concept; it is a symbol for the concept. It is the concept the word represents that denotes (means or identifies) something. The concept is that denotation (the identification of that which the concept means) For example the word tomato is the symbol for the concept that identifies the fruit of a tomato plant. The concept is that identification or denotation. Any actual tomato is what is identified or denoted, i.e. what the concept means.

The word knowledge does not denote anything. No word denotes or means anything. Words are just meaningless symbols unless they represent a concept, that is, unless they are symbols representing the identification or denotation of something. The identification or denotation is the concept, and what is identified or denoted is what the concept means.

I have no idea what you think knowledge is, but you use the word a lot. Whatever you think knowledge is when you use the word, that is what the concept (the identification or denotation) the word knowledge represents means (identifies or denotes).

This is why I emphasize that words mean nothing on their own and are only symbols for concepts which have meaning and why different symbols, like knowledge, Latin, cognitio, French, connaissance, Spanish, conocimiento, and Greek, gnó̱si̱ are said to have the same meaning. They don't have meaning as symbols, the meaning pertains to the same concept they all represent--it is the concept that has the meaning.

I'm not making an argument. Just explaining what I mean. I do not expect you to agree.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=570000 time=1651329514 user_id=15099]
Knowledge = justified belief.
[/quote]
Usually, the recipe for knowledge is justified true belief (JTB) - but I think that's a conceptual mess, for several reasons. If you're interested, I discuss the JTB at http://www.peasum.co.uk/435531068 .
[/quote]

The appeal to some hypothetical ultimate certainty makes the word useless. Likewise anything less than justified belief is also useless.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Advocate wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 7:59 pm
The appeal to some hypothetical ultimate certainty makes the word useless. Likewise anything less than justified belief is also useless.
I think the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution; it isn't knowledge that's certain or uncertain - it's people.

But you touch on a misunderstanding that's recently come up here - to do with what can seem to be a continuum between polar terms: doubt/certainty, ignorance/knowledge, disbelief/belief, ugliness/beauty, badness (evil)/goodness, (moral) wrongness/rightness, and so on.

It's often modelled as scalar, and often as an intellectual and/or moral gradient, with, say, ignorance, ugliness or wrongness at the bottom, and knowledge, beauty and rightness at the top. But it can also be modelled as a variable mixture of pure ingredients - such as an action being partly good and partly bad - most ridiculously, with percentages, as in a recent OP here on the 'continuum concept'.

The delusion is always the same: terms are names of things of some kind that exist, somehow, as objectively pure polar opposites, or substances that can be mixed or measured on a scale. And in ordinary language, we often do this: motives can be mixed; memories can be bitter-sweet; we can proportion our belief to the evidence.

The problem comes when we take the metaphors seriously or literally. If there's a continuum between disbelief and belief, when on the scale does one become the other? Or how about doubt and certainty? At what point does justification occur? And is it a matter of measurable percentages?

The whole model is a conceptual mess - like the sorites paradox it recycles.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=570282 time=1651493472 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=570019 time=1651345199 user_id=15238]

The appeal to some hypothetical ultimate certainty makes the word useless. Likewise anything less than justified belief is also useless.
[/quote]

I think the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution; it isn't knowledge that's certain or uncertain - it's people.

But you touch on a misunderstanding that's recently come up here - to do with what can seem to be a continuum between polar terms: doubt/certainty, ignorance/knowledge, disbelief/belief, ugliness/beauty, badness (evil)/goodness, (moral) wrongness/rightness, and so on.

It's often modelled as scalar, and often as an intellectual and/or moral gradient, with, say, ignorance, ugliness or wrongness at the bottom, and knowledge, beauty and rightness at the top. But it can also be modelled as a variable mixture of pure ingredients - such as an action being partly good and partly bad - most ridiculously, with percentages, as in a recent OP here on the 'continuum concept'.

The delusion is always the same: terms are names of things of some kind that exist, somehow, as objectively pure polar opposites, or substances that can be mixed or measured on a scale. And in ordinary language, we often do this: motives can be mixed; memories can be bitter-sweet; we can proportion our belief to the evidence.

The problem comes when we take the metaphors seriously or literally. If there's a continuum between disbelief and belief, when on the scale does one become the other? Or how about doubt and certainty? At what point does justification occur? And is it a matter of measurable percentages?

The whole model is a conceptual mess - like the sorites paradox it recycles.
[/quote]

Knowledge is a scale from ignorance to belief. Belief is a scale from justified (knowledge) to unjustified (faith). They do not need to admit of precision to be both true and useful.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Advocate wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 1:18 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 1:11 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 7:59 pm
The appeal to some hypothetical ultimate certainty makes the word useless. Likewise anything less than justified belief is also useless.
I think the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution; it isn't knowledge that's certain or uncertain - it's people.

But you touch on a misunderstanding that's recently come up here - to do with what can seem to be a continuum between polar terms: doubt/certainty, ignorance/knowledge, disbelief/belief, ugliness/beauty, badness (evil)/goodness, (moral) wrongness/rightness, and so on.

It's often modelled as scalar, and often as an intellectual and/or moral gradient, with, say, ignorance, ugliness or wrongness at the bottom, and knowledge, beauty and rightness at the top. But it can also be modelled as a variable mixture of pure ingredients - such as an action being partly good and partly bad - most ridiculously, with percentages, as in a recent OP here on the 'continuum concept'.

The delusion is always the same: terms are names of things of some kind that exist, somehow, as objectively pure polar opposites, or substances that can be mixed or measured on a scale. And in ordinary language, we often do this: motives can be mixed; memories can be bitter-sweet; we can proportion our belief to the evidence.

The problem comes when we take the metaphors seriously or literally. If there's a continuum between disbelief and belief, when on the scale does one become the other? Or how about doubt and certainty? At what point does justification occur? And is it a matter of measurable percentages?

The whole model is a conceptual mess - like the sorites paradox it recycles.
Knowledge is a scale from ignorance to belief. Belief is a scale from justified (knowledge) to unjustified (faith). They do not need to admit of precision to be both true and useful.
Metaphysical blather.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=570289 time=1651495214 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=570284 time=1651493909 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=570282 time=1651493472 user_id=15099]


I think the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution; it isn't knowledge that's certain or uncertain - it's people.

But you touch on a misunderstanding that's recently come up here - to do with what can seem to be a continuum between polar terms: doubt/certainty, ignorance/knowledge, disbelief/belief, ugliness/beauty, badness (evil)/goodness, (moral) wrongness/rightness, and so on.

It's often modelled as scalar, and often as an intellectual and/or moral gradient, with, say, ignorance, ugliness or wrongness at the bottom, and knowledge, beauty and rightness at the top. But it can also be modelled as a variable mixture of pure ingredients - such as an action being partly good and partly bad - most ridiculously, with percentages, as in a recent OP here on the 'continuum concept'.

The delusion is always the same: terms are names of things of some kind that exist, somehow, as objectively pure polar opposites, or substances that can be mixed or measured on a scale. And in ordinary language, we often do this: motives can be mixed; memories can be bitter-sweet; we can proportion our belief to the evidence.

The problem comes when we take the metaphors seriously or literally. If there's a continuum between disbelief and belief, when on the scale does one become the other? Or how about doubt and certainty? At what point does justification occur? And is it a matter of measurable percentages?

The whole model is a conceptual mess - like the sorites paradox it recycles.
[/quote]

Knowledge is a scale from ignorance to belief. Belief is a scale from justified (knowledge) to unjustified (faith). They do not need to admit of precision to be both true and useful.
[/quote]
Metaphysical blather.
[/quote]

That blather happens to be necessary and sufficient for gaining greater understanding of all related things in the entire universe. Your filters appear to be mis-calibrated.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Advocate wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 2:44 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 1:40 pm
Advocate wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 1:18 pm

Knowledge is a scale from ignorance to belief. Belief is a scale from justified (knowledge) to unjustified (faith). They do not need to admit of precision to be both true and useful.
Metaphysical blather.
That blather happens to be necessary and sufficient for gaining greater understanding of all related things in the entire universe. Your filters appear to be mis-calibrated.
Neither knowledge nor belief are assertions - things that can have truth-values. They aren't things at all. In philosophy, 'knowledge is...' and 'belief is..' are the beginnings of sentences that have always already gone wrong. In everyday language, we can and do explain how we use the words with no need for metaphysical deepity.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by RCSaunders »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 4:21 pm
Advocate wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 2:44 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 1:40 pm
Metaphysical blather.
That blather happens to be necessary and sufficient for gaining greater understanding of all related things in the entire universe. Your filters appear to be mis-calibrated.
Neither knowledge nor belief are assertions - things that can have truth-values. They aren't things at all. In philosophy, 'knowledge is...' and 'belief is..' are the beginnings of sentences that have always already gone wrong. In everyday language, we can and do explain how we use the words with no need for metaphysical deepity.
How do you use the word, "metaphysical?"
Post Reply