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: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:50 am 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.
I remembered [will have to search for them] here were times where you condemned my views as "nonsense" not sure you use the term meaningless, but you have used its synonyms.
You may not be very conscious but the influence by the LPs and classical analytic philosophers is very subliminal.

I have already demonstrated there are moral facts a "1000" times, so I won't be bothered to repeat again and again.
In your present state, there is no way you will ever see that "500 pound gorilla" [justified true moral facts] in front of you. It is like the hardcore fundamentalist theists who will never ever understand the rational views of non-theists.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:50 am 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.
I remembered [will have to search for them] here were times where you condemned my views as "nonsense" not sure you use the term meaningless, but you have used its synonyms.
You may not be very conscious but the influence by the LPs and classical analytic philosophers is very subliminal.

I have already demonstrated there are moral facts a "1000" times, so I won't be bothered to repeat again and again.
In your present state, there is no way you will ever see that "500 pound gorilla" [justified true moral facts] in front of you. It is like the hardcore fundamentalist theists who will never ever understand the rational views of non-theists.
If I've called your claims nonsense and/or meaningless inappropriately, I apologise.

Your claims about moral objectivity are simply false, or not shown to be true; and your argument is unsound, or not shown to be sound.

You will ignore these facts, because you aren't really interested in the truth and soundness of your faith-position.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:05 am

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.
I remembered [will have to search for them] here were times where you condemned my views as "nonsense" not sure you use the term meaningless, but you have used its synonyms.
You may not be very conscious but the influence by the LPs and classical analytic philosophers is very subliminal.

I have already demonstrated there are moral facts a "1000" times, so I won't be bothered to repeat again and again.
In your present state, there is no way you will ever see that "500 pound gorilla" [justified true moral facts] in front of you. It is like the hardcore fundamentalist theists who will never ever understand the rational views of non-theists.
If I've called your claims nonsense and/or meaningless inappropriately, I apologise.

Your claims about moral objectivity are simply false, or not shown to be true; and your argument is unsound, or not shown to be sound.

You will ignore these facts, because you aren't really interested in the truth and soundness of your faith-position.
Seconded.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:05 am

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.
I remembered [will have to search for them] here were times where you condemned my views as "nonsense" not sure you use the term meaningless, but you have used its synonyms.
You may not be very conscious but the influence by the LPs and classical analytic philosophers is very subliminal.

I have already demonstrated there are moral facts a "1000" times, so I won't be bothered to repeat again and again.
In your present state, there is no way you will ever see that "500 pound gorilla" [justified true moral facts] in front of you. It is like the hardcore fundamentalist theists who will never ever understand the rational views of non-theists.
If I've called your claims nonsense and/or meaningless inappropriately, I apologise.

Your claims about moral objectivity are simply false, or not shown to be true; and your argument is unsound, or not shown to be sound.

You will ignore these facts, because you aren't really interested in the truth and soundness of your faith-position.
Note my main principle of 'what is fact', i.e.
whatever is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

What I claimed as moral facts has met the above requirements albeit its credibility is not as close as science, but the major inputs into my moral FSK are scientific facts.

Because what is fact to me is via a FSK [human construct], FSK-based-facts are NEVER absolutely independent of the human conditions.

1. On the other hand, what is you claimed as fact is opposite to mine, i.e. they are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
2. But then you agree with the empirical verification and justification of your facts which has to be done within a human constructed FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK thus mingling your 'fact' with the human conditions. This is a contradiction to your 1 above.
3. How do you resolve the above contradiction?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:08 am
I remembered [will have to search for them] here were times where you condemned my views as "nonsense" not sure you use the term meaningless, but you have used its synonyms.
You may not be very conscious but the influence by the LPs and classical analytic philosophers is very subliminal.

I have already demonstrated there are moral facts a "1000" times, so I won't be bothered to repeat again and again.
In your present state, there is no way you will ever see that "500 pound gorilla" [justified true moral facts] in front of you. It is like the hardcore fundamentalist theists who will never ever understand the rational views of non-theists.
If I've called your claims nonsense and/or meaningless inappropriately, I apologise.

Your claims about moral objectivity are simply false, or not shown to be true; and your argument is unsound, or not shown to be sound.

You will ignore these facts, because you aren't really interested in the truth and soundness of your faith-position.
Note my main principle of 'what is fact', i.e.
whatever is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

What I claimed as moral facts has met the above requirements albeit its credibility is not as close as science, but the major inputs into my moral FSK are scientific facts.

Because what is fact to me is via a FSK [human construct], FSK-based-facts are NEVER absolutely independent of the human conditions.

1. On the other hand, what is you claimed as fact is opposite to mine, i.e. they are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
2. But then you agree with the empirical verification and justification of your facts which has to be done within a human constructed FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK thus mingling your 'fact' with the human conditions. This is a contradiction to your 1 above.
3. How do you resolve the above contradiction?
What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. That's my take on the Concise Oxford definition: fact - a thing that is known to exist, to have occured, or to be true.

I don't agree with the 'is known' condition, and I think the truth condition, which is disjunctive, applies only to factual assertions - typically, linguistic expressions. Outside language, features of reality obviously have no truth-value: true or false. They just do or don't, or did or didn't, exist.

The crucial point is that what is or was the case has nothing to do with language, or any description of what is or was the case. So there were, are and will be facts that, by definition, existed, exist and will exist independently from any kind of description, such as description by humans.

Your mistake is to conflate the two uses of the word fact and conclude that, since a fact can be a true factual assertion, and any true factual assertion we make - any descriptive truth-claim - must be human, therefore facts must be 'bound up with the human condition'. The 'feature of reality that is or was the case' part is forgotten.

And this is a simple but deeply seductive mistake - as you and the dick-troll demonstrate.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:52 am

If I've called your claims nonsense and/or meaningless inappropriately, I apologise.

Your claims about moral objectivity are simply false, or not shown to be true; and your argument is unsound, or not shown to be sound.

You will ignore these facts, because you aren't really interested in the truth and soundness of your faith-position.
Note my main principle of 'what is fact', i.e.
whatever is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

What I claimed as moral facts has met the above requirements albeit its credibility is not as close as science, but the major inputs into my moral FSK are scientific facts.

Because what is fact to me is via a FSK [human construct], FSK-based-facts are NEVER absolutely independent of the human conditions.

1. On the other hand, what is you claimed as fact is opposite to mine, i.e. they are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
2. But then you agree with the empirical verification and justification of your facts which has to be done within a human constructed FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK thus mingling your 'fact' with the human conditions. This is a contradiction to your 1 above.
3. How do you resolve the above contradiction?
What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. That's my take on the Concise Oxford definition: fact - a thing that is known to exist, to have occured, or to be true.

I don't agree with the 'is known' condition, and I think the truth condition, which is disjunctive, applies only to factual assertions - typically, linguistic expressions. Outside language, features of reality obviously have no truth-value: true or false. They just do or don't, or did or didn't, exist.

The crucial point is that what is or was the case has nothing to do with language, or any description of what is or was the case. So there were, are and will be facts that, by definition, existed, exist and will exist independently from any kind of description, such as description by humans.

Your mistake is to conflate the two uses of the word fact and conclude that, since a fact can be a true factual assertion, and any true factual assertion we make - any descriptive truth-claim - must be human, therefore facts must be 'bound up with the human condition'. The 'feature of reality that is or was the case' part is forgotten.

And this is a simple but deeply seductive mistake - as you and the dick-troll demonstrate.
In retrospect, I think this analysis may not be accurate.

VA's mistake probably isn't conflation of the two radically different uses of the word fact: feature of reality / description of feature of reality. Rather, VA completely forgets, ignores or denies the primary ('ontological') use, on which the secondary, linguistic use depends. Hence the delusion that facts are nothing other than social, linguistic constructs. And hence the strange denial of 'facts-in-themselves' or 'things-in-themselves'.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:52 am

If I've called your claims nonsense and/or meaningless inappropriately, I apologise.

Your claims about moral objectivity are simply false, or not shown to be true; and your argument is unsound, or not shown to be sound.

You will ignore these facts, because you aren't really interested in the truth and soundness of your faith-position.
Note my main principle of 'what is fact', i.e.
whatever is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

What I claimed as moral facts has met the above requirements albeit its credibility is not as close as science, but the major inputs into my moral FSK are scientific facts.

Because what is fact to me is via a FSK [human construct], FSK-based-facts are NEVER absolutely independent of the human conditions.

1. On the other hand, what is you claimed as fact is opposite to mine, i.e. they are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
2. But then you agree with the empirical verification and justification of your facts which has to be done within a human constructed FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK thus mingling your 'fact' with the human conditions. This is a contradiction to your 1 above.
3. How do you resolve the above contradiction?
What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. That's my take on the Concise Oxford definition: fact - a thing that is known to exist, to have occured, or to be true.

I don't agree with the 'is known' condition, and I think the truth condition, which is disjunctive, applies only to factual assertions - typically, linguistic expressions. Outside language, features of reality obviously have no truth-value: true or false. They just do or don't, or did or didn't, exist.

The crucial point is that what is or was the case has nothing to do with language, or any description of what is or was the case. So there were, are and will be facts that, by definition, existed, exist and will exist independently from any kind of description, such as description by humans.

Your mistake is to conflate the two uses of the word fact and conclude that, since a fact can be a true factual assertion, and any true factual assertion we make - any descriptive truth-claim - must be human, therefore facts must be 'bound up with the human condition'. The 'feature of reality that is or was the case' part is forgotten.

And this is a simple but deeply seductive mistake - as you and the dick-troll demonstrate.
Blah blah blah.

What makes anything anybody says a "mistake"? What has you convinced that you are not mistaken?

Present an objective criterion for distinguishing "mistakes" from "non-mistakes" or shut up.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

If English speakers call something a red circle - if the factual assertion 'that's a red circle' is true, in context, given the way we use those words - then calling that thing a blue square is a mistake, and the factual assertion 'that's a blue square' is false.

There's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. So asking 'why is that thing a red circle?' or 'can you prove it's a red circle?', and so on, demonstrates a misunderstanding of how language works. How could we check that what we call red really is red?

A red circle is what it is, how ever it's described. But abortion isn't morally right - or wrong - how ever it's described. Being morally right or wrong isn't a property in the way that being red and a circle are properties. And that's why the assertion that abortion is morally right - or wrong - isn't true or false. It's not a mistake to say one or the other, given the way we use those words.
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: Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:59 pm If English speakers call something a red circle - if the factual assertion 'that's a red circle' is true, in context, given the way we use those words - then calling that thing a blue square is a mistake, and the factual assertion 'that's a blue square' is false.
I don't agree with that part. It's kowtowing to norms. It's not that objectively something is "red" or a "circle," where either can be correct/true linguistically. As with morality, all that we have linguistically is that it's a fact that something is conventionally called "red" or a "circle." But conventions are neither correct nor true in general for being conventions. It's only correct or true that "Conventionally, that is called 'red' or that is called 'a circle.'" So it's not false to call it a "blue square," it's just unconventional. It's not wrong or false or anything like that to be unconventional.

The issue here is that regardless of what anyone calls it, regardless of how anyone perceives it, or even whether they do, whether there's anyone extant to perceive it, etc., there's a color and shape there, mind-independently, and it is what it is independent of what anyone calls it, independent of how anyone perceives it, etc.

That's not the case for moral edicts, maxims, or whatever we want to call them. If all of a sudden no people existed, there would be no moral edicts, etc.--at least not aside from something like the text or a recording or marks/sounds people correlated with them, but those aren't the same thing as the moral edict, because for one, there is no semantic content to marks, recordings, etc. Semantic content is supplied by persons' brains, as a way of thinking about things like text marks, sounds, and so on.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:20 pm The issue here is that regardless of what anyone calls it, regardless of how anyone perceives it, or even whether they do, whether there's anyone extant to perceive it, etc., there's a color and shape there, mind-independently, and it is what it is independent of what anyone calls it, independent of how anyone perceives it, etc.
This is the worst case of the mind-projection fallacy I've seen to date.

Poor guy. His entire religion rests upon believing the lie of mind-independence. Even if we adopt his own vocabulary/distinction of "objective" and "subjective". There are no such things as colors or shapes "out there" there's not even such things as "waves", "fields", "frequencies" and "wavelengths" - all of those are abstract mathematical objects/description. Trading the English language for the language of Mathematics doesn't buy us transcendence.

He could've just said he's a Platonist - would have saved us all the effort of rejecting his religion.

Somebody throw him a Quantum Physics textbook. The wave-particle dualism of light quanta (photons) is in the first few chapters. Or just read the damn wikipedia page on the wave-particle duality.

Reality It is what it is slams fist. Reality remains indifferent to being what it is; or not being what it is.

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:20 pm That's not the case for moral edicts, maxims, or whatever we want to call them. If all of a sudden no people existed, there would be no moral edicts, etc.--at least not aside from something like the text or a recording or marks/sounds people correlated with them, but those aren't the same thing as the moral edict, because for one, there is no semantic content to marks, recordings, etc. Semantic content is supplied by persons' brains, as a way of thinking about things like text marks, sounds, and so on.
If all of a sudden no people existed the semantic content for "electromagnetic fields", "wavelengths", "measurements", "scientific models" and "explanations" would vanish with us.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:20 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:59 pm If English speakers call something a red circle - if the factual assertion 'that's a red circle' is true, in context, given the way we use those words - then calling that thing a blue square is a mistake, and the factual assertion 'that's a blue square' is false.
I don't agree with that part. It's kowtowing to norms. It's not that objectively something is "red" or a "circle," where either can be correct/true linguistically. As with morality, all that we have linguistically is that it's a fact that something is conventionally called "red" or a "circle." But conventions are neither correct nor true in general for being conventions. It's only correct or true that "Conventionally, that is called 'red' or that is called 'a circle.'" So it's not false to call it a "blue square," it's just unconventional. It's not wrong or false or anything like that to be unconventional.

The issue here is that regardless of what anyone calls it, regardless of how anyone perceives it, or even whether they do, whether there's anyone extant to perceive it, etc., there's a color and shape there, mind-independently, and it is what it is independent of what anyone calls it, independent of how anyone perceives it, etc.

That's not the case for moral edicts, maxims, or whatever we want to call them. If all of a sudden no people existed, there would be no moral edicts, etc.--at least not aside from something like the text or a recording or marks/sounds people correlated with them, but those aren't the same thing as the moral edict, because for one, there is no semantic content to marks, recordings, etc. Semantic content is supplied by persons' brains, as a way of thinking about things like text marks, sounds, and so on.
I don't understand your objection to the idea that a factual assertion is what we call true or false.

The use of language - in language games - is a rule-governed activity, so 'kowtowing to norms' is a sine qua non. We do it as we speak and write. And one rule for English speakers is that 'that thing' is a red circle. And what we call truth can only be linguistic, because only factual assertions can be true or false. And what we call truth, facts and objectivity can only be what we say they are.

I agree with you about the ontology of what we call red circles, and that moral rightness and wrongness aren't properties like being red and being a circle. That's what I wrote later.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:13 pm The use of language - in language games - is a rule-governed activity, so 'kowtowing to norms' is a sine qua non. We do it as we speak and write. And one rule for English speakers is that 'that thing' is a red circle. And what we call truth can only be linguistic, because only factual assertions can be true or false. And what we call truth, facts and objectivity can only be what we say they are.
And if that's true, then anything is what we say it is. Morality is what we say it is. Objectivity is what we say it is.

And I say that morality is objective. Why do you insist that I ought not say that?

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:13 pm I agree with you about the ontology of what we call red circles, and that moral rightness and wrongness aren't properties like being red and being a circle. That's what I wrote later.
What or where are these things you call "properties"? What or where is this thing you call "ontology"? Looks like you've fallen into the very metaphysical rabbit hole you are warning us against. Shame. Retard.

That's just more linguistic prescriptivism.
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: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:13 pm I don't understand your objection to the idea that a factual assertion is what we call true or false.

The use of language - in language games - is a rule-governed activity, so 'kowtowing to norms' is a sine qua non. We do it as we speak and write. And one rule for English speakers is that 'that thing' is a red circle. And what we call truth can only be linguistic, because only factual assertions can be true or false. And what we call truth, facts and objectivity can only be what we say they are.
I'll try to keep this simple and not address every issue I think is being brought up there. The main thing is that no matter what we're talking about, nothing is ever true or correct or anything like that just because it's a convention. The only "exception" of a sorts there is that a convention is the truth-maker for what the convention is. Aside from that, there are no exceptions to argumentum ad populums, as well as arguments from authority, being fallacious. Which means that nothing is the case just because it's a convention (aside from it being the case that it's the convention), or just because it's believed to be the case (by a majority of whatever population) (aside from it being the case that that's the belief), or because some authority says that it's the case (aside from it being whatever authoritative proclamation), or anything like that.

So it's not true or correct to say that something is a "red circle." (in other words, it's not true or correct to use those specific words rather than alternate words you could use.) Language is convention-oriented rather than "rule-governed" I'd say. But it's the case that the conventions are regularly shifting/evolving, and it's not incorrect to be unconventional. The notion of being obligated to follow a convention just because it's a convention--ANY convention we're talking about, in any context, is conformist b.s. You should never have to do the same thing that other people are doing, you should never have to follow suit, you should never have to believe what they believe, etc., just because they're doing whatever they are.
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

1 Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean.

2 There's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.

3 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.

4 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - or a description of such a feature of reality.

5 What we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true or false is what constitutes what we call truth and falsehood.

6 A thing can be described in many different ways.

7 All descriptions, and so all truth-claims, are conventional and contextual.

8 A description doesn't create or change the thing being described.

9 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language.

10 Features of reality either do or don't exist.

11 The burden of proof for the existence of so-called moral and aesthetic features of reality - and therefore for the truth or falsehood of moral and aesthetic assertions - is with the claimants. (Unmet so far, to my knowledge.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 1 Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean.
Which implies -> different use is different meaning.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 2 There's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.
Which implies -> You say things without any reason for saying things.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 3 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.
Which implies -> a language without adjectives or adverbs for expressing facts.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 4 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - or a description of such a feature of reality.
Which implies -> A correspondence theory between facts and features.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 5 What we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true or false is what constitutes what we call truth and falsehood.
Which implies -> a normative theory of truth.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 6 A thing can be described in many different ways.
Which is precisely what happens when you describe morality as subjective; and I describe it as objective.

So now you need a system/method to determine which description is "incorrect".
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 7 All descriptions, and so all truth-claims, are conventional and contextual.
What determine context?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 8 A description doesn't create or change the thing being described.
Moot point.

The thing being described is morality.

You are calling it subjective.
I am calling it objective.

If the description doesn't change the thing, but the thing (ultimately) exists then morality is objective even if we don't describe it that way.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 9 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language.
Agreed! That's why morality is objective. It has nothing to do with the word "objective".
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 10 Features of reality either do or don't exist.
Morality exists. Otherwise, what are we talking about?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:46 pm 11 The burden of proof for the existence of so-called moral and aesthetic features of reality - and therefore for the truth or falsehood of moral and aesthetic assertions - is with the claimants. (Unmet so far, to my knowledge.)
So what are you talking about when you use the word "morality" then?

if morality doesn't exist, how the fuck are you using that word? What are you even talking about?
Post Reply