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

uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:35 amHey old fart! Where have you been?
Writing. Shouldn't be here now to be honest, but all work, no play...
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:35 am
uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:27 am You've learnt what obtain means. Give that boy a biscuit.
I have no idea what it means, but it seems I am using it as you would use it.

All the worse for you and other obscurantists ;)

Now that I am speaking "your language" you don't get to pretend you don't understand my points.
I don't get to pretend I don't understand points you make in a language you pretend not to understand?
Ah well, enough of the pleasantries; what's this latest on time from Timeseeker?
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 »

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:23 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:35 amHey old fart! Where have you been?
Writing. Shouldn't be here now to be honest, but all work, no play...
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:35 am
uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:27 am You've learnt what obtain means. Give that boy a biscuit.
I have no idea what it means, but it seems I am using it as you would use it.

All the worse for you and other obscurantists ;)

Now that I am speaking "your language" you don't get to pretend you don't understand my points.
I don't get to pretend I don't understand points you make in a language you pretend not to understand?
Ah well, enough of the pleasantries; what's this latest on time from Timeseeker?
I tried to encourage him to not see philosophy as "playing stupid," which is what unfortunately a lot of people online seem to think is the gist of it (although it seems mostly engineering types who think this for some reason--but there are a ton of those folks talking about philosophy online), but he remains unconvinced that we shouldn't aim for that.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by uwot »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:51 pmI tried to encourage him to not see philosophy as "playing stupid," which is what unfortunately a lot of people online seem to think is the gist of it (although it seems mostly engineering types who think this for some reason--but there are a ton of those folks talking about philosophy online), but he remains unconvinced that we shouldn't aim for that.
Well, a few years ago, if there was one thing the man on the Clapham omnibus knew about philosophy, it was 'I think, therefore I am'. Today it is that, according to the late Stephen Hawking, philosophy is dead. I haven't posted this for a while, but it bears repeating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:41 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:51 pmI tried to encourage him to not see philosophy as "playing stupid," which is what unfortunately a lot of people online seem to think is the gist of it (although it seems mostly engineering types who think this for some reason--but there are a ton of those folks talking about philosophy online), but he remains unconvinced that we shouldn't aim for that.
Well, a few years ago, if there was one thing the man on the Clapham omnibus knew about philosophy, it was 'I think, therefore I am'. Today it is that, according to the late Stephen Hawking, philosophy is dead. I haven't posted this for a while, but it bears repeating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k
Good to hear from you again, uwot.

To my mind, philosophy never was what it was supposed to be, anyway.

I think it is, and always was, nothing but talk about the ways we use, or could use, words in general, and some important abstract nouns in particular. And that can be entertaining.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by uwot »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:14 pmGood to hear from you again, uwot.
Thank you.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:14 pmTo my mind, philosophy never was what it was supposed to be, anyway.

I think it is, and always was, nothing but talk about the ways we use, or could use, words in general, and some important abstract nouns in particular. And that can be entertaining.
Well my schtick is fairly hackneyed. In my view philosophy is just story telling. Take a bunch of premises, slap them together according to some set of rules, call it coherent and Hey Presto! you have a philosophy. I don't personally care much about how individual words are used, because individual words don't really mean much. A sentence is greater than the sum of its parts yada-yada.
Good to hear from you too, by the way.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:48 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:23 am You haven't persuaded a single person in the whole world that your FSK counts for anything at all. You have zero credibility.
What a fucking stupid criterion!
It's his criterion.

Now you can go back in your box.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:43 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:48 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:23 am You haven't persuaded a single person in the whole world that your FSK counts for anything at all. You have zero credibility.
What a fucking stupid criterion!
It's his criterion.

Now you can go back in your box.
"Credibility" is his criterion.
"Persuasion" is your metric for how to measure "credibility".

If you didn't notice that subtle re-framing on your part then you must be infinitely more ignorant than I originally assumed.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:46 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:43 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:48 am
What a fucking stupid criterion!
It's his criterion.

Now you can go back in your box.
"Credibility" is his criterion.
"Persuasion" is your (mis)interpretation of how to measure "credibility".
Check his criteria for objectivity. Then check if his credibility claim requires objectivity. Now fuck off I can't be bothered with you.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:48 pm Check his criteria for objectivity. Then check if his credibility claim requires objectivity. Now fuck off I can't be bothered with you.
Neither his objectivity criteria nor his credibility claims required "persuasion".

That's the bullshit you sprinkled on.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:52 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:48 pm Check his criteria for objectivity. Then check if his credibility claim requires objectivity. Now fuck off I can't be bothered with you.
Neither his objectivity criteria nor his credibility claims required "persuasion".

That's the bullshit you sprinkled on.
But they are directly a factor of how many people believe the thing,so if you actually want to help him, sign up for his morality-proper FSK, or stop being a wanker and leading the poor fool on when you don't give a fuck about his silly theories.

I know, it was my fault for reading one of your posts, I only have mself to blame for this experience, I shouldn't blame you for just doing whatever the fuck it is you are trying to do. You can go back in that box until June as previously promised.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:02 pm But they are directly a factor of how many people believe the thing,
Which is precisely why I asked you (but you conveniently ignored)....
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:48 am What is that you would observe if persuasion obtains?
Which is another way of asking.... What does one observe when people "believe them"?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:02 pm so if you actually want to help him, sign up for his morality-proper FSK, or stop being a wanker and leading the poor fool on when you don't give a fuck about his silly theories.
Obviously I don't give a fuck about his theories - but I am already signed up to objective morality so in a sense I already "believe him".

The absence of an objective moral theory bothers me exactly as much as the absence of a theory of gravity would've bothered you before Newton.

Theories only explain phenomena we already believe in.
Theories can't invent new phenomena for us to believe in.

Which is precisely why I asked you the fucking question: What would you observe if I "believed him"?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:02 pm I know, it was my fault for reading one of your posts, I only have mself to blame for this experience, I shouldn't blame you for just doing whatever the fuck it is you are trying to do. You can go back in that box until June as previously promised.
Whatever it is that I am trying to is clearly beyond your intellectual grasp. Good thing your promises are worth shit.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:24 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:39 am
You don't have a credible FSK, all you have is an opinion that one day you will have a credible FSK.
Until your FSK contains credibility, it does no contain knowledge either. So it is your Framework and System of Opinion.

That framework is not credible enough to justify this "morality-proper" thing, which is a construct of your individual opinion, and worth no more to anybody else than your FSK that nobody thinks is credible.
In the continuum from opinion [low credibility], beliefs then to knowledge, I have to admit my proposed moral FSK is a belief with high personal conviction that is qualified to be credible "on paper" based on the incorporated features of credibility.
Like I said, it is something like an architect who is confident his building according to plan will stand an 8.0 earthquake because he has imputed all necessary features of credibility into his plan.
I have also stated my proposed moral FSK is based on existing moral systems that are already working to some degrees, but mine is a few folds better in credibility.
Then why do you keep trying to claim facts on the basis of it, and why do you keep calling everyone who doesn't agree with it a dogmatic bastard?

You haven't persuaded a single person in the whole world that your FSK counts for anything at all. You have zero credibility.
Why do you insist by yourself that you are a dogmatic bastard.

I was referring to you and Peter and the likes being influenced [brainwashed] by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and their arrogance in being dogmatic with their beliefs triggering them to condemn those who do not agree with them in the most derogatory ways.

Note again, I have not presented the full model of my moral FSK here. I don't have any intention to persuade anyone here to consider and accept my full moral FSK/model.

My main contention re morality is that there are moral reality [physical and mental] and truths within morality-proper[as defined] which is to counter Peter's OP,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
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 16, 2021 5:19 am My main contention re morality is that there are moral reality [physical and mental] and truths within morality-proper[as defined] which is to counter Peter's OP,
So here are your factual assertions:

1 There is a physical and mental moral reality.
2 There is a 'morality-proper' (as defined).
3 There are true moral assertions.

You say that these factual assertions are demonstrably true. And you say that you have indeed shown them to be true.

I say you have not shown them to be true, and that they are incoherent anyway, because the expressions 'moral reality' and 'moral truth' have no clear meaning - as yet. The words don't 'go together'.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:19 am My main contention re morality is that there are moral reality [physical and mental] and truths within morality-proper[as defined] which is to counter Peter's OP,
So here are your factual assertions:

1 There is a physical and mental moral reality.
2 There is a 'morality-proper' (as defined).
3 There are true moral assertions.

You say that these factual assertions are demonstrably true. And you say that you have indeed shown them to be true.

I say you have not shown them to be true, and that they are incoherent anyway, because the expressions 'moral reality' and 'moral truth' have no clear meaning - as yet. The words don't 'go together'.
As usual you created a strawman or failed to understand my points;
  • 1 There are physical and mental realities within the brain/body.
    2 Some of 1 are related 'morality-proper' (as defined).
    3 There are moral physical and mental realities within the brain/body.
Note: Every and each of what is true of 3 must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK [moral].

I have demonstrated a few examples [not all] of physical and mental moral realities, e.g. the physical and mental of ought-not_ness 'no human ought to kill humans'.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:19 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:24 am
In the continuum from opinion [low credibility], beliefs then to knowledge, I have to admit my proposed moral FSK is a belief with high personal conviction that is qualified to be credible "on paper" based on the incorporated features of credibility.
Like I said, it is something like an architect who is confident his building according to plan will stand an 8.0 earthquake because he has imputed all necessary features of credibility into his plan.
I have also stated my proposed moral FSK is based on existing moral systems that are already working to some degrees, but mine is a few folds better in credibility.
Then why do you keep trying to claim facts on the basis of it, and why do you keep calling everyone who doesn't agree with it a dogmatic bastard?

You haven't persuaded a single person in the whole world that your FSK counts for anything at all. You have zero credibility.
Why do you insist by yourself that you are a dogmatic bastard.

I was referring to you and Peter and the likes being influenced [brainwashed] by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and their arrogance in being dogmatic with their beliefs triggering them to condemn those who do not agree with them in the most derogatory ways.

Note again, I have not presented the full model of my moral FSK here. I don't have any intention to persuade anyone here to consider and accept my full moral FSK/model.

My main contention re morality is that there are moral reality [physical and mental] and truths within morality-proper[as defined] which is to counter Peter's OP,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
That's a claim which requires agreement with the FSK that asserts it. You don't intend to give anyone any reason to do that. Therefore your argument is empty.

You lose, Pete wins. Can we end the spam now?
Post Reply