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: 2039
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:29 am Right.

'Morality' has at least two usages.
1. Cultural systems of personal and political governance.(Sociological, historical, and anthropological)

2. Evaluation of the above, especially personal morality of people other than oneself.(Gossip)
Thanks, Belinda. And just to run with your distinction.

That we have developed - and are still developing - 'cultural systems of personal and political governance' is true. It's a fact. But it isn't a moral fact - because there's no such thing.

And that we can and do evaluate - make moral evaluations - is also true. It's a fact. But, again, it isn't a moral fact - because there's no such thing.

A fact is just a state-of-affairs that is or was the case (or a description thereof). The idea that there could be a moral state-of-affairs that is or was the case - such as the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion, capital punishment or eating animals - is completely incoherent.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2039
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

A thought on the psychology of moral objectivism

Moral realists and objectivists, who think there are moral facts, always - and I mean always - think their own moral opinions are facts. And this is unsurprising. It would be inconsistent to believe that something is a moral fact while holding an opposing moral opinion: 'It's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong, but I think eating animals is not morally wrong'.

So I suggest a way to cure moral objectivists of their egotism is to confront them with their own delusion, as in a mirror - to apply a kind of aversion therapy. For example, for someone who's convinced it's a fact that abortion is morally wrong, a confrontation with someone who's equally convinced it's a fact that abortion is not morally wrong may help them to recognise that this is a conflict of opinions, not a disagreement about a fact. (And vice versa, of course. Mutual benefit. The penny may drop for both of them.)
Skepdick
Posts: 8444
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:59 am A fact is just a state-of-affairs that is or was the case (or a description thereof). The idea that there could be a moral state-of-affairs that is or was the case - such as the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion, capital punishment or eating animals - is completely incoherent.
Then how are you using the words "right" and "wrong"?

What are you expressing, if not an objective state of mind?

Seems you have some private use of those terms that you keep refusing to disclose.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 11849
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:37 pm A thought on the psychology of moral objectivism

Moral realists and objectivists, who think there are moral facts, always - and I mean always - think their own moral opinions are facts. And this is unsurprising. It would be inconsistent to believe that something is a moral fact while holding an opposing moral opinion: 'It's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong, but I think eating animals is not morally wrong'.

So I suggest a way to cure moral objectivists of their egotism is to confront them with their own delusion, as in a mirror - to apply a kind of aversion therapy. For example, for someone who's convinced it's a fact that abortion is morally wrong, a confrontation with someone who's equally convinced it's a fact that abortion is not morally wrong may help them to recognise that this is a conflict of opinions, not a disagreement about a fact. (And vice versa, of course. Mutual benefit. The penny may drop for both of them.)
where you been, guy? that's been goin' on in-forum, across multiple threads, for years

it ain't amounted to nuthin' but sour feelin's all the way around

sorry, guy, but you & yours are stuck with us moral realists

best get used to it
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2039
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:25 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:37 pm A thought on the psychology of moral objectivism

Moral realists and objectivists, who think there are moral facts, always - and I mean always - think their own moral opinions are facts. And this is unsurprising. It would be inconsistent to believe that something is a moral fact while holding an opposing moral opinion: 'It's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong, but I think eating animals is not morally wrong'.

So I suggest a way to cure moral objectivists of their egotism is to confront them with their own delusion, as in a mirror - to apply a kind of aversion therapy. For example, for someone who's convinced it's a fact that abortion is morally wrong, a confrontation with someone who's equally convinced it's a fact that abortion is not morally wrong may help them to recognise that this is a conflict of opinions, not a disagreement about a fact. (And vice versa, of course. Mutual benefit. The penny may drop for both of them.)
where you been, guy? that's been goin' on in-forum, across multiple threads, for years

it ain't amounted to nuthin' but sour feelin's all the way around

sorry, guy, but you & yours are stuck with us moral realists

best get used to it
I think you're wrong - and unduly pessimistic about the egotism and impermeability to rational argument of moral realists and objectivists. And hey, even swivel-eyed vangie magas can and do change their minds. Enlightenment is possible, and hope springs eternal.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 11849
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:07 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:25 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:37 pm A thought on the psychology of moral objectivism

Moral realists and objectivists, who think there are moral facts, always - and I mean always - think their own moral opinions are facts. And this is unsurprising. It would be inconsistent to believe that something is a moral fact while holding an opposing moral opinion: 'It's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong, but I think eating animals is not morally wrong'.

So I suggest a way to cure moral objectivists of their egotism is to confront them with their own delusion, as in a mirror - to apply a kind of aversion therapy. For example, for someone who's convinced it's a fact that abortion is morally wrong, a confrontation with someone who's equally convinced it's a fact that abortion is not morally wrong may help them to recognise that this is a conflict of opinions, not a disagreement about a fact. (And vice versa, of course. Mutual benefit. The penny may drop for both of them.)
where you been, guy? that's been goin' on in-forum, across multiple threads, for years

it ain't amounted to nuthin' but sour feelin's all the way around

sorry, guy, but you & yours are stuck with us moral realists

best get used to it
I think you're wrong - and unduly pessimistic about the egotism and impermeability to rational argument of moral realists and objectivists. And hey, even swivel-eyed vangie magas can and do change their minds. Enlightenment is possible, and hope springs eternal.
well, I'm only goin' on the sample of such contests that, as I say, have been goin' on here, in-forum, across multiple threads, for years

that might make a good thread: if you were a moral realist or a moral anti-realist, but aren't today, what changed your mind?
Skepdick
Posts: 8444
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:37 pm For example, for someone who's convinced it's a fact that abortion is morally wrong, a confrontation with someone who's equally convinced it's a fact that abortion is not morally wrong may help them to recognise that this is a conflict of opinions, not a disagreement about a fact. (And vice versa, of course. Mutual benefit. The penny may drop for both of them.)
For somebody who's convinced that Earth is an oblate spheroid, a confrontation with somebody who's equally convinced that the Earth is flat may help them recognise that human conflict is not about "facts" and "opinions".

Do you think the penny will drop for both of them, or would it be safe to point out that you misunderstand the problem?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7047
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:37 pm A thought on the psychology of moral objectivism

Moral realists and objectivists, who think there are moral facts, always - and I mean always - think their own moral opinions are facts. And this is unsurprising. It would be inconsistent to believe that something is a moral fact while holding an opposing moral opinion: 'It's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong, but I think eating animals is not morally wrong'.

So I suggest a way to cure moral objectivists of their egotism is to confront them with their own delusion, as in a mirror - to apply a kind of aversion therapy. For example, for someone who's convinced it's a fact that abortion is morally wrong, a confrontation with someone who's equally convinced it's a fact that abortion is not morally wrong may help them to recognise that this is a conflict of opinions, not a disagreement about a fact. (And vice versa, of course. Mutual benefit. The penny may drop for both of them.)
As usual you are trying to be rhetorical and banking on matters which are not critical to morality, like eating animals [20/100 criticalness] and abortion [like 60/100 criticalness].

What don't you use the more critical moral issues like
  • 1. genocides [95/100 moral criticalness],
    2. humans killing of human [90/100],
    3. raping children [90/100],
    4. torturing babies, toddlers, children for pleasure [90/100].
    5. others of the likes at 90/100
If you were to ask ALL [or the majority] normal [not certify as mentally ill] humans whether they agree with the above supposedly moral related acts [1-5], do you think you will get 50% agreements and 50% [or there about] disagreements to the extent as if they are giving their opinions on the issues.

From our own personal experiences and the gathering of the related data and knowledge from history to the present, it is likely 99.9% of all normal humans [..including you?] will find, feel and conclude the above acts are abhorrent and condemnable which are dealt within a topic that is labelled as 'morality'.

Just compare one's own reactions, responses, emotions and expressions with the majority of normal people on those acts [1-5] as compared to reactions to abortion and eating animals. These responses are most likely instinctual rather than influenced strongly by ideology [abortion -religion, eating animals - veganism].

For those who are sufficient intelligent and intuitive, they would likely abduce a hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [..I believe you are ignorant of what is abductive reasoning] to investigate these obvious instincts for the likelihood,
there is something [a fact re moral or a moral state of affair] that cause all normal humans to condemn the above acts so strongly and emotionally.

Upon the proper investigation of the above of which many have done research on it within a moral framework and system, as verified and justified there are moral facts supporting the abhorrence and condemnations of the above acts as immoral.

This is why in a survey of a group [in hundreds] of philosophers, 56% are moral realists, 68% are moral cognitivists which support moral is objective while only 28% are moral anti-realists.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2039
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:14 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:37 pm A thought on the psychology of moral objectivism

Moral realists and objectivists, who think there are moral facts, always - and I mean always - think their own moral opinions are facts. And this is unsurprising. It would be inconsistent to believe that something is a moral fact while holding an opposing moral opinion: 'It's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong, but I think eating animals is not morally wrong'.

So I suggest a way to cure moral objectivists of their egotism is to confront them with their own delusion, as in a mirror - to apply a kind of aversion therapy. For example, for someone who's convinced it's a fact that abortion is morally wrong, a confrontation with someone who's equally convinced it's a fact that abortion is not morally wrong may help them to recognise that this is a conflict of opinions, not a disagreement about a fact. (And vice versa, of course. Mutual benefit. The penny may drop for both of them.)
As usual you are trying to be rhetorical and banking on matters which are not critical to morality, like eating animals [20/100 criticalness] and abortion [like 60/100 criticalness].

What don't you use the more critical moral issues like
  • 1. genocides [95/100 moral criticalness],
    2. humans killing of human [90/100],
    3. raping children [90/100],
    4. torturing babies, toddlers, children for pleasure [90/100].
    5. others of the likes at 90/100
If you were to ask ALL [or the majority] normal [not certify as mentally ill] humans whether they agree with the above supposedly moral related acts [1-5], do you think you will get 50% agreements and 50% [or there about] disagreements to the extent as if they are giving their opinions on the issues.

From our own personal experiences and the gathering of the related data and knowledge from history to the present, it is likely 99.9% of all normal humans [..including you?] will find, feel and conclude the above acts are abhorrent and condemnable which are dealt within a topic that is labelled as 'morality'.

Just compare one's own reactions, responses, emotions and expressions with the majority of normal people on those acts [1-5] as compared to reactions to abortion and eating animals. These responses are most likely instinctual rather than influenced strongly by ideology [abortion -religion, eating animals - veganism].

For those who are sufficient intelligent and intuitive, they would likely abduce a hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [..I believe you are ignorant of what is abductive reasoning] to investigate these obvious instincts for the likelihood,
there is something [a fact re moral or a moral state of affair] that cause all normal humans to condemn the above acts so strongly and emotionally.

Upon the proper investigation of the above of which many have done research on it within a moral framework and system, as verified and justified there are moral facts supporting the abhorrence and condemnations of the above acts as immoral.

This is why in a survey of a group [in hundreds] of philosophers, 56% are moral realists, 68% are moral cognitivists which support moral is objective while only 28% are moral anti-realists.
The claim that abortion and eating animals are not 'critical to morality', but that genocide and rape are; and the claim that the distinction depends on the intensity and precentage of popular feeling; and the claim that this adds up to moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - these claims are laughable. Are you being serious?

You keep making the same mistake: claiming that a factual assertion can entail or induce a moral conclusion. For example -

Most people find this behaviour revolting/disgusting/abhorrent, etc; therefore (it's a fact that) this behaviour is morally wrong.

Whereas the conclusion is: therefore (it's a fact that) most people think this behaviour is morally wrong.

The claim 'this behaviour IS morally wrong' can only ever express a moral value-judgement, belief or opinion. The reason why we make the moral value-judgement - such as our revulsion at the behaviour - has no bearing on that.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

I think this question could so easily be put to the test with a simple example.

I wonder if the objectivists can agree with each other, or will they offer different, and therefore, subjective perspectives?

To do the "test" you must give your honest opinion about morals and honesty of the four characters in our story of Sherwood Forest. Forget any preconceived ideas you may about them - this is a different sort of story from all the others. Ready?

The Sheriff of Nottingham captured Little John and Robin Hood and imprisoned them in his maximum-security dungeon. Maid Marion begged the Sheriff for their release, pleading her love for Robin. The Sheriff agreed to release them only if Maid Marion spent the night with him. To this she agreed. The next morning the Sheriff released his prisoners. Robin at once demanded that Marion tell him how she persuaded the Sheriff to let them go free. Marion confessed the truth, and was bewildered when Robin abused her, called her a slut, and said that he never wanted to see her again. At this Little John defended her, inviting her to leave Sherwood with him and promising lifelong devotion. She accepted and they rode away together.


Now in terms of realistic everyday standards of behavior, put Robin, Marion, Little John, and the Sheriff in the order in which you consider they showed the most morality. There is no "right" answer, and I'll give the psychologist's analysis for you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7047
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:14 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:37 pm A thought on the psychology of moral objectivism

Moral realists and objectivists, who think there are moral facts, always - and I mean always - think their own moral opinions are facts. And this is unsurprising. It would be inconsistent to believe that something is a moral fact while holding an opposing moral opinion: 'It's a fact that eating animals is morally wrong, but I think eating animals is not morally wrong'.

So I suggest a way to cure moral objectivists of their egotism is to confront them with their own delusion, as in a mirror - to apply a kind of aversion therapy. For example, for someone who's convinced it's a fact that abortion is morally wrong, a confrontation with someone who's equally convinced it's a fact that abortion is not morally wrong may help them to recognise that this is a conflict of opinions, not a disagreement about a fact. (And vice versa, of course. Mutual benefit. The penny may drop for both of them.)
As usual you are trying to be rhetorical and banking on matters which are not critical to morality, like eating animals [20/100 criticalness] and abortion [like 60/100 criticalness].

What don't you use the more critical moral issues like
  • 1. genocides [95/100 moral criticalness],
    2. humans killing of human [90/100],
    3. raping children [90/100],
    4. torturing babies, toddlers, children for pleasure [90/100].
    5. others of the likes at 90/100
If you were to ask ALL [or the majority] normal [not certify as mentally ill] humans whether they agree with the above supposedly moral related acts [1-5], do you think you will get 50% agreements and 50% [or there about] disagreements to the extent as if they are giving their opinions on the issues.

From our own personal experiences and the gathering of the related data and knowledge from history to the present, it is likely 99.9% of all normal humans [..including you?] will find, feel and conclude the above acts are abhorrent and condemnable which are dealt within a topic that is labelled as 'morality'.

Just compare one's own reactions, responses, emotions and expressions with the majority of normal people on those acts [1-5] as compared to reactions to abortion and eating animals. These responses are most likely instinctual rather than influenced strongly by ideology [abortion -religion, eating animals - veganism].

For those who are sufficient intelligent and intuitive, they would likely abduce a hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [..I believe you are ignorant of what is abductive reasoning] to investigate these obvious instincts for the likelihood,
there is something [a fact re moral or a moral state of affair] that cause all normal humans to condemn the above acts so strongly and emotionally.

Upon the proper investigation of the above of which many have done research on it within a moral framework and system, as verified and justified there are moral facts supporting the abhorrence and condemnations of the above acts as immoral.

This is why in a survey of a group [in hundreds] of philosophers, 56% are moral realists, 68% are moral cognitivists which support moral is objective while only 28% are moral anti-realists.
The claim that abortion and eating animals are not 'critical to morality', but that genocide and rape are; and the claim that the distinction depends on the intensity and precentage of popular feeling; and the claim that this adds up to moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - these claims are laughable. Are you being serious?
You are so desperate in jumping to conclusion without understanding the contents of the post.

Where did I state the above intuitive-judgments conclude moral objectivity?
Do you understand the limits of intuitive-judgment leading to abduction [not induction].
That is why I stated you are ignorant of what is abductive reasoning as with so much of philosophical knowledge.

I have already explained what is Moral Objectivity here,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31161
it is not grounded on intuitions which are subjective to an individual.

The majority of people has moral intuition those acts [1-5] are morally abhorrent.

Are you insisting these acts [1-5] are not morally abhorrent than abortion and eating animals?

Use your common moral sense [it is likely you don't have it].
If a woman is given a choice to abort her child or give up veganism, else all people [50,000] in her village will killed [genocides], which do you think she will choose?
You keep making the same mistake: claiming that a factual assertion can entail or induce a moral conclusion. For example -

Most people find this behaviour revolting/disgusting/abhorrent, etc; therefore (it's a fact that) this behaviour is morally wrong.

Whereas the conclusion is: therefore (it's a fact that) most people think this behaviour is morally wrong.

The claim 'this behaviour IS morally wrong' can only ever express a moral value-judgement, belief or opinion. The reason why we make the moral value-judgement - such as our revulsion at the behaviour - has no bearing on that.
Again you are desperate in jumping to conclusion.
Where did I claim of factual assertions re moral elements entail a moral conclusion?

Whatever is concluded as a moral fact must be verified and justified [like in science] within a Moral Framework and System, thus objective.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2039
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:26 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:14 am
As usual you are trying to be rhetorical and banking on matters which are not critical to morality, like eating animals [20/100 criticalness] and abortion [like 60/100 criticalness].

What don't you use the more critical moral issues like
  • 1. genocides [95/100 moral criticalness],
    2. humans killing of human [90/100],
    3. raping children [90/100],
    4. torturing babies, toddlers, children for pleasure [90/100].
    5. others of the likes at 90/100
If you were to ask ALL [or the majority] normal [not certify as mentally ill] humans whether they agree with the above supposedly moral related acts [1-5], do you think you will get 50% agreements and 50% [or there about] disagreements to the extent as if they are giving their opinions on the issues.

From our own personal experiences and the gathering of the related data and knowledge from history to the present, it is likely 99.9% of all normal humans [..including you?] will find, feel and conclude the above acts are abhorrent and condemnable which are dealt within a topic that is labelled as 'morality'.

Just compare one's own reactions, responses, emotions and expressions with the majority of normal people on those acts [1-5] as compared to reactions to abortion and eating animals. These responses are most likely instinctual rather than influenced strongly by ideology [abortion -religion, eating animals - veganism].

For those who are sufficient intelligent and intuitive, they would likely abduce a hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [..I believe you are ignorant of what is abductive reasoning] to investigate these obvious instincts for the likelihood,
there is something [a fact re moral or a moral state of affair] that cause all normal humans to condemn the above acts so strongly and emotionally.

Upon the proper investigation of the above of which many have done research on it within a moral framework and system, as verified and justified there are moral facts supporting the abhorrence and condemnations of the above acts as immoral.

This is why in a survey of a group [in hundreds] of philosophers, 56% are moral realists, 68% are moral cognitivists which support moral is objective while only 28% are moral anti-realists.
The claim that abortion and eating animals are not 'critical to morality', but that genocide and rape are; and the claim that the distinction depends on the intensity and precentage of popular feeling; and the claim that this adds up to moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - these claims are laughable. Are you being serious?
You are so desperate in jumping to conclusion without understanding the contents of the post.

Where did I state the above intuitive-judgments conclude moral objectivity?
Do you understand the limits of intuitive-judgment leading to abduction [not induction].
That is why I stated you are ignorant of what is abductive reasoning as with so much of philosophical knowledge.

I have already explained what is Moral Objectivity here,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31161
it is not grounded on intuitions which are subjective to an individual.

The majority of people has moral intuition those acts [1-5] are morally abhorrent.

Are you insisting these acts [1-5] are not morally abhorrent than abortion and eating animals?

Use your common moral sense [it is likely you don't have it].
If a woman is given a choice to abort her child or give up veganism, else all people [50,000] in her village will killed [genocides], which do you think she will choose?
You keep making the same mistake: claiming that a factual assertion can entail or induce a moral conclusion. For example -

Most people find this behaviour revolting/disgusting/abhorrent, etc; therefore (it's a fact that) this behaviour is morally wrong.

Whereas the conclusion is: therefore (it's a fact that) most people think this behaviour is morally wrong.

The claim 'this behaviour IS morally wrong' can only ever express a moral value-judgement, belief or opinion. The reason why we make the moral value-judgement - such as our revulsion at the behaviour - has no bearing on that.
Again you are desperate in jumping to conclusion.
Where did I claim of factual assertions re moral elements entail a moral conclusion?

Whatever is concluded as a moral fact must be verified and justified [like in science] within a Moral Framework and System, thus objective.
1 Abduction is argument to the best or most likely conclusion. A factual assertion can't entail, induce or abduce a moral conclusion.

2 Perhaps you don't understand that claims such as 'most people find this behaviour disgusting' and 'people are 'programmed' not to kill humans' and each of us has moral intuitions' - these are ALL factual premises. And not one of them can entail, induce or abduce a moral conclusion, such as 'therefore, humans killing humans is morally wrong'. Perhaps you don't recognise the structure of your argument, and therefore why it's unsound.

3 Yes, what you call a moral fact must be verified and justified (like in science).Which means, as in science, that a moral assertion must be falsifiable. And yes, as in science, the reliability of the descriptive context has to be established. Just saying 'there's a physics FSK, so there are physics facts' is no good. And just saying 'there's a morality FSK, so there are moral facts' is also no good. They're just claims, and we need empirical evidence.

4 So far, you've produced no empirical evidence for the existence of even one moral fact. And it's not just me saying this; I can't remember anyone here agreeing with you about the spurious 'evidence' you've offered. But hey, keep claiming that you have. Keep the pathetic objectivist show on the road.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7047
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:20 am 1 Abduction is argument to the best or most likely conclusion.
A factual assertion can't entail, induce or abduce a moral conclusion.
Nah, you are exposing your ignorance.
The most an abduction can do is to induce a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
Thus any factual assertion from moral intuition at most can only entails a hypothesis, not a moral conclusion.
2 Perhaps you don't understand that claims such as 'most people find this behaviour disgusting' and 'people are 'programmed' not to kill humans' and each of us has moral intuitions' - these are ALL factual premises. And not one of them can entail, induce or abduce a moral conclusion, such as 'therefore, humans killing humans is morally wrong'. Perhaps you don't recognise the structure of your argument, and therefore why it's unsound.
If they are merely factual assertions as intuition, opinions or belief, they are not moral conclusions as moral facts.
Moral facts representing a feature of reality must be verified and justified within a moral framework and system.
3 Yes, what you call a moral fact must be verified and justified (like in science).Which means, as in science, that a moral assertion must be falsifiable. And yes, as in science, the reliability of the descriptive context has to be established. Just saying 'there's a physics FSK, so there are physics facts' is no good. And just saying 'there's a morality FSK, so there are moral facts' is also no good. They're just claims, and we need empirical evidence.
That is why you are ignorant again in conflating Physics with Morality.
The Physics FSK deal with facts that are physical.
The Psychological FSK with facts relating to mental activities and human behavior.
The Moral FSR/FSK deal with what is good, evil and moral elements of human behavior confined to the individual's moral development.
Any variance from the moral standards from moral facts guides the individual to improve towards the moral standard. The termed 'morally wrong' is not an effective term for morality-proper.
4 So far, you've produced no empirical evidence for the existence of even one moral fact. And it's not just me saying this; I can't remember anyone here agreeing with you about the spurious 'evidence' you've offered. But hey, keep claiming that you have. Keep the pathetic objectivist show on the road.
I have presented what is necessary to justify my intellectual integrity and honesty.
If you do not agree, that is not my business.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2039
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:40 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:20 am 1 Abduction is argument to the best or most likely conclusion.
A factual assertion can't entail, induce or abduce a moral conclusion.
Nah, you are exposing your ignorance.
The most an abduction can do is to induce a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
Thus any factual assertion from moral intuition at most can only entails a hypothesis, not a moral conclusion.
2 Perhaps you don't understand that claims such as 'most people find this behaviour disgusting' and 'people are 'programmed' not to kill humans' and each of us has moral intuitions' - these are ALL factual premises. And not one of them can entail, induce or abduce a moral conclusion, such as 'therefore, humans killing humans is morally wrong'. Perhaps you don't recognise the structure of your argument, and therefore why it's unsound.
If they are merely factual assertions as intuition, opinions or belief, they are not moral conclusions as moral facts.
Moral facts representing a feature of reality must be verified and justified within a moral framework and system.
3 Yes, what you call a moral fact must be verified and justified (like in science).Which means, as in science, that a moral assertion must be falsifiable. And yes, as in science, the reliability of the descriptive context has to be established. Just saying 'there's a physics FSK, so there are physics facts' is no good. And just saying 'there's a morality FSK, so there are moral facts' is also no good. They're just claims, and we need empirical evidence.
That is why you are ignorant again in conflating Physics with Morality.
The Physics FSK deal with facts that are physical.
The Psychological FSK with facts relating to mental activities and human behavior.
The Moral FSR/FSK deal with what is good, evil and moral elements of human behavior confined to the individual's moral development.
Any variance from the moral standards from moral facts guides the individual to improve towards the moral standard. The termed 'morally wrong' is not an effective term for morality-proper.
4 So far, you've produced no empirical evidence for the existence of even one moral fact. And it's not just me saying this; I can't remember anyone here agreeing with you about the spurious 'evidence' you've offered. But hey, keep claiming that you have. Keep the pathetic objectivist show on the road.
I have presented what is necessary to justify my intellectual integrity and honesty.
If you do not agree, that is not my business.
1 If an argument abductively concludes with an hypothesis, that hypothesis is the conclusion of the abductive argument. Don't be stupid.

2 I don't 'conflate physics with morality', idiot. That's what you do when you claim that there are empirically verifiable moral facts, just as there are empirically verifiable physics facts. You just say there, but never show there are, because you can't. The claim is incoherent.

3 Yes, morality deals with what we call good and evil, right and wrong, proper and improper in human behaviour. But the fact that we adopt moral standards by which to judge behaviour DOESN'T MEAN THOSE STANDARDS ARE FACTS. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, that doesn't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong - just as, if we thought the opposite, that wouldn't make it a fact that slavery isn't morally wrong.

4 The fundamental mistake is the claim that consistency with a goal of any kind has any moral implication. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y', which may be empirically verifiable, nonethless makes no moral judgement about either the goal or the action. So it isn't moral assertion at all - and so it can't express a moral fact. The only fact involved is consistency with or variation from a subjectively chosen goal. And that doesn't mean there can be moral facts, so that morality is objective. There aren't, and it isn't.

5 What you have presented is insufficient to justify your claim that morality is objective. So the rational course is to withdraw the claim - or try to come up with credible evidence and sound argument. Certainly agnosticism with regard to moral objectivism is indicated.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7047
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:09 am 1 If an argument abductively concludes with an hypothesis, that hypothesis is the conclusion of the abductive argument. Don't be stupid.
You are the stupid one.
That is why I stated you are stuck in the linguistic perspective and taking things too linguistically.

Note in Philosophy, a conclusion is generally referred to a verified and justified fact upon a specific framework and system.
2 I don't 'conflate physics with morality', idiot. That's what you do when you claim that there are empirically verifiable moral facts, just as there are empirically verifiable physics facts. You just say there, but never show there are, because you can't. The claim is incoherent.
You are so ignorant despite my explanation.
Read my response to the point again.
3 Yes, morality deals with what we call good and evil, right and wrong, proper and improper in human behaviour. But the fact that we adopt moral standards by which to judge behaviour DOESN'T MEAN THOSE STANDARDS ARE FACTS. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, that doesn't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong - just as, if we thought the opposite, that wouldn't make it a fact that slavery isn't morally wrong.
You got it wrong again.
They are only standards when verified and justified as moral facts within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.
4 The fundamental mistake is the claim that consistency with a goal of any kind has any moral implication. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y', which may be empirically verifiable, nonethless makes no moral judgement about either the goal or the action. So it isn't moral assertion at all - and so it can't express a moral fact. The only fact involved is consistency with or variation from a subjectively chosen goal. And that doesn't mean there can be moral facts, so that morality is objective. There aren't, and it isn't.
Again,
They are only moral facts when verified and justified within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.
5 What you have presented is insufficient to justify your claim that morality is objective. So the rational course is to withdraw the claim - or try to come up with credible evidence and sound argument. Certainly agnosticism with regard to moral objectivism is indicated.
I am not expecting you to agree with my points at all, since you are in such a kindergarten stage in terms of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Btw, as rough guide, how many books and articles have you read on Morality and Ethics and what are the range of the moral topics involved?
Suggest you do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to upgrade.

Btw, have you ever researched to find out the history of and how your moral stance 'no moral fact thus no moral objectivity' came about and its related philosophical views.
I bet you are ignorant of the above.
Post Reply