What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

You keep saying this phrase, and it keeps being completely uninformative of anything...by your own account, too.

I could teach you mathematics. English is not very good at expressing continuums.

[Immanuel Can]

You keep saying this phrase, and it keeps being completely uninformative of anything...by your own account, too.

I could teach you mathematics. English is not very good at expressing continuums.

There is no objective meaning in your words. I can't tell what you're saying.

[TimeSeeker]

There is no objective meaning in your words. I can't tell what you're saying.

Well, you have no claim to objectivity so I am sure we will be OK

[Immanuel Can]

There is no objective meaning in your words. I can't tell what you're saying.

Well, you have no claim to objectivity so I am sure we will be OK

We won't be okay, but we'll be mutually uncomprehending, with no possible ameliorative measure in sight, according to your view.

[TimeSeeker]

We won't be okay, but we'll be mutually uncomprehending, with no possible ameliorative measure in sight, according to your view.

You don't know that. Either we will figure it out or we won't.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't know that. Either we will figure it out or we won't.

But we have no way to know if we ever have.

Remember? Language is infinitely flexible. So we have absolutely no way to "figure it out." What might happen by accident -- but is highly unlikely to -- is that for a brief moment some meaning we both intended might somewhat overlap -- but if it did, we'd never know about that. In fact, it might not ever happen at all.

We wouldn't even know what we don't know.

And again, you appear to be using language as if the infinite flexibility idea is wrong. You're just shooting yourself in the foot repeatedly, by defending the idea of incomprehensibility, using the techniques that presume comprehensibility.

[TimeSeeker]

You don't know that. Either we will figure it out or we won't.

But we have no way to know if we ever have.

I do. If we work as a team to kill that tiger - I think we have some form of understanding going. Even if it is just grunting and pointing.
And we can develop language to improve it...

Teleology.

Or the tiger kills us and then nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

I do. If we work as a team to kill that tiger - I think we have some form of understanding going.
And we can develop language to improve it...

If this is true, then the infinite flexibility of language thesis is false. We can use language to refer to tiger situations in common, then.

But a further problem: you and I have no common "tigers." We're communicating at the moment by issuing mere symbols. How is that possible: for it clearly is. And you know, as well as I, that for me to play games with you like saying, "You are saying 'IC, you are a genius,'" is disingenuous on my part. I know you know what I mean. And I can tell by your responses that you do.

It's not that there's no variability of meaning between us -- clearly, there is: but it's that the variability isn't the whole story. Not only is it not the whole story, it's not even the major part of the story.

And you are continually demonstrating, by responding, that the infinite flexibility thesis is false.

[TimeSeeker]

If this is true, then the infinite flexibility of language thesis is false. We can use language to refer to tiger situations in common, then.

By what standard of truth?

If I oppose your teleology (tiger hunting) I can resort to deconstruction to stretch language infinitely and distort meaning.
If I support your cause I can strive for clarity.

The language itself is immaterial. It is just a tool - the teleology of the interlocutors are the only variables.

It is how politics work...

And you are continually demonstrating, by responding, that the infinite flexibility thesis is false.

Because I am CHOOSING to cooperate, rather than disrupt.
That is information asymmetry on your part - you are not privy to my intentions.

If I begin disrupting you will interpret my BEHAVIOUR very differently!

[Immanuel Can]

If this is true, then the infinite flexibility of language thesis is false. We can use language to refer to tiger situations in common, then.

By what standard of truth?

By the internal standard of performative inconsistency. You use words to debunk words. If you succeed, you fail.

And you are continually demonstrating, by responding, that the infinite flexibility thesis is false.

Because I am CHOOSING to cooperate, rather than disrupt.

But if language is infinitely variable, you don't know that's what you're doing. You just made a knowledge claim, without intending to. You said you know that you are "choosing to cooperate." Well, how do you know what you're "cooperating" with, and how do you know you're not "disrupting"? If you don't know what the language means, you simply don't know this at all.

[TimeSeeker]

By the internal standard of performative inconsistency. You use words to debunk words. If you succeed, you fail.

That is just an observational error. You are missing a significant variable - my intent.
You are interpreting the evidence in your reference frame - not mine.

Because of that you are using abductive instead of deductive reasoning. It is sufficient to produce an error.

And you are continually demonstrating, by responding, that the infinite flexibility thesis is false.
But if language is infinitely variable, you don't know that's what you're doing. You just made a knowledge claim, without intending to. You said you know that you are "choosing to cooperate." Well, how do you know what you're "cooperating" with, and how do you know you're not "disrupting"? If you don't know what the language means, you simply don't know this at all.

I don't know. We can utter the words 'I agree' and walk away none the wiser. Wiio's law applies. "all human communication fails, except by accident"
It is best effort. At some point verificationism is required.

It is especially bad when you talk about metaphysics. Ant there is no verificationism there...

[Immanuel Can]

By the internal standard of performative inconsistency. You use words to debunk words. If you succeed, you fail.

That is just an observational error. You are missing a significant variable - my intent.

It doesn't matter. I can't know what your intent is, and you can't communicate it to me, according to your view. So it cannot be an important "variable" here.

You are interpreting the evidence in your reference frame - not mine.

According to you, I cannot have your frame of reference, so this is no fault on my part. It's inevitable, according to the infinite flexibility idea.

Because of that you are using abductive instead of deductive reasoning. It is sufficient to produce an error.

There are no errors in language. It's all one big blob of amorphous material, and nothing can be said to be more or less erroneous in it, according to your view.

I don't know. We can utter the words 'I agree' and walk away none the wiser.

Yes, we can. The question, though, is MUST we? If language is infinitely flexible, then that's the only outcome we can really expect.

At some point verificationism is required.

Agreed. But what is the objective criterion by which we can "verify" that we have communicated, if language is infinitely flexible?

[TimeSeeker]

It doesn't matter. I can't know what your intent is, and you can't communicate it to me, according to your view. So it cannot be an important "variable" here.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There are no errors in language. It's all one big blob of amorphous material, and nothing can be said to be more or less erroneous in it, according to your view.

Indeed. Only errors in action/consequences.

If language is infinitely flexible, then that's the only outcome we can really expect.

That is a VERY good question. To which you have neither an answer nor a consistent position.

I am surprised that you argue against objective morality, yet you are now defending the objective meaning of words when you clearly rejected 'no harm' as an objective moral principle on the basis of it being "insufficiently defined". Do you even care about coherence?

According to you, I cannot have your frame of reference, so this is no fault on my part. It's inevitable, according to the infinite flexibility idea.

And according to you - we can be privy to God's frame of reference and moral guidance? I wonder what 'objectively meaningful language' your God will use to communicate his morality to us

If anything - your conception of 'objectivity' sure seems ironically, infinitely flexible. Let me remind you because you seem to have a rather short memory span:

There is already an objective moral framework. No harm.

No "harm"? No good. Sorry.

It's not just that you haven't defined what constitutes "harm," although that's a pretty serious fault: but even worse, we don't know what principle tells us that causing "harm" (whatever that may be interpreted as being) is morally wrong at all.

Without a prior principle that it is, for some reason, "wrong" to harm the weak, you've not got something defensible there. It sounds good, at first hearing, but it's really vacuous and can be subverted at the first question.

Contrarians. So predictable

Now - back on topic. When using the word 'objective' in the exact same manner in which you use it when you speak of 'objective morality' then words don't have objective meaning.

So which idea do you want to cling on now? Objective meaning or 'no harm' is meaningless?

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't matter. I can't know what your intent is, and you can't communicate it to me, according to your view. So it cannot be an important "variable" here.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Relevance?

If language is infinitely flexible, then that's the only outcome we can really expect.

That is a VERY good question. To which you have neither an answer nor a consistent position.

It's your problem, not mine. You're the one who imagines language is infinitely flexible. I think it's not. But I didn't even ask a question above, so your response makes no sense.

I guess maybe you really DO think it doesn't matter what the words say.

Now - back on topic. When using the word 'objective' in the exact same manner in which you use it when you speak of 'objective morality' then words don't have objective meaning. Otherwise you have a pretty good idea what I mean by 'no harm'.

Your essential claim makes it impossible. I cannot have any such "good idea." According to you, your words don't mean anything objective.

But as it is, the "no harm" idea is too poorly defined, even for someone who DID believe in objective meaning, as I've already pointed out. It can't ground anything...not even a clear idea of what is being spoken about.

But why are we still talking? If words have no objective meaning, are you having fun ravelling out nonsense syllables? Because that's the implication of the infinite flexibility view.

[TimeSeeker]

But as it is, the "no harm" idea is too poorly defined, even for someone who DID believe in objective meaning, as I've already pointed out. It can't ground anything...not even a clear idea of what is being spoken about.

What if God commanded 'no harm'? Is it God's fault that you cannot interpret his objective meaning?!?

What are your objective criteria for grounding in the face of the symbol-grounding problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

You can't have it both ways.