What could make morality objective?

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

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:50 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:57 pm
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:22 pm
There is a certain understanding in morality, and it defies reason.. Laws are attempts to make morals objective, but since the Decalogue we have had a loop hole for every law...
The loop hole is as a direct result of the symbol-grounding problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

Meaning is an ellusive thing. Difficult to capture in words. Even harder to prevent it from escaping.
I know that is false.. The problem is that no one no matter how well meaning can dictate by law what is proper human behavior.. What is not proscribed is allowed... What the Decalogue tried to do, and Jesus as well- was to make conscious a psychological relationship with both God and society.. This was crucial, the understanding that sin and crime happen first in the mind.. No one knows if you covet you neighbors wife or goods.. What is true, and Jesus tried to point out is: Sin happens first in the mind, and this is true of all crime, sin, and immorality.. The later laws of the Jews did its best to formalize the relationship between the individual and society and failed... Again, because laws make loopholes.. And Jesus said man was not made for the law, but the law was made for man; and once you set on a course of limiting freedom of behavior, there is no end to it... It is better to inspire good behavior than to proscribe bad behavior.. As Jesus pointed out: If a man's donkey fell in his well on the Sabbath; the man would pull it out.. Then as now; power in the priestly class equated to wealth, and while Judea was dirt poor, Jerusalem was floating in gold.. Consider what Abalard said, That: Ius- Justice is the Genus, and Lex- law is a species of it.. That is to say that no unjust law is law.. Laws can be written with a sense of Justice in mind, but how many are? In fact, when the rich write laws for the poor, they write those laws for their own benefit ..

Logik
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:12 am

Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:50 pm
I know that is false..
Call me a skeptic.
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:50 pm
What is true, and Jesus tried to point out is: Sin happens first in the mind, and this is true of all crime, sin, and immorality..
Define what you mean by "sin" and "crime". Same problem as defining "evil" and "wrong".

Equivocation is easy. Capturing the meaning of all of the above in words is hard.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:24 pm
Belinda wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:21 pm
You are right to insist on moral criteria.
Peter doesn't see the above as a problem...

He draws a distinction between saying "murder is wrong" and saying "you are making a mistake".
1 If I say '2+2=5', and 'the sun orbits the earth', I'm demonstrably making mistakes, given the standard way we use those signs.
2 If someone says 'murder is wrong', there's nothing that can demonstrate whether or not they're making a mistake. And that's the difference.

First he needs to admit/see that they are exactly the same thing. Value judgments.
If I say '2+2=5' (given the standard use of those signs), and you say I've made a mistake, you are not making a value-judgement. You're asserting a fact.

Every time he says "mistake" all I hear is "You are not adhering to the arbitrary rules that I like".
1 Of course, I can always declare that '2+2=4' is an arbitrary rule that you like - but my rule is different. Gotcha.
2 Are arbitrary rules different from rules in general?
Belinda wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:21 pm
I suggested that natural human nature is a sufficient moral criterion (i.e. objective criterion)but I demolished it except on a pragmatic level, while I understand that you support it on statistical Utilitarian grounds. I cannot think of any other candidates for a list of moral criteria but maybe others can.
By Peter's conception of 'objectivity' there aren't any objective criteria. And not just moral, but epistemic criteria too!
Hence the problem. Which system (of language, of thought, of morality) should one choose for oneself?
Once again:

1 'Objective' usually means 'relying on facts'. (If you use the word differently, please clarify.)
2 It follows that 'objective criteria' means 'factual criteria'.
3 The word 'fact' usually means 'true factual assertion: one which correctly describes a feature of reality, given the way we use those signs in context.' (If you use the word differently, please clarify.)
4 My question is, and has always been: what and where are the features of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes?
(5 I propose to leave epistemic criteria to one side for now.)

Moral and intellectual anarchy or attempt to negotiate some normative (but entirely subjective) ground rules.

Enter Discourse ethics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_ethics )
I'd like to see your thoughts on the following argument.

1 If facts are opinions, then there are no facts, but only opinions.
2 If there are no facts, then objectivity is impossible.
3 If objectivity is impossible, then morality can't be objective.

Logik
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:43 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
1 If I say '2+2=5', and 'the sun orbits the earth', I'm demonstrably making mistakes, given the standard way we use those signs.
This is an invalid argument.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion
Premise: All humans are mortal
Premise: Logik is human.
True Conclusion: Logik is mortal.

Premise: "The Sun orbits the Earth" is the standard ways humans use signs.
Premise: Logik is human.
False conclusion: "The Sun orbits the Earth" is the way Logik uses those signs.

Therefore the premise ""The Sun orbits the Earth" is the standard ways humans use signs." is false.

To depend on deduction your premise must be universally true.
We have no universal truths.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
1 If facts are opinions, then there are no facts, but only opinions.
2 If there are no facts, then objectivity is impossible.
3 If objectivity is impossible, then morality can't be objective.
When you state forth the rules you value, then I will give you an answer.
Last edited by Logik on Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:46 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
If I say '2+2=5' (given the standard use of those signs), and you say I've made a mistake, you are not making a value-judgement. You're asserting a fact.
No you are not asserting a fact. You are assuming that the norm of how "we" use signs also applies to me.

The use of 1+1=2 is the norm
The use of 5+5=10 is the norm.
The use of 7+7=14 is the norm.

I use 1+1=10 all the time!
I use 5+5=12 all the time!
I use 7+7 = 0xE all the time!

Those are not errors.

If you were to claim that I am making an error, then YOU are making an error.

You have (incorrectly) deduced that the social norm of how we use those signs applies to me.

Of course, probabilistically you might be correct in making such an assumption. And you would be correct most of the time, but in context of me, Logik, your premise is invalid.

You are using deduction where you should be using induction.

To use deduction your premise must be universally true.
We have no universal truths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Another crucial difference is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems, such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems.
Last edited by Logik on Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Belinda
Posts: 2243
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:30 pm

Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:22 pm
Belinda wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:59 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:47 pm

All human affairs are in dire need of rules. It is the very rules that we need to negotiate.

For example appealing against global warming is a purely consequentialist argument.
The warning is against the consequence of potential extinction.
I think you are a fan of utilitarianism. While I cannot think of a better moral rule for the foundation of legislation , and for the use of statistics in moral philosophy, when we consider what the lone individual ought to do the greatest happiness of the greatest number does not directly apply .

I think that universalism (Ethical universalism is a concept in which the ethical implications of an action applies universally to anyone, regardless of circumstance. To summarize, the end justifies the means. Examples of pseudo-universally wrong actions: murder, rape, torture.) leads to right action. However subjectivity is inevitable when universalism is applied, because as for consequentialism, the lone ethicist needs his own rules.
There is a certain understanding in morality, and it defies reason.. Laws are attempts to make morals objective, but since the Decalogue we have had a loop hole for every law.. No number of laws could control humanity were it not for the fact of general human morality... Nietzsche held it in contempt because it kept people in a condition of servitude in the face of injustice.. Nietzsche hated democracy because it gave people the power to make the moral argument without the benefit of drama, or mortal combat heroic and sublime.. Morality should win.. The moral were moral because they were connected, with love, and family.. The over man was a stick figure, distant, and sterile.. Overmen don't have to breed.. They are replaced by the strong who have no need of morality.. Morality is a form without substance.. Where physical forms have meaning and being, moral forms like Love, God, Justice, Truth, Nation, Good- exist only as meanings, as understanding often unconscious of the unity and family of humanity..
Are you referring to the difference between sensorimotor understanding on the one hand, and moral forms on the other, when you say "Where physical forms have meaning and being, moral forms like Love, God, Justice, Truth, Nation, Good- exist only as meanings, as understanding often unconscious of the unity and family of humanity. " ?

By" sensorimotor understanding " I refer to feelings which are grounded in emotions plus intellect and are inseparable from other beings for which we feel ordinary human sympathy.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/emp-symp/

Hannah Arendt quoted in the above website:

The murders were not sadists or killers by nature; on the contrary, a systematic effort was made to weed out all those who derived physical pleasure from what they did. The troops of the Einsatzgruppen [responsible for shooting] had been drafted from the Armed S.S., a military unit with hardly more crimes in its record than any ordinary unit of the German Army, and their commanders had been chosen by [Chief Commander] Heydrich from the S.S. elite with academic degrees. Hence the problem was how to overcome not so much their conscience as the animal pity by which all normal men are affected in the presence of physical suffering. The trick used by Himmler – who apparently was rather strongly afflicted with these instinctive reasons himself – was very simple and probably very effective; it consisted in turning these instincts around, as it were, in directing them toward the self. So that instead of saying: What horrible things I did to people! the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders (Arendt 1971: 105-6).
Thus duty or for example affection for the Ten Commandments when unattached to real people is not enough for morality.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Charm » Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:08 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:30 pm
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:22 pm
Belinda wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:59 pm


I think you are a fan of utilitarianism. While I cannot think of a better moral rule for the foundation of legislation , and for the use of statistics in moral philosophy, when we consider what the lone individual ought to do the greatest happiness of the greatest number does not directly apply .

I think that universalism (Ethical universalism is a concept in which the ethical implications of an action applies universally to anyone, regardless of circumstance. To summarize, the end justifies the means. Examples of pseudo-universally wrong actions: murder, rape, torture.) leads to right action. However subjectivity is inevitable when universalism is applied, because as for consequentialism, the lone ethicist needs his own rules.
There is a certain understanding in morality, and it defies reason.. Laws are attempts to make morals objective, but since the Decalogue we have had a loop hole for every law.. No number of laws could control humanity were it not for the fact of general human morality... Nietzsche held it in contempt because it kept people in a condition of servitude in the face of injustice.. Nietzsche hated democracy because it gave people the power to make the moral argument without the benefit of drama, or mortal combat heroic and sublime.. Morality should win.. The moral were moral because they were connected, with love, and family.. The over man was a stick figure, distant, and sterile.. Overmen don't have to breed.. They are replaced by the strong who have no need of morality.. Morality is a form without substance.. Where physical forms have meaning and being, moral forms like Love, God, Justice, Truth, Nation, Good- exist only as meanings, as understanding often unconscious of the unity and family of humanity..
Are you referring to the difference between sensorimotor understanding on the one hand, and moral forms on the other, when you say "Where physical forms have meaning and being, moral forms like Love, God, Justice, Truth, Nation, Good- exist only as meanings, as understanding often unconscious of the unity and family of humanity. " ?

By" sensorimotor understanding " I refer to feelings which are grounded in emotions plus intellect and are inseparable from other beings for which we feel ordinary human sympathy.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/emp-symp/

Hannah Arendt quoted in the above website:

The murders were not sadists or killers by nature; on the contrary, a systematic effort was made to weed out all those who derived physical pleasure from what they did. The troops of the Einsatzgruppen [responsible for shooting] had been drafted from the Armed S.S., a military unit with hardly more crimes in its record than any ordinary unit of the German Army, and their commanders had been chosen by [Chief Commander] Heydrich from the S.S. elite with academic degrees. Hence the problem was how to overcome not so much their conscience as the animal pity by which all normal men are affected in the presence of physical suffering. The trick used by Himmler – who apparently was rather strongly afflicted with these instinctive reasons himself – was very simple and probably very effective; it consisted in turning these instincts around, as it were, in directing them toward the self. So that instead of saying: What horrible things I did to people! the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders (Arendt 1971: 105-6).
Thus duty or for example affection for the Ten Commandments when unattached to real people is not enough for morality.
You are a smart one.. As I understand it, the Greeks thought that two qualities primarily make humanity: Ethos, and Pathos.. In the case of Himmler, he was invoking Ethos which like Ethnos, Ethnic- refers to our relationship with our own community.. Pathos refers to the sympathy we might feel for an animal, or for an enemy, pain for pain.. Himmler unbalanced his people, overloading them with ethical emotions, and make them deny all sympathy except for that which command directed, for themselves.. At least one SS general noted that his killers were finished in society.. Their brutes had been self brutalized.. Human beings are put into situations where they must kill each other because of failures of their leaders and their social form.. One man I knew who's gun crew may have killed one pilot ask: What was that about??? All that bloodshed just to be friends with Japan, and find a new enemy?? People kill, and if they are human beings they will suffer from guilt all of their lives.. You can't teach it in a school if ones own emotions do not agree.. If one can harden his heart enough to hurt another he is inhuman, and should be segregated.

Logik
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:46 pm

Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:08 pm
People kill, and if they are human beings they will suffer from guilt all of their lives.. You can't teach it in a school if ones own emotions do not agree.. If one can harden his heart enough to hurt another he is inhuman, and should be segregated.
What do you make of the SAS soldier who saved dozens of people in the latest terrorist attack in Kenya?
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0117 ... obi-kenya/

He didn’t have to. It was his day off - he was just doing his shopping.

He hunted down the terrorists and killled a handful of them, so that he can protect innocent lives.

Do you think such men should be segregated?
Do you think such love for mankind, where one would risk their own life to save another is inhuman?

Violence is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:43 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
1 If I say '2+2=5', and 'the sun orbits the earth', I'm demonstrably making mistakes, given the standard way we use those signs.
This is an invalid argument.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion
Premise: All humans are mortal
Premise: Logik is human.
True Conclusion: Logik is mortal.

Premise: "The Sun orbits the Earth" is the standard ways humans use signs.
Premise: Logik is human.
False conclusion: "The Sun orbits the Earth" is the way Logik uses those signs.

Therefore the premise ""The Sun orbits the Earth" is the standard ways humans use signs." is false.
This argument is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. And the first premise happens to be false, but that's a separate issue. Stripped down, the claim is that Logik doesn't use these signs in a standard way.

To depend on deduction your premise must be universally true.
This is false. Deductive validity simply means that, in any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true; the premises entail the conclusion; the conclusion follows from the premises. Universality is not a requirement.

We have no universal truths.
I've never claimed we have universal truths, so this is a straw man.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
1 If facts are opinions, then there are no facts, but only opinions.
2 If there are no facts, then objectivity is impossible.
3 If objectivity is impossible, then morality can't be objective.
When you state forth the rules you value, then I will give you an answer.
The rules I follow are the rules I learned for the use of these words. I use the words 'fact', 'opinion/judgement/belief', 'objectivity' (and 'truth') in standard ways, such as are explained in dictionaries. But dictionaries merely describe usage, and usage can and does vary and change sometimes. And, to my knowledge, lexicographers are never prescriptivists.

Anyway, people are free to use signs in any way they choose. But if they use signs in a non-standard way, they need to explain, or communication will break down. If you don't use the signs 'fact', 'opinion', and 'objectivity' in standard ways, then you need to explain how you use them, or we can't discuss the issues rationally.

So, given the standard use of these words, I believe the following is a correct formulation of your argument.

1 If facts are opinions, then there are no facts, but only opinions.
2 If there are no facts, then objectivity is impossible.
3 If objectivity is impossible, then morality can't be objective.

I think 3 follows from 1 and 2, and that this refutes your argument for moral objectivity. Your premises, as it were, defeat your conclusion. The only way you can defend moral objectivity is if you accept the distinction between facts and opinions - which is what you explicitly reject.

Logik
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:01 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am
This argument is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. And the first premise happens to be false, but that's a separate issue. Stripped down, the claim is that Logik doesn't use these signs in a standard way.
Yes.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am
This is false. Deductive validity simply means that, in any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true; the premises entail the conclusion; the conclusion follows from the premises. Universality is not a requirement.
This is a mistake. What is a requirement for a valid argument is that it is impossible (not just improbable) for the premise to be true, but the conclusion to be false.

And yet, this is exactly what happens when you assume "humans use signs in standard way", but "Logik doesn't use signs in a standard way".
Either I am not human, or the argument is invalid.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am
I've never claimed we have universal truths, so this is a straw man.
You don't have to claim it. If you are USING deduction then you are ASSUMING your axiom/proposition to be universally true.
If you are NOT assuming your axiom/proposition to be universally true then you are necessarily using induction.

Deduction is unreliable with non-universals.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
The rules I follow are the rules I learned for the use of these words. I use the words 'fact', 'opinion/judgement/belief', 'objectivity' (and 'truth') in standard ways, such as are explained in dictionaries.

Dictionaries are recursive and descriptive. Not prescriptive.

But dictionaries merely describe usage, and usage can and does vary and change sometimes. And, to my knowledge, lexicographers are never prescriptivists.
Which puts you in a predicament. If they are not prescriptivist then you can't use the definition to make any deductions.

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
1 If facts are opinions, then there are no facts, but only opinions.
2 If there are no facts, then objectivity is impossible.
3 If objectivity is impossible, then morality can't be objective.

I think 3 follows from 1 and 2, and that this refutes your argument for moral objectivity. Your premises, as it were, defeat your conclusion. The only way you can defend moral objectivity is if you accept the distinction between facts and opinions - which is what you explicitly reject.
No, Peter. If 1 and 2 are true then you need to clarify the subjective criteria you are using for asserting "factuality" and "objectivity". You need to narrate your expectations and communicate to us what would meet your criteria.

You defined facts "accurate descriptions of reality". How do you conceptualise and assert "accuracy"?. On an on we go until we both agree than man is the measure of all things.

Once you and I have established a standard for "facts" and "objectivity" that we can BOTH agree to, then we can see if a standard for morality cab be established.

But here is the thing. Observe that the problem ALWAYS boils down to rules, criteria and standards.

So WE (you and I) need to subjectively CHOOSE the set of RULES which make something a "fact" vs "fiction"
And then WE (you and I) need to subjectively CHOOSE the set of RULES which makes something "objective" vs "subjective"
And then WE (you and I) need to subjectively CHOOSE the set of RULES which makes something "moral' vs "immoral".

We define the rules!

If we could agree on the rules and standards of reasoning, if we could agree on the rules and standards for using language then why can't we agree to rules and standards of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour? e.g morality.

WITHIN the system that WE have created the rules are objective! By subjective consensus.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:26 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:01 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am
This argument is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. And the first premise happens to be false, but that's a separate issue. Stripped down, the claim is that Logik doesn't use these signs in a standard way.
Yes.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am
This is false. Deductive validity simply means that, in any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true; the premises entail the conclusion; the conclusion follows from the premises. Universality is not a requirement.
This is a mistake. What is a requirement for a valid argument is that it is impossible (not just improbable) for the premise to be true, but the conclusion to be false.
No, you misunderstand validity. The 'in any situation' condition is absolutely critical: in any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true. Sorry, but this is basic stuff.

And yet, this is exactly what happens when you assume "humans use signs in standard way", but "Logik doesn't use signs in a standard way".
Either I am not human, or the argument is invalid.
Again, this is a mistake. I don't assume humans use signs in a standard way.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:40 am
I've never claimed we have universal truths, so this is a straw man.
You don't have to claim it. If you are USING deduction then you are ASSUMING your axiom/proposition to be universally true.
If you are NOT assuming your axiom/proposition to be universally true then you are necessarily using induction.
No, again you're confused. As we agreed earlier, rules or axioms have no truth-value, let alone a universal truth-value. It's factual assertions (some premises or propositions) that have a truth-value. So your conflation here of 'axioms' with 'propositions' is an elementary mistake.

Deduction is unreliable with non-universals.
Suggestion: look up what the term 'universal' means in philosophy.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
The rules I follow are the rules I learned for the use of these words. I use the words 'fact', 'opinion/judgement/belief', 'objectivity' (and 'truth') in standard ways, such as are explained in dictionaries.

[Logik wrote: Dictionaries are recursive and descriptive. Not prescriptive.]

But dictionaries merely describe usage, and usage can and does vary and change sometimes. And, to my knowledge, lexicographers are never prescriptivists.
Which puts you in a predicament. If they are not prescriptivist then you can't use the definition to make any deductions.
This is false. If the uses of the signs in any argument - deductive or inductive - are undefined or ill-defined, there can neither validity nor soundness - nor any coherence whatsoever.

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:27 am
1 If facts are opinions, then there are no facts, but only opinions.
2 If there are no facts, then objectivity is impossible.
3 If objectivity is impossible, then morality can't be objective.

I think 3 follows from 1 and 2, and that this refutes your argument for moral objectivity. Your premises, as it were, defeat your conclusion. The only way you can defend moral objectivity is if you accept the distinction between facts and opinions - which is what you explicitly reject.
No, Peter. If 1 and 2 are true then you need to justify the standards you are using for conceptualising and asserting "factuality" and "objectivity". You need to narrate your expectations and communicate to us what would meet them.
I've repeatedly explained how I use the words we're talking about.

If you say "facts are accurate descriptions of reality" then you need to state your standards for "accuracy". On an on we go until we both agree than man is the measure of all things.
If this means we have to agree on the uses of signs in order to say anything about anything to each other - then I agree. Our linguistic practices constitute everything we say about everything.

Once you and I have established a standard for "facts" and "objectivity" that we can BOTH agree to, then we can see if a standard for morality cab be established.

But here is the thing. We are going to end up arguing about rules and standards.
So - please do what I ask: explain how you use the words 'fact', 'opinion' and 'objectivity', if you use them in a non-standard way.

So WE (you and I) need to subjectively CHOOSE the set of RULES which make something a "fact" vs "fiction"
And then WE (you and I) need to subjectively CHOOSE the set of RULES which makes something "objective" vs "subjective"
And then WE (you and I) need to subjectively CHOOSE the set of RULES which makes something "moral' vs "immoral".

We define the rules!

If we could agree on the rules and standards of reasoning why can't we agree to rules and standards of behaviour?
This conflates two quite different kinds of agreement: agreement on the rules for the use of signs in linguistic communication of any kind; and agreement on moral values or opinions. And that's a category error.

Logik
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:32 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:26 am
No, you misunderstand validity. The 'in any situation' condition is absolutely critical: in any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true. Sorry, but this is basic stuff.
It's so basic and I "misunderstand validity" so much that I can trivially recognise your errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)
In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
Corollary: In any situation in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is false then the argument is INVALID!

And while I "misunderstand the basics" let me point out your circular reasoning:

In any situation how do you assert the truth-value of the premises, without falling for the "begging the question" logical fallacy?

I am not going to bother with the rest of your response until we can agree on logical discourse.

Belinda
Posts: 2243
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:43 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:46 pm
Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:08 pm
People kill, and if they are human beings they will suffer from guilt all of their lives.. You can't teach it in a school if ones own emotions do not agree.. If one can harden his heart enough to hurt another he is inhuman, and should be segregated.
What do you make of the SAS soldier who saved dozens of people in the latest terrorist attack in Kenya?
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0117 ... obi-kenya/

He didn’t have to. It was his day off - he was just doing his shopping.

He hunted down the terrorists and killled a handful of them, so that he can protect innocent lives.

Do you think such men should be segregated?
Do you think such love for mankind, where one would risk their own life to save another is inhuman?

Violence is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil.
Brave soldiers are trained to risk losing their souls in the service of others. With respect for your citing the example that you provided, an alternative but perhaps more focused question you might have asked is "Can there be a just war?"

Logik
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:01 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:43 pm
Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:46 pm
Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:08 pm
People kill, and if they are human beings they will suffer from guilt all of their lives.. You can't teach it in a school if ones own emotions do not agree.. If one can harden his heart enough to hurt another he is inhuman, and should be segregated.
What do you make of the SAS soldier who saved dozens of people in the latest terrorist attack in Kenya?
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0117 ... obi-kenya/

He didn’t have to. It was his day off - he was just doing his shopping.

He hunted down the terrorists and killled a handful of them, so that he can protect innocent lives.

Do you think such men should be segregated?
Do you think such love for mankind, where one would risk their own life to save another is inhuman?

Violence is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil.
Brave soldiers are trained to risk losing their souls in the service of others. With respect for your citing the example that you provided, an alternative but perhaps more focused question you might have asked is "Can there be a just war?"
And? The human being made a choice to become a soldier.

Does the training suddenly mean they must give up their life for yours?

The question re: just war makes no sense.

A war happens when two sides fight.
If one side doesn’t fight back it is not a war - it is an invasion.

If you invade my country - I will start a war.

Belinda
Posts: 2243
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:12 pm

Logik wrote:
And? The human being made a choice to become a soldier.

Does the training suddenly mean they must give up their life for yours?
He chose to become a soldier, so what?

The little I have heard of how a modern soldier from a free western style democracy is trained is that he is taught that he may disobey orders if he deems the orders to be immoral. The corollary is that, as for the conscientious off-duty policeman or medic, the soldier will serve those who he recognises to be in need of his help.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dachshund and 1 guest