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

Age
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:54 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:26 pm Don't be silly. The fact that we make moral judgements, and have reasons for them, doesn't mean those moral judgements are facts. That's a simple misunderstanding. For example, I think abortion is not morally wrong, and I have what I take to be good, strong reasons for thinking it. But I don't claim that what I think about abortion is a fact - a feature of reality that is the case, independent from anyone's opinion. That would be extreme, absolutist moral egotism and fascism.
You have to be precise with what is judgment.

If you make a personal judgment, abortion is not morally wrong based on your strong reason, that is not a moral fact per se.
It is a fact you made a judgment about abortion, but what is judged 'abortion is not morally wrong' is not a moral fact.
That, you and I would agree is your subjective opinion.

On the subject of abortion,
what is the related moral fact is this oughtness, i.e.
"no human ought to abort the unborn [human*]"
* only applicable to humans and to not non-humans.

Now the above oughtness can only be a moral fact when it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.
Thus the moral fact is objective, i.e. independent of an individual's opinion and beliefs regardless of how strong the reason the individual has.

Every fact is that claimed to be a moral fact must be individually verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

I don't prefer to justify no-abortion as a moral fact here - a bit more complicated.

What I have justified quite sufficiently as a moral fact is the following;
"no human ought to murder* humans"
So, according to this it is a, so called, "moral fact" "ANY human can murder ANY other animal".

Also, why can a human being not murder another human being when the latter one is in pain, is about to die, and WANTS to be put out of their pain and suffering?

Since you have NOT considered this, or you have still NOT countered this NOR clear up and clarified this, since last time I put it towards you, your, so called, "moral fact" is NOT an actual 'moral fact' AT ALL. This is just your OWN subjective view of what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is a, so called, 'moral fact'.

In fact, what you propose here is also just ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of human being BELIEVING that their species is ABOVE or BEYOND ALL other species.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:54 am as a Justified True Moral Fact within a moral framework and system.
* or killing in other instances.
Again, ONLY "justified" as a "True Moral Fact" to 'you' ONLY.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:54 am
I'm serious about this. Moral objectivism is barely disguised moral egotism, and moral fascism is its progeny. 'It's a fact that abortion is morally wrong; therefore a woman must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term'. In my opinion (which is all I have), that is morally disgusting.
As I had claimed you are very ignorant with shallow and narrow philosophical knowledge and wisdom.
The implementation of the moral standard based on moral fact [no abortion allowed] thus set an objective of ZERO Abortion.
There are so many fool proof [other than dictatorial] strategies to strive towards the ideal of ZERO Abortion that humanity can generate and implement.
And the fact that moral realists and objectivists have to retreat into mysticism - because they have no factual evidence - ties in very comfortably with this quasi-religious, totalitarian irrationalism.
It is only the theists and Platonist who retreat into mysticism, not mine which is based on empirical realism leveraged upon empirically based moral facts.

You are so ignorant and do not realize you are also [as with the theists and Platonists] retreating [subliminally] into mysticism with your claim of the fact-in-itself which ultimately is an illusion.
There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591
Looks like you don't have the philosophical competence to understand [not necessary agree with] this point.
If there is, as alleged here, "No Fact-in-Itself", then this is just ANOTHER ONE of your OWN subjective views, which you BELIEVE and 'try to' INSIST is a 'Fact'.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:19 am
Because OBVIOUSLY if there are NO 'moral facts', then there could be NO fact NOR truth that 'there are no moral facts'.

To say that "there are no moral facts" is obviously a 'moral' issue, of which there, supposedly NO 'moral facts', AT ALL.
Just a quickie - full response to come -

What you say here is obviously incorrect - and it goes to the heart of what I think is your misunderstanding.

To say there are no moral facts is not to say there are no facts. It's perfectly consistent to say 'it's a fact that there are no moral facts'.

My whole argument rests on the distinction between factual and non-factual assertions, such as moral and aesthetic ones. And the difference is to do with their function. The assertion 'this painting is beautiful' doesn't make a falsifiable factual claim, whereas the assertion 'water is H2O' does. And my point is that moral assertions such as 'slavery is wrong' function in exactly the same way as aesthetic assertions.

If we say all assertions merely express opinions, so that there's no difference between factual and non-factual assertions, that claim is a performative contradiction which undermines itself. And if it merely expresses an opinion, then I (and most other English speakers) disagree with that opinion - to my knowledge.
Age
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:32 am
Age wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:19 am
Because OBVIOUSLY if there are NO 'moral facts', then there could be NO fact NOR truth that 'there are no moral facts'.

To say that "there are no moral facts" is obviously a 'moral' issue, of which there, supposedly NO 'moral facts', AT ALL.
Just a quickie - full response to come -

What you say here is obviously incorrect - and it goes to the heart of what I think is your misunderstanding.

To say there are no moral facts is not to say there are no facts. It's perfectly consistent to say 'it's a fact that there are no moral facts'.
But i did NOT say that there are no facts.

I said, to say that, "there are no moral facts", was a 'moral issue' or 'an issue to do with morality'. For you to 'try' and make the claim that, "there are no moral facts", is to 'try' and make another claim about 'morality', itself. And, if your claim is right, that; "there are no moral facts", then would be, in a sense, just another attempt to 'try' and claim a 'moral fact'.

I FULLY understand that the subtlety of this might be so small or so slight as to not be recognized and seen by some, or even most, but I still see it.

Also, WHERE EXACTLY your misunderstanding here was, is; when you suggested that I was saying, "there are no facts". This is what led you to your obviously incorrect conclusion here.

Now, I KNOW that what I am saying about claiming that there are no moral facts is a part of 'morality', itself, of which if your claim is right, then has to include your own claim, itself, is way to subtle for most to recognize and see YET, but you have to admit that it is a 'moral issue', which, if your claim is right, then what I am pointing out still stands.

Now, if you think or believe that this tiny little issue here reflects what else I have been saying, and/or that this little issue here, which 'you', "yourself", completely misunderstood and took out of context completely, reflects on what else I have been saying, then you are completely WRONG again.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:58 pm My whole argument rests on the distinction between factual and non-factual assertions, such as moral and aesthetic ones. And the difference is to do with their function. The assertion 'this painting is beautiful' doesn't make a falsifiable factual claim, whereas the assertion 'water is H2O' does.
'Water being h20' is ONLY because of agreement AND acceptance, which, itself, is STILL subjective. It is just subjective in another way that 'this painting is ugly/beautiful is'. You seem to be COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT THAT I AM MAKING.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:58 pm And my point is that moral assertions such as 'slavery is wrong' function in exactly the same way as aesthetic assertions.
I have NOT MISSED YOUR POINT.

You are OBVIOUSLY missing, misunderstanding, and/or misinterpreting MY POINTS.

Now, YOUR POINT is blatantly OBVIOUS. But you are attempting to place a BLATANTLY OBVIOUS FACT and 'trying to' mix 'this' into and with your OWN BELIEF of some 'thing', as though it actually fits in and works. But it does NOT. Also, you will 'try' just about absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your OWN ALREADY held BELIEFS
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:58 pm If we say all assertions merely express opinions, so that there's no difference between factual and non-factual assertions, that claim is a performative contradiction which undermines itself.
But NO one that I KNOW even says this. You are just saying this as you will 'try' just about absolutely ANY thing.

Who is the 'we' that WOULD say, "There is NO difference between factual and non-factual assertions"? Would you say this?

If yes, then so be it.

But if no, then WHY even suggest that there is a 'we' who WOULD?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:58 pm And if it merely expresses an opinion, then I (and most other English speakers) disagree with that opinion - to my knowledge.
Do you KNOW of ANY one who AGREES with this made up and deflecting CLAIM of YOURS here?

I suggest that if you REALLY want to discuss what I have said, then use ONLY 'that' of what I HAVE said. This is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to do as what I HAVE said is written down in VERY CLEAR WRITTEN WORDS, as PROVEN ABOVE.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:47 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:32 am
Age wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:19 am
Because OBVIOUSLY if there are NO 'moral facts', then there could be NO fact NOR truth that 'there are no moral facts'.

To say that "there are no moral facts" is obviously a 'moral' issue, of which there, supposedly NO 'moral facts', AT ALL.
Just a quickie - full response to come -

What you say here is obviously incorrect - and it goes to the heart of what I think is your misunderstanding.

To say there are no moral facts is not to say there are no facts. It's perfectly consistent to say 'it's a fact that there are no moral facts'.
But i did NOT say that there are no facts.

I said, to say that, "there are no moral facts", was a 'moral issue' or 'an issue to do with morality'. For you to 'try' and make the claim that, "there are no moral facts", is to 'try' and make another claim about 'morality', itself. And, if your claim is right, that; "there are no moral facts", then would be, in a sense, just another attempt to 'try' and claim a 'moral fact'.

I FULLY understand that the subtlety of this might be so small or so slight as to not be recognized and seen by some, or even most, but I still see it.

Also, WHERE EXACTLY your misunderstanding here was, is; when you suggested that I was saying, "there are no facts". This is what led you to your obviously incorrect conclusion here.

Now, I KNOW that what I am saying about claiming that there are no moral facts is a part of 'morality', itself, of which if your claim is right, then has to include your own claim, itself, is way to subtle for most to recognize and see YET, but you have to admit that it is a 'moral issue', which, if your claim is right, then what I am pointing out still stands.

Now, if you think or believe that this tiny little issue here reflects what else I have been saying, and/or that this little issue here, which 'you', "yourself", completely misunderstood and took out of context completely, reflects on what else I have been saying, then you are completely WRONG again.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:58 pm My whole argument rests on the distinction between factual and non-factual assertions, such as moral and aesthetic ones. And the difference is to do with their function. The assertion 'this painting is beautiful' doesn't make a falsifiable factual claim, whereas the assertion 'water is H2O' does.
'Water being h20' is ONLY because of agreement AND acceptance, which, itself, is STILL subjective. It is just subjective in another way that 'this painting is ugly/beautiful is'. You seem to be COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT THAT I AM MAKING.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:58 pm And my point is that moral assertions such as 'slavery is wrong' function in exactly the same way as aesthetic assertions.
I have NOT MISSED YOUR POINT.

You are OBVIOUSLY missing, misunderstanding, and/or misinterpreting MY POINTS.

Now, YOUR POINT is blatantly OBVIOUS. But you are attempting to place a BLATANTLY OBVIOUS FACT and 'trying to' mix 'this' into and with your OWN BELIEF of some 'thing', as though it actually fits in and works. But it does NOT. Also, you will 'try' just about absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your OWN ALREADY held BELIEFS
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:58 pm If we say all assertions merely express opinions, so that there's no difference between factual and non-factual assertions, that claim is a performative contradiction which undermines itself.
But NO one that I KNOW even says this. You are just saying this as you will 'try' just about absolutely ANY thing.

Who is the 'we' that WOULD say, "There is NO difference between factual and non-factual assertions"? Would you say this?

If yes, then so be it.

But if no, then WHY even suggest that there is a 'we' who WOULD?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:58 pm And if it merely expresses an opinion, then I (and most other English speakers) disagree with that opinion - to my knowledge.
Do you KNOW of ANY one who AGREES with this made up and deflecting CLAIM of YOURS here?

I suggest that if you REALLY want to discuss what I have said, then use ONLY 'that' of what I HAVE said. This is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to do as what I HAVE said is written down in VERY CLEAR WRITTEN WORDS, as PROVEN ABOVE.
1 I apologise for misreading what you wrote about facts and moral facts. My bad.

2 I find it hard to understand you in this post - what exactly you're saying. So I plan to go back to your previous, long post, which did make sense to me, and address your points there. (In the meantime, I think I've addressed all of your objections to my argument earlier in this mammoth discussion - if you can be bothered to re-cap.)

3 I'm glad you agree that there is a functional difference between factual and non-factual assertions. But some people deny that there is, in order to subvert the argument against moral objectivism. We have an unpleasant and intellectually challenged troll here who dribbles bile about it now and then. And VA's case for moral facts flirts with the fallacy as well. So yes, I do know people who claim there's no difference between factual and non-factual assertions. As would you, if you did a little research.

4 I sometimes resort to block caps - mea culpa - but reading your sentences is much harder than it needs to be because you over-use them. Just saying.

5 Immanuel Can seems to have snuck into the show, impersonating me.
Age
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:21 am
Age wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:47 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:32 am
Just a quickie - full response to come -

What you say here is obviously incorrect - and it goes to the heart of what I think is your misunderstanding.

To say there are no moral facts is not to say there are no facts. It's perfectly consistent to say 'it's a fact that there are no moral facts'.
But i did NOT say that there are no facts.

I said, to say that, "there are no moral facts", was a 'moral issue' or 'an issue to do with morality'. For you to 'try' and make the claim that, "there are no moral facts", is to 'try' and make another claim about 'morality', itself. And, if your claim is right, that; "there are no moral facts", then would be, in a sense, just another attempt to 'try' and claim a 'moral fact'.

I FULLY understand that the subtlety of this might be so small or so slight as to not be recognized and seen by some, or even most, but I still see it.

Also, WHERE EXACTLY your misunderstanding here was, is; when you suggested that I was saying, "there are no facts". This is what led you to your obviously incorrect conclusion here.

Now, I KNOW that what I am saying about claiming that there are no moral facts is a part of 'morality', itself, of which if your claim is right, then has to include your own claim, itself, is way to subtle for most to recognize and see YET, but you have to admit that it is a 'moral issue', which, if your claim is right, then what I am pointing out still stands.

Now, if you think or believe that this tiny little issue here reflects what else I have been saying, and/or that this little issue here, which 'you', "yourself", completely misunderstood and took out of context completely, reflects on what else I have been saying, then you are completely WRONG again.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:32 am My whole argument rests on the distinction between factual and non-factual assertions, such as moral and aesthetic ones. And the difference is to do with their function. The assertion 'this painting is beautiful' doesn't make a falsifiable factual claim, whereas the assertion 'water is H2O' does.
'Water being h20' is ONLY because of agreement AND acceptance, which, itself, is STILL subjective. It is just subjective in another way that 'this painting is ugly/beautiful is'. You seem to be COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT THAT I AM MAKING.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:32 am And my point is that moral assertions such as 'slavery is wrong' function in exactly the same way as aesthetic assertions.
I have NOT MISSED YOUR POINT.

You are OBVIOUSLY missing, misunderstanding, and/or misinterpreting MY POINTS.

Now, YOUR POINT is blatantly OBVIOUS. But you are attempting to place a BLATANTLY OBVIOUS FACT and 'trying to' mix 'this' into and with your OWN BELIEF of some 'thing', as though it actually fits in and works. But it does NOT. Also, you will 'try' just about absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your OWN ALREADY held BELIEFS
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:32 am If we say all assertions merely express opinions, so that there's no difference between factual and non-factual assertions, that claim is a performative contradiction which undermines itself.
But NO one that I KNOW even says this. You are just saying this as you will 'try' just about absolutely ANY thing.

Who is the 'we' that WOULD say, "There is NO difference between factual and non-factual assertions"? Would you say this?

If yes, then so be it.

But if no, then WHY even suggest that there is a 'we' who WOULD?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:32 am And if it merely expresses an opinion, then I (and most other English speakers) disagree with that opinion - to my knowledge.
Do you KNOW of ANY one who AGREES with this made up and deflecting CLAIM of YOURS here?

I suggest that if you REALLY want to discuss what I have said, then use ONLY 'that' of what I HAVE said. This is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to do as what I HAVE said is written down in VERY CLEAR WRITTEN WORDS, as PROVEN ABOVE.
1 I apologise for misreading what you wrote about facts and moral facts. My bad.
No problem at all.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:21 am 2 I find it hard to understand you in this post - what exactly you're saying.
Which is totally understandable, as a lot of what I write, or will one day share, is NOT YET understood, in the days of when this is being written. But with FRESH EYES, or another completely different perspective, then ALL of what I write is REALLY very easy and very simple to understand.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:21 am So I plan to go back to your previous, long post, which did make sense to me, and address your points there. (In the meantime, I think I've addressed all of your objections to my argument earlier in this mammoth discussion - if you can be bothered to re-cap.)
It might be easy if you just address, what you said you would, as it stands in that post of mine. As has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN if a write again, then you might not understand exactly what I am saying.

The one point that I made, which you have addressed, can be seen that it was your misreading was what caused that misunderstanding. So, we will just await for you now to address my other points in that post that you said makes sense to you.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:21 am 3 I'm glad you agree that there is a functional difference between factual and non-factual assertions. But some people deny that there is, in order to subvert the argument against moral objectivism. We have an unpleasant and intellectually challenged troll here who dribbles bile about it now and then. And VA's case for moral facts flirts with the fallacy as well. So yes, I do know people who claim there's no difference between factual and non-factual assertions. As would you, if you did a little research.
But if you were to challenge them, then you will find that they do ACTUALLY SEE a difference between factual and non-factual assertions.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:21 am 4 I sometimes resort to block caps - mea culpa - but reading your sentences is much harder than it needs to be because you over-use them. Just saying.
Just saying, 'you and a few "others" here say the EXACT SAME thing. But as absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, then each to their own. I do NOT SEE ANY overuse here at all. In fact I also find absolutely NO difficulty reading words whether in capital letters or not. Also, because of who my ACTUAL intended audience IS and because of the VERY REASON WHY I use capital letter, when I do, SOME TIMES, I have taken note of what you said here'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:21 am 5 Immanuel Can seems to have snuck into the show, impersonating me.
My apologies PROFUSELY.

I have a very bad habit of not changing names when I reply to "another".

I have, by the way, repaired the damage, which I created and caused here.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Age wrote:Now, I KNOW that what I am saying about claiming that there are no moral facts...
But there are moral facts.

Logic:
Fact: No one wants to die, due to fear!
Fact: Those that commit suicide do so because of the fear of continued pain, all would rather the pain go away, but fear that it's futile, that it will never go away. So as a last resort they end their fear of lifelong pain, knowing that the fear of death will be relatively short lived.

Fact: a friend of mine committed suicide by hanging himself on the inside of a door, (the side it swung towards), with a tie around his neck, then between the top of the door and the frame (jam), standing on top of a stool he could kick away. When they found him a few days later, only his hand, wrist and part of his lower arm that was on the door knob side were shattered into many many pieces, as he realized his mistake and tried desperately to undo his suicide. Too Late! Imagine his fear, to shatter all those bones. People that use a more unforgiving method, do so to ensure they can't feel the pain, so they won't be capable of attempting to undo their suicide because of the pain.

Fact: People kill other people because of fear. Yet they don't kill themselves out of fear.
Fact: The fear of death and/or pain are constants among all humans, for that matter all animals.

So:

Morality [ muh-ral-i-tee, maw- ]
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties
1) conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

Is objective when it applies to all humans, and subjective when it doesn't apply to all humans. As in the Fear of Death, and the fear of great pain, which is why torture works on everybody, that is, if they have a CNS.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:36 am
Age wrote:Now, I KNOW that what I am saying about claiming that there are no moral facts...
But there are moral facts.

Logic:
Fact: No one wants to die, due to fear!
Fact: Those that commit suicide do so because of the fear of continued pain, all would rather the pain go away, but fear that it's futile, that it will never go away. So as a last resort they end their fear of lifelong pain, knowing that the fear of death will be relatively short lived.

Fact: a friend of mine committed suicide by hanging himself on the inside of a door, (the side it swung towards), with a tie around his neck, then between the top of the door and the frame (jam), standing on top of a stool he could kick away. When they found him a few days later, only his hand, wrist and part of his lower arm that was on the door knob side were shattered into many many pieces, as he realized his mistake and tried desperately to undo his suicide. Too Late! Imagine his fear, to shatter all those bones. People that use a more unforgiving method, do so to ensure they can't feel the pain, so they won't be capable of attempting to undo their suicide because of the pain.

Fact: People kill other people because of fear. Yet they don't kill themselves out of fear.
Fact: The fear of death and/or pain are constants among all humans, for that matter all animals.

So:

Morality [ muh-ral-i-tee, maw- ]
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties
1) conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

Is objective when it applies to all humans, and subjective when it doesn't apply to all humans. As in the Fear of Death, and the fear of great pain, which is why torture works on everybody, that is, if they have a CNS.
1 Some of these supposed facts aren't facts. For example, the motivation for killing need not be fear. And the motivation for suicide can be fear of degenerating life.

2 That a moral rule should apply to everyone is a matter of opinion, which is subjective. So your account of moral objectivity is wrong.

3 No fact can entail a moral conclusion, which is why negating the conclusion never produces a logical contradiction.
Skepdick
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:41 am 2 That a moral rule should apply to everyone is a matter of opinion, which is subjective. So your account of moral objectivity is wrong.
is that objectively "wrong" or subjectively "wrong"?

What normative ideal of non-wrongness are you appealing to?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:41 am 3 No fact can entail a moral conclusion, which is why negating the conclusion never produces a logical contradiction.
Where is the logical contradiction in negating any fact? The Earth is not round. The Earth is not oblate. The Earth is not flat. The Earth is not triangular.

Peter Holmes is not an idiot.
Age
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:36 am
Age wrote:Now, I KNOW that what I am saying about claiming that there are no moral facts...
But there are moral facts.

Logic:
Fact: No one wants to die, due to fear!
Fact: Those that commit suicide do so because of the fear of continued pain, all would rather the pain go away, but fear that it's futile, that it will never go away. So as a last resort they end their fear of lifelong pain, knowing that the fear of death will be relatively short lived.

Fact: a friend of mine committed suicide by hanging himself on the inside of a door, (the side it swung towards), with a tie around his neck, then between the top of the door and the frame (jam), standing on top of a stool he could kick away. When they found him a few days later, only his hand, wrist and part of his lower arm that was on the door knob side were shattered into many many pieces, as he realized his mistake and tried desperately to undo his suicide. Too Late! Imagine his fear, to shatter all those bones. People that use a more unforgiving method, do so to ensure they can't feel the pain, so they won't be capable of attempting to undo their suicide because of the pain.

Fact: People kill other people because of fear. Yet they don't kill themselves out of fear.
Fact: The fear of death and/or pain are constants among all humans, for that matter all animals.

So:

Morality [ muh-ral-i-tee, maw- ]
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties
1) conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

Is objective when it applies to all humans, and subjective when it doesn't apply to all humans. As in the Fear of Death, and the fear of great pain, which is why torture works on everybody, that is, if they have a CNS.
When people do NOT look at 'things' in their FULL ENTIRETY, then they can MISS some 'thing' or the True and FULL picture, or just end up deceiving their own 'self'. And, when people do NOT copy and paste in their FULL ENTIRETY then "others" can MISS some 'thing' or the True and FULL picture, or just end up BEING DECEIVED.

So, what I ACTUALLY said was:
Now, I KNOW that what I am saying about claiming that there are no moral facts is a part of 'morality', itself, of which if your claim is right, then has to include your own claim, itself, is way to subtle for most to recognize and see YET, but you have to admit that it is a 'moral issue', which, if your claim is right, then what I am pointing out still stands.

What you wrote above here, in reply to what I ACTUALLY WROTE, has NOT much AT ALL do with what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT.

I AGREE there are moral facts. Full stop. Thee "other" one is the one CLAIMING there are NO moral facts.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1728
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 12:41 am
I AGREE there are moral facts. Full stop. Thee "other" one is the one CLAIMING there are NO moral facts.
Perhaps I missed it. Please can you propose one example of a supposed moral fact, and show why it's a fact, rather than the expression of an opinion?

NB If you don't use the word 'fact' to mean 'feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality' - then please explain what you think a fact is.

NB If you think a declarative can do nothing other than express an opinion, and so must be subjective, please explain the coherence of claiming that there are moral facts.

I'd be extremely grateful if you can do these things as simply and clearly as possible.
Age
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 12:41 am
I AGREE there are moral facts. Full stop. Thee "other" one is the one CLAIMING there are NO moral facts.
Perhaps I missed it. Please can you propose one example of a supposed moral fact, and show why it's a fact, rather than the expression of an opinion?
1. You can NOT 'miss' what has NOT YET been presented.
2. OBVIOUSLY, EVERY thing that is said or written down can be perceived to be an 'opinion'. So, if you want me to show you WHY some 'thing' is a 'fact', rather than the expression of an 'opinion', then you will have to tell me what the difference is between a 'fact' and an 'opinion', to you, okay?

Anyway, one example of a supposed 'moral fact' is 'that thing' which EVERY one agrees with as being morally right, or morally wrong, and which is also proven to be true. Like, for example, the fact that 'we', human beings, do NOT 'need' to eat meat. Thus, if we do NOT need to eat meat, then we do NOT need to kill animals to eat. Now, if this can be proven to be true, then we have the 'fact' part out of the way, so now we just have to work on the 'moral' part.

I have my way of working out what is 'morally wrong' and/or 'morally right', which we can discuss after you respond to what I have written here so far, okay?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am NB If you don't use the word 'fact' to mean 'feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality' - then please explain what you think a fact is.
If you want to talk like this, then what do you think 'reality' is?

If 'you', human beings, are going to use the word 'fact' to mean; feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality'
, then because just about EVERY one 'you' can have their OWN 'reality', then this means that 'you' ALL can have your OWN 'facts' as well. Each and EVERY one of 'you' could "justify" to "your" OWN "selves" just about absolutely ANY 'thing' with definitions like that. Then we will be back to the beginning.

So, I suggest that you will REALLY need to come up with a better definition for the word 'fact' here.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am 'NB If you think a declarative can do nothing other than express an opinion, and so must be subjective, please explain the coherence of claiming that there are moral facts.
If, and when, 'you' define what a 'moral fact' is, to you, then I will see if I could explain, to you, the coherence of claiming that there are 'moral facts'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am I'd be extremely grateful if you can do these things as simply and clearly as possible.
But, to you, a 'moral fact' is an IMPOSSIBILITY, correct?

If yes, then HOW could I possibly do what you are asking here?

By the way, do not forget, if I recall correctly, you said that you were going to get around to discussing with me the points that I made to you PREVIOUSLY, which I am still WAITING for and to do.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:14 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 12:41 am
I AGREE there are moral facts. Full stop. Thee "other" one is the one CLAIMING there are NO moral facts.
Perhaps I missed it. Please can you propose one example of a supposed moral fact, and show why it's a fact, rather than the expression of an opinion?
1. You can NOT 'miss' what has NOT YET been presented.
2. OBVIOUSLY, EVERY thing that is said or written down can be perceived to be an 'opinion'. So, if you want me to show you WHY some 'thing' is a 'fact', rather than the expression of an 'opinion', then you will have to tell me what the difference is between a 'fact' and an 'opinion', to you, okay?

Anyway, one example of a supposed 'moral fact' is 'that thing' which EVERY one agrees with as being morally right, or morally wrong, and which is also proven to be true. Like, for example, the fact that 'we', human beings, do NOT 'need' to eat meat. Thus, if we do NOT need to eat meat, then we do NOT need to kill animals to eat. Now, if this can be proven to be true, then we have the 'fact' part out of the way, so now we just have to work on the 'moral' part.

I have my way of working out what is 'morally wrong' and/or 'morally right', which we can discuss after you respond to what I have written here so far, okay?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am NB If you don't use the word 'fact' to mean 'feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality' - then please explain what you think a fact is.
If you want to talk like this, then what do you think 'reality' is?

If 'you', human beings, are going to use the word 'fact' to mean; feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality'
, then because just about EVERY one 'you' can have their OWN 'reality', then this means that 'you' ALL can have your OWN 'facts' as well. Each and EVERY one of 'you' could "justify" to "your" OWN "selves" just about absolutely ANY 'thing' with definitions like that. Then we will be back to the beginning.

So, I suggest that you will REALLY need to come up with a better definition for the word 'fact' here.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am 'NB If you think a declarative can do nothing other than express an opinion, and so must be subjective, please explain the coherence of claiming that there are moral facts.
If, and when, 'you' define what a 'moral fact' is, to you, then I will see if I could explain, to you, the coherence of claiming that there are 'moral facts'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am I'd be extremely grateful if you can do these things as simply and clearly as possible.
But, to you, a 'moral fact' is an IMPOSSIBILITY, correct?

If yes, then HOW could I possibly do what you are asking here?

By the way, do not forget, if I recall correctly, you said that you were going to get around to discussing with me the points that I made to you PREVIOUSLY, which I am still WAITING for and to do.
What it would amount to for a moral stance to be a fact is that the moral stance somehow obtains in the world independently of persons.
Age
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:24 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:14 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am
Perhaps I missed it. Please can you propose one example of a supposed moral fact, and show why it's a fact, rather than the expression of an opinion?
1. You can NOT 'miss' what has NOT YET been presented.
2. OBVIOUSLY, EVERY thing that is said or written down can be perceived to be an 'opinion'. So, if you want me to show you WHY some 'thing' is a 'fact', rather than the expression of an 'opinion', then you will have to tell me what the difference is between a 'fact' and an 'opinion', to you, okay?

Anyway, one example of a supposed 'moral fact' is 'that thing' which EVERY one agrees with as being morally right, or morally wrong, and which is also proven to be true. Like, for example, the fact that 'we', human beings, do NOT 'need' to eat meat. Thus, if we do NOT need to eat meat, then we do NOT need to kill animals to eat. Now, if this can be proven to be true, then we have the 'fact' part out of the way, so now we just have to work on the 'moral' part.

I have my way of working out what is 'morally wrong' and/or 'morally right', which we can discuss after you respond to what I have written here so far, okay?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am NB If you don't use the word 'fact' to mean 'feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality' - then please explain what you think a fact is.
If you want to talk like this, then what do you think 'reality' is?

If 'you', human beings, are going to use the word 'fact' to mean; feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality'
, then because just about EVERY one 'you' can have their OWN 'reality', then this means that 'you' ALL can have your OWN 'facts' as well. Each and EVERY one of 'you' could "justify" to "your" OWN "selves" just about absolutely ANY 'thing' with definitions like that. Then we will be back to the beginning.

So, I suggest that you will REALLY need to come up with a better definition for the word 'fact' here.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am 'NB If you think a declarative can do nothing other than express an opinion, and so must be subjective, please explain the coherence of claiming that there are moral facts.
If, and when, 'you' define what a 'moral fact' is, to you, then I will see if I could explain, to you, the coherence of claiming that there are 'moral facts'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:55 am I'd be extremely grateful if you can do these things as simply and clearly as possible.
But, to you, a 'moral fact' is an IMPOSSIBILITY, correct?

If yes, then HOW could I possibly do what you are asking here?

By the way, do not forget, if I recall correctly, you said that you were going to get around to discussing with me the points that I made to you PREVIOUSLY, which I am still WAITING for and to do.
What it would amount to for a moral stance to be a fact is that the moral stance somehow obtains in the world independently of persons.
Is there a 'thought' or 'view' that exits "independently of person"?

If yes, then HOW?

But if no, then HOW could a person EXPLAIN what is a 'moral stance' or EXPLAIN HOW a 'moral stance' obtains in the "world" independently of persons if they can NOT express their thoughts/views?

'you', adult human beings, can SEE the 'predicament' here, correct?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:35 am Is there a 'thought' or 'view' that exits "independently of person"?
Obviously not, hence why if one agrees that moral stances are judgments or something similar--some sort of view or thought, then it should be obvious to one that morality isn't objective.

People who believe that morality is objective need to explain what a moral stance would amount to independent of persons. They need to explain just how that would obtain, what would it be instantiated as or in, what would it be a property of, etc. Otherwise they're stuck trying to equate "objectivity" with some sort of normative, but that doesn't work, because there's no way around that reducing to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10129
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:37 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:35 am Is there a 'thought' or 'view' that exits "independently of person"?
Obviously not, hence why if one agrees that moral stances are judgments or something similar--some sort of view or thought, then it should be obvious to one that morality isn't objective.

People who believe that morality is objective need to explain what a moral stance would amount to independent of persons. They need to explain just how that would obtain, what would it be instantiated as or in, what would it be a property of, etc. Otherwise they're stuck trying to equate "objectivity" with some sort of normative, but that doesn't work, because there's no way around that reducing to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
what would it be a property of

try this one (it's already been rejected by all the best minds)...

a man belongs to himself...we know this becuz, universally, every man, without thinkin' about it, will claim himself as his own...no one ever agrees he is or should be property, and no one leashed ever ever accepts it (though circumstance may force him to tolerate the leash till an opportunity comes along to cast it off)...it is a fact about man's nature that exists independently of whatever anyone thinks about it

from this fact we can draw out the *moral fact: it's wrong to treat a man as property, to leash him, to make a slave of him





*morality bein' that which is permissible between and among men
Post Reply