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

Belinda
Posts: 4788
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:42 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED
How are there people on a philosophy board who don't know that what makes a color the particular color it is is the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation it's reflecting or emitting?


There's a consistent sumthin' in what we call red, a sumthin', in the light, we all, barring defect in eye or brain, see and recognize. We apply placeholders (красный, 빨간, rouge, red, etc.) to this sumthin'.

The placeholders change, the sumthin' remains the same.

We create the placeholders; we recognize the sumthin'.

The placeholders represent a communal effort to talk about and understand the sumthin'; the sumthin' exists independently of our effort to understand it or talk about it.

Our understanding of the sumthin' can improve or worsen, we may be right or wrong about the sumthin', but the sumthin' is unmoved, unchanged, by our thinkin', measurements, and assessments.
Henry Quirk obviously means the quale that he calls "red" and which he reasonably presumes other people experience like he himself experiences.I dare say Plato too thought his qualia were Forms of reality. On the other hand, Terrapin Station refers to the objectively verifiable markers of redness.
Last edited by Belinda on Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:42 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED
How are there people on a philosophy board who don't know that what makes a color the particular color it is is the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation it's reflecting or emitting?
They know damn well. But they think it's a gotcha question: calling something red is supposed to be exactly like calling something morally wrong. If one can be a fact - a feature of reality - then, supposedly, so can the other. The delusion comes from a simple but deep delusion: mistaking what is or can be said about reality for reality itself. If something is red merely because we say it is, then something can be morally wrong, merely because we say it is. Drivel about truth by consensus demonstrates the delusion at work.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10739
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Henry Quirk obviously means the quale that he calls "red"

Nope.


it's a gotcha question

Me, I asked no question; I just answered Skep's (cuz all of you wouldn't).

The part you didn't like, at the end, doesn't negate what came before it.
Skepdick
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:42 pm How are there people on a philosophy board who don't know that what makes a color the particular color it is is the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation it's reflecting or emitting?
How are there any real Philosophers out there who actually believe this?!?

Just like we could trivially use another English word and call THIS COLOR BLUE instead of RED , we could trivially choose a different distance-metric and call THIS WAVELENGTH 900-950 nanometers instead of 620-700 nanometers.

What makes THIS COLOR RED is the normative semantics of the English language!
What makes THIS WAVELENGTH 620-700 nanomerers is the normative semantics of the SI units!

That's not a justification of any sort! That's an argumentum ad populum AND an appeal to the authority.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:24 pm, edited 10 times in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:45 pm Henry Quirk obviously means the quale that he calls "red"

Nope.


it's a gotcha question

Me, I asked no question; I just answered Skep's (cuz all of you wouldn't).

The part you didn't like, at the end, doesn't negate what came before it.
Agreed. It's what came first that negates your conclusion. It's the 'sumthin' that's real that we call red that's missing when we call something wrong.
Skepdick
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:55 pm Agreed. It's what came first that negates your conclusion. It's the 'sumthin' that's real that we call red that's missing when we call something wrong.
Bullshit.

What is 'it" that we call "620 to 700 nanometers wavelength" in the language of the SI units?
What is "it" that we call "red" in English?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10739
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:55 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:45 pm Henry Quirk obviously means the quale that he calls "red"

Nope.


it's a gotcha question

Me, I asked no question; I just answered Skep's (cuz all of you wouldn't).

The part you didn't like, at the end, doesn't negate what came before it.
Agreed. It's what came first that negates your conclusion. It's the 'sumthin' that's real that we call red that's missing when we call something wrong.
Disagree...obviously...*shrug*
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10739
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

I missed this...

If something is red merely because we say it is, then something can be morally wrong, merely because we say it is.

That's not what I said.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:58 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:55 pm Agreed. It's what came first that negates your conclusion. It's the 'sumthin' that's real that we call red that's missing when we call something wrong.
Bullshit.

What is 'it" that we call "620 to 700 nanometers wavelength" in the language of the SI units?
What is "it" that we call "red" in English?
Bullshit. There's a feature of reality that we call red, or measure, or describe in one of many other ways. But there's no such thing as wrongness, or rightness. And your pathetic deflection onto language demonstrates your failure to demonstrate their existence. Loser.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3841
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Belinda wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:41 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:42 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED
How are there people on a philosophy board who don't know that what makes a color the particular color it is is the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation it's reflecting or emitting?


There's a consistent sumthin' in what we call red, a sumthin', in the light, we all, barring defect in eye or brain, see and recognize. We apply placeholders (красный, 빨간, rouge, red, etc.) to this sumthin'.

The placeholders change, the sumthin' remains the same.

We create the placeholders; we recognize the sumthin'.

The placeholders represent a communal effort to talk about and understand the sumthin'; the sumthin' exists independently of our effort to understand it or talk about it.

Our understanding of the sumthin' can improve or worsen, we may be right or wrong about the sumthin', but the sumthin' is unmoved, unchanged, by our thinkin', measurements, and assessments.
Henry Quirk obviously means the quale that he calls "red" and which he reasonably presumes other people experience like he himself experiences.I dare say Plato too thought his qualia were Forms of reality. On the other hand, Terrapin Station refers to the objectively verifiable markers of redness.
But what makes text a particular color isn't what it looks like to an individual. That can be why that individual calls it the color they call it, but that's a different issue.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3841
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:44 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:42 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm WHAT MAKES THIS RED
How are there people on a philosophy board who don't know that what makes a color the particular color it is is the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation it's reflecting or emitting?
They know damn well. But they think it's a gotcha question: calling something red is supposed to be exactly like calling something morally wrong. If one can be a fact - a feature of reality - then, supposedly, so can the other. The delusion comes from a simple but deep delusion: mistaking what is or can be said about reality for reality itself. If something is red merely because we say it is, then something can be morally wrong, merely because we say it is. Drivel about truth by consensus demonstrates the delusion at work.
Yeah, obviously things aren't whatever color they are just because we say they're whatever color we say.

Something being morally wrong could be a feature of reality, but there would need to be some evidence for this, just like there's evidence of electromagnetic wavelengths.
Skepdick
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:24 pm Bullshit. There's a feature of reality that we call red, or measure, or describe in one of many other ways. But there's no such thing as wrongness, or rightness. And your pathetic deflection onto language demonstrates your failure to demonstrate their existence. Loser.
Dumb. Fucking. Reductionist. Retard. I am not deflecting this onto language. I am just using language to communicate with you.

I am pointing at the symbol grounding problem.

You keep insisting that you are NOT a logical positivist - you claim that you reject the verification criterion for meaning. Great!
Because you reject verification, then whatever it is that makes THIS EXPERIENCE RED cannot possibly be any wavelengths or physical quantities.

If the word "red" is made meaningful by THIS SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE.
Which subjective experience makes the word "wrong" meaningful?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:01 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:28 pm Yeah, obviously things aren't whatever color they are just because we say they're whatever color we say.
Rinse, repeat. What or where is this thing feature of reality you call "color"?
Belinda
Posts: 4788
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:24 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:41 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:42 pm

How are there people on a philosophy board who don't know that what makes a color the particular color it is is the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation it's reflecting or emitting?


There's a consistent sumthin' in what we call red, a sumthin', in the light, we all, barring defect in eye or brain, see and recognize. We apply placeholders (красный, 빨간, rouge, red, etc.) to this sumthin'.

The placeholders change, the sumthin' remains the same.

We create the placeholders; we recognize the sumthin'.

The placeholders represent a communal effort to talk about and understand the sumthin'; the sumthin' exists independently of our effort to understand it or talk about it.

Our understanding of the sumthin' can improve or worsen, we may be right or wrong about the sumthin', but the sumthin' is unmoved, unchanged, by our thinkin', measurements, and assessments.
Henry Quirk obviously means the quale that he calls "red" and which he reasonably presumes other people experience like he himself experiences.I dare say Plato too thought his qualia were Forms of reality. On the other hand, Terrapin Station refers to the objectively verifiable markers of redness.
But what makes text a particular color isn't what it looks like to an individual. That can be why that individual calls it the color they call it, but that's a different issue.
They are both true, Henry's quale and your explanation of what makes 'text' a different colour. They are both true and viewed from either the subjective or the objective perspective. No doubt if a neuroscientist inspected Henry's brain when he is experiencing
red

the scientist would correlate brain changes with Henry's mind - quale.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Here's the fucking so-called symbol-grounding problem.

'In cognitive science and semantics, the symbol grounding problem concerns how it is that words (symbols in general) get their meanings,[1] and hence is closely related to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of how it is that mental states are meaningful, hence to the problem of consciousness: what is the connection between certain physical systems and the contents of subjective experiences.'

Notice the invented 'philosophical' problems: how do symbols get their meanings?; what really is meaning?; how are mental states meaningful?; what is consciousness?; how do consciousness and subjective experience arise from physical systems?

It's metaphysical delusion from start to finish, as is Frege's distinction between a symbol's referent and its meaning.

The dick-troll, who claims to hate philosophy tout court, is dazzled by this sparkly philosophical nonsense.

That's why its only response to exposure of the nonsense is abuse. Nowhere else to go for fucking dick-troll.
Post Reply