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

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 11:51 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 11:00 am Indeed you do not.
And that is why you should stay out of this debate.
You should explain what you are asking if you want to enter this debate.
You can't even make a distinction between one thread and another.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 1:08 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 11:51 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 11:00 am Indeed you do not.
And that is why you should stay out of this debate.
You should explain what you are asking if you want to enter this debate.
You can't even make a distinction between one thread and another.
You can't even realise you are asking the same question in two different threads.

You can ask it a million times - the problems with your question persist.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 1:16 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 1:08 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 11:51 am
You should explain what you are asking if you want to enter this debate.
You can't even make a distinction between one thread and another.
You can't even realise you are asking the same question in two different threads.

You can ask it a million times - the problems with your question persist.
It is you making the claims.
You said morality was independent and gave a list of thigs it was independent of.
You have not justified that extraordinary claim.
PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 1:24 pm It is you making the claims.
You said morality was independent and gave a list of thigs it was independent of.
You have not justified that extraordinary claim.
PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
How much justification do you need? There's nothing "extraordinary" about this - it's obvious to any non-idiot. Why isn't it obvious to you?

There was morality before you were born.
There will be morality after you die.

That's because morality is independent of you and your mind.

There was morality before I was born.
There will be morality after I die.

That's because morality is independent of me and my mind.

There was morality before any given individual was born.
There will be morality after any given individual dies.

That's because morality is independent of any given individual and their mind.

If you have gone full retard and you want to reject the existence of morality - please inform us. It will save us time.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

me:
No other existing thing depends on bein' aware of itself to be.
you:
I'm pretty sure I have a mind independent existence in some form
It does not seem to me you (a mind) have a mind-independent existence from yourself (a mind).
I don't see how the non mind independent parts of me such as my shoe preferences are objective
It's not about your preference (a subjective assessment), it's about you, the preferer, the assessor. You exist independent of all minds save one.
My completely mind-dependent favourite colour would be far from objective.
Again: your assessment of a color is subjective, an opinion, but you are not subjective, you exist and yet your existence is utterly dependent on a mind.
The distinction between facts and values is there because of this stuff.
At the moment, I'm not talkin' about what is or isn't fact (if the conversation goes anywhere we'll get to all that). What I am talkin' about is you -- real, seemingly mind-independent, objective -- bein' dependent, quite obviously, on a mind for your existence.

Will you acknowledge there's sumthin' peculiar about you, sumthin' unique, that sets you apart from, say, an apple, or a car, or a cat?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 3:10 pm me:
No other existing thing depends on bein' aware of itself to be.
you:
I'm pretty sure I have a mind independent existence in some form
It does not seem to me you (a mind) have a mind-independent existence from yourself (a mind).
I don't see how the non mind independent parts of me such as my shoe preferences are objective
It's not about your preference (a subjective assessment), it's about you, the preferer, the assessor. You exist independent of all minds save one.
My completely mind-dependent favourite colour would be far from objective.
Again: your assessment of a color is subjective, an opinion, but you are not subjective, you exist and yet your existence is utterly dependent on a mind.
The distinction between facts and values is there because of this stuff.
At the moment, I'm not talkin' about what is or isn't fact (if the conversation goes anywhere we'll get to all that). What I am talkin' about is you -- real, seemingly mind-independent, objective -- bein' dependent, quite obviously, on a mind for your existence.

Will you acknowledge there's sumthin' peculiar about you, sumthin' unique, that sets you apart from, say, an apple, or a car, or a cat?
I don't understand what you are trying to say Henry, it's got too much mystical woo for me to follow.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 1:34 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 1:24 pm It is you making the claims.
You said morality was independent and gave a list of thigs it was independent of.
You have not justified that extraordinary claim.
PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
How much justification do you need? There's nothing "extraordinary" about this - it's obvious to any non-idiot. Why isn't it obvious to you?

There was morality before you were born.
There will be morality after you die.

That's because morality is independent of you and your mind.
Non sequitur.
None of my experiences are independent of me.

There was morality before I was born.
There will be morality after I die.

That's because morality is independent of me and my mind.
wrong. See above

There was morality before any given individual was born.
There will be morality after any given individual dies.
Wrong. See above


That's because morality is independent of any given individual and their mind.

If you have gone full retard and you want to reject the existence of morality - please inform us. It will save us time.
Where is morality?
If it is independent then ir has to have an existence beyond human experience.
Where is that?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

I don't understand what you are trying to say Henry, it's got too much mystical woo for me to follow.
No, there's no woo there.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 6:46 pm
I don't understand what you are trying to say Henry, it's got too much mystical woo for me to follow.
No, there's no woo there.
Ok. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.

But do bear in mind that the point of mind-indpendence and objectivity is for there to be an actual reference point against which answers to questions can be validated and by virtue of that competing answers can be demonstrated wrong. You guys' attempts at fancy diversions around the objectivity thing are continually delivering a substandard product that does not support this, the only required feature.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 1:18 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 6:46 pm
I don't understand what you are trying to say Henry, it's got too much mystical woo for me to follow.
No, there's no woo there.
Ok. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.

But do bear in mind that the point of mind-indpendence and objectivity is for there to be an actual reference point against which answers to questions can be validated and by virtue of that competing answers can be demonstrated wrong. You guys' attempts at fancy diversions around the objectivity thing are continually delivering a substandard product that does not support this, the only required feature.
Agreed.

But just a thought. If we forget the mind - as a non-physical thing evidence for the existence of which there's zilch - we're left with all we ever really had: the brain.

And then we're talking about brain-dependence and brain-independence: do the existence and nature of rocks depend on the existence of a brain or brains? And: do moral rightness and wrongness exist as things at all, let alone things that may be independent from a brain or brains?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 7:49 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 1:18 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 6:46 pm

No, there's no woo there.
Ok. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.

But do bear in mind that the point of mind-indpendence and objectivity is for there to be an actual reference point against which answers to questions can be validated and by virtue of that competing answers can be demonstrated wrong. You guys' attempts at fancy diversions around the objectivity thing are continually delivering a substandard product that does not support this, the only required feature.
Agreed.

But just a thought. If we forget the mind - as a non-physical thing evidence for the existence of which there's zilch - we're left with all we ever really had: the brain.

And then we're talking about brain-dependence and brain-independence: do the existence and nature of rocks depend on the existence of a brain or brains? And: do moral rightness and wrongness exist as things at all, let alone things that may be independent from a brain or brains?
In the above, you are so rhetorical that you are check-mating yourself into nihilism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

In any talk of mind-independence it is implied that humans and the person exist as real entities with agency.
This is why I always relate the opposite of mind-independence with 'entanglement with the human conditions' rather than stating 'mind-dependence'.

So it is not that reality is dependent on humans, minds and brains, rather it is that reality emerges spontaneously in entanglement with humans, minds, brains and all else.

It is your ignorance and failure to understand [not necessary agree with] emergence and emergentism that you keep insisting on imposing your narrow dogmatic view on those who anti-realists [against mind-, human-, language independence].

No matter how much you deny, you are fundamentally a metaphysical realist or an external realist.
Hilary Putnam listed three principles or credo of who is a metaphysical realist, i.e.
  • 1. Credo in Independence
    2. Credo in Correspondence or Truth-maker Theory
    3. Credo in Cartesianism
You seem to be banking on the Truth-maker Theory.
You are not sure where you stand and you are rejecting the Correspondence Theory, but note Tim Button [limit of realism];
  • As it happens, though, the choice between truth-maker and correspondence theory will make almost no difference to our subsequent considerations.
    (If anything, it makes External Realism marginally more difficult to attack, if it adheres to a correspondence theory rather than a mere truth-maker theory.)
    So it will do no harm to assume that the External Realist accepts the Correspondence Principle.
According to Tim Button, the truth-maker theory [weaker] is easier to trash via Hilary Putnam's arguments.

You talk of fact as a feature of reality.
Implicit in this is an independent [absolute] external reality regardless of your denial that your realist-facts has nothing to do with reality.

I agree moral opinion and beliefs which are descriptive and prescriptive cannot be moral facts BUT
the moral potential [oughtness] existing as physical neural correlates which can be verified and justified within the scientific FSK can emerge as moral facts within a credible moral FSK. [note emerge and emergentism].

I anticipate you will be very blind and blurr to the above and therefrom will only make more noises until the penny drop for you.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 8:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 7:49 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 1:18 am
Ok. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.

But do bear in mind that the point of mind-indpendence and objectivity is for there to be an actual reference point against which answers to questions can be validated and by virtue of that competing answers can be demonstrated wrong. You guys' attempts at fancy diversions around the objectivity thing are continually delivering a substandard product that does not support this, the only required feature.
Agreed.

But just a thought. If we forget the mind - as a non-physical thing evidence for the existence of which there's zilch - we're left with all we ever really had: the brain.

And then we're talking about brain-dependence and brain-independence: do the existence and nature of rocks depend on the existence of a brain or brains? And: do moral rightness and wrongness exist as things at all, let alone things that may be independent from a brain or brains?
In the above, you are so rhetorical that you are check-mating yourself into nihilism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

In any talk of mind-independence it is implied that humans and the person exist as real entities with agency.
This is why I always relate the opposite of mind-independence with 'entanglement with the human conditions' rather than stating 'mind-dependence'.
That's just another of those aforementioned fancy diversions with a substandard end product that offers no form of verification, and no way to differentiate fact from fiction.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 8:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 7:49 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 1:18 am
Ok. I'm afraid that whatever you are trying to say about mind indepent existence, or some sort of impossibility thereof, is indecipherable at this moment.

But do bear in mind that the point of mind-indpendence and objectivity is for there to be an actual reference point against which answers to questions can be validated and by virtue of that competing answers can be demonstrated wrong. You guys' attempts at fancy diversions around the objectivity thing are continually delivering a substandard product that does not support this, the only required feature.
Agreed.

But just a thought. If we forget the mind - as a non-physical thing evidence for the existence of which there's zilch - we're left with all we ever really had: the brain.

And then we're talking about brain-dependence and brain-independence: do the existence and nature of rocks depend on the existence of a brain or brains? And: do moral rightness and wrongness exist as things at all, let alone things that may be independent from a brain or brains?
In the above, you are so rhetorical that you are check-mating yourself into nihilism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

In any talk of mind-independence it is implied that humans and the person exist as real entities with agency.
This is why I always relate the opposite of mind-independence with 'entanglement with the human conditions' rather than stating 'mind-dependence'.

So it is not that reality is dependent on humans, minds and brains, rather it is that reality emerges spontaneously in entanglement with humans, minds, brains and all else.

It is your ignorance and failure to understand [not necessary agree with] emergence and emergentism that you keep insisting on imposing your narrow dogmatic view on those who anti-realists [against mind-, human-, language independence].

No matter how much you deny, you are fundamentally a metaphysical realist or an external realist.
Hilary Putnam listed three principles or credo of who is a metaphysical realist, i.e.
  • 1. Credo in Independence
    2. Credo in Correspondence or Truth-maker Theory
    3. Credo in Cartesianism
You seem to be banking on the Truth-maker Theory.
You are not sure where you stand and you are rejecting the Correspondence Theory, but note Tim Button [limit of realism];
  • As it happens, though, the choice between truth-maker and correspondence theory will make almost no difference to our subsequent considerations.
    (If anything, it makes External Realism marginally more difficult to attack, if it adheres to a correspondence theory rather than a mere truth-maker theory.)
    So it will do no harm to assume that the External Realist accepts the Correspondence Principle.
According to Tim Button, the truth-maker theory [weaker] is easier to trash via Hilary Putnam's arguments.

You talk of fact as a feature of reality.
Implicit in this is an independent [absolute] external reality regardless of your denial that your realist-facts has nothing to do with reality.

I agree moral opinion and beliefs which are descriptive and prescriptive cannot be moral facts BUT
the moral potential [oughtness] existing as physical neural correlates which can be verified and justified within the scientific FSK can emerge as moral facts within a credible moral FSK. [note emerge and emergentism].

I anticipate you will be very blind and blurr to the above and therefrom will only make more noises until the penny drop for you.
What a conceptual mess!

What distinction does the expression 'external reality' make? Is there an 'internal reality''? And what exactly is it?

And the various misguided theories of truth - such as correspondence, truth maker/truth-bearer, pragmatism and consensus - are about language. They have nothing to do with reality - with ontology - what actually exists. Outside language, reality is not linguistic, so it has no truth-value.

You need to go back to the beginning and challenge all the assumptions - and delusions - that underpin what has passed for philosophy. And the daddy of them all is mistaking what we say about things for the way things are - as do Putnam and Button, to judge by what you quote.

Meanwhile, I think what you say here is central to our disagreement:

'I agree moral opinion and beliefs which are descriptive and prescriptive cannot be moral facts BUT
the moral potential [oughtness] existing as physical neural correlates which can be verified and justified within the scientific FSK can emerge as moral facts within a credible moral FSK. [note emerge and emergentism].'

I and others have been trying to show you the mistake you make here. Fruitlessly.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sun May 29, 2022 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Agreement.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

do the existence and nature of rocks depend on the existence of a brain or brains?
No, but you do.
And: do moral rightness and wrongness exist as things at all, let alone things that may be independent from a brain or brains?
Moral fact extends out of a fact about man: it is not independent of him (in the same way fire is not independent of oxygen, heat, and fuel).

But: I'll follow Advocate's lead and leave it there.
Post Reply