What could make morality objective?
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Sit rep.
Bonkers claim: all facts are inventions; therefore, whatever we call a fact is a fact.
Bonkers implication: it follows that it's a fact that abortion both is and isn't morally wrong; and it's a fact that what we call a red circle both is and isn't a red circle. (I think this is partly what Flash has been pointing out. But I may be wrong.)
Logical problem: we can't both reject and invoke classical binary truth-value. If an assertion is both true and false, then it can be neither true nor false. (I think this is partly what Iwannaplato has been pointing out. But I may be wrong.) Reject classical contradiction, and this dissolution into vacuity is inevitable.
VA's special pleading: all facts are inventions; but, like Orwell's equal pigs, some facts are more factual - less invented - than others.
Instead of an attempt to rebut these sound refutations, all we get is the refuted argument repeated ad nauseam.
Bonkers claim: all facts are inventions; therefore, whatever we call a fact is a fact.
Bonkers implication: it follows that it's a fact that abortion both is and isn't morally wrong; and it's a fact that what we call a red circle both is and isn't a red circle. (I think this is partly what Flash has been pointing out. But I may be wrong.)
Logical problem: we can't both reject and invoke classical binary truth-value. If an assertion is both true and false, then it can be neither true nor false. (I think this is partly what Iwannaplato has been pointing out. But I may be wrong.) Reject classical contradiction, and this dissolution into vacuity is inevitable.
VA's special pleading: all facts are inventions; but, like Orwell's equal pigs, some facts are more factual - less invented - than others.
Instead of an attempt to rebut these sound refutations, all we get is the refuted argument repeated ad nauseam.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6266
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
That's about the long and the short. VA's current theory as vidicated by Skepdick (a fate that you should never want your argument to suffer) entails that it is true that this sentence is untrue and also untrue that this sentence is untrue and that both of these things are true at the same time.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:05 am Sit rep.
Bonkers claim: all facts are inventions; therefore, whatever we call a fact is a fact.
Bonkers implication: it follows that it's a fact that abortion both is and isn't morally wrong; and it's a fact that what we call a red circle both is and isn't a red circle. (I think this is partly what Flash has been pointing out. But I may be wrong.)
I contend that is not a very useful FSK of what-is-facts-and-what-is-also-facts-because-everything-is-some-%-facts. Nor is it credible.
It is becoming harder and harder to interpret what he writes as argument any more. I used to scorn his habit of trying to form everything with P1 P2 C1 to indicate premise and conclusion, but without that childish discipline he is just some guy ranting weird shapeless nonsense.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:05 am Logical problem: we can't both reject and invoke classical binary truth-value. If an assertion is both true and false, then it can be neither true nor false. (I think this is partly what Iwannaplato has been pointing out. But I may be wrong.) Reject classical contradiction, and this dissolution into vacuity is inevitable.
VA's special pleading: all facts are inventions; but, like Orwell's equal pigs, some facts are more factual - less invented - than others.
Instead of an attempt to rebut these sound refutations, all we get is the refuted argument repeated ad nauseam.
-
- Posts: 6657
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Oh, my apologies then..
I read this..
And enough of the context.Some things are moral and some things are immoral period, irregardless what anyone thinks about them or whether they even know about them.
Though now I went a few steps back in the conversation and it seems like you are an moral objectivist. But perhaps you are explaining what moral objectivism would entail.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6657
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Yes, that!'Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:05 am Instead of an attempt to rebut these sound refutations, all we get is the refuted argument repeated ad nauseam.
And even if he thinks it hasn't been refuted, he confuses reassertion and repetition with responding to criticism.
As a side note: it can actually be both interesting and funny to actually google his citations and find the orginal articles and also to follow his links. He doesn't seem to read the people whose authority he appeals to. They often disagree with him. He also doesn't seem to realize that appealing to authority is often a fallacy, such as it is in his non-arguments, for the most case.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Lol no wtf. I was merely entertaining the very remote possibility of actual objective morality. I think that what we know about the world is totally consistent with subjective morality, so being an objective moralist is roughly the same as being an idiot.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:24 pmOh, my apologies then..
I read this..And enough of the context.Some things are moral and some things are immoral period, irregardless what anyone thinks about them or whether they even know about them.
Though now I went a few steps back in the conversation and it seems like you are an moral objectivist. But perhaps you are explaining what moral objectivism would entail.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Tell us you don't understand linear logic without telling us you don't understand linear logic.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:55 am That's about the long and the short. VA's current theory as vidicated by Skepdick (a fate that you should never want your argument to suffer) entails that it is true that this sentence is untrue and also untrue that this sentence is untrue and that both of these things are true at the same time.
Tell us you don't understand Tarski undefinability without telling us you don't understand Tarski undefinability.
Tell us you don't understand that assigning truth-value is context and model dependent without telling us you don't understand that assigning truth-value is context and model dependent.
-
- Posts: 6657
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
1 Objective morality - the existence of moral facts - isn't even a very remote possibility.
2 Tarski's was a failed solution to a non-existent problem, precisely because a truth-claim is always contextual and model-dependent.
3 The bogeyman of so-called indeterminacy comes from the delusion that determinacy is an impossibility.
2 Tarski's was a failed solution to a non-existent problem, precisely because a truth-claim is always contextual and model-dependent.
3 The bogeyman of so-called indeterminacy comes from the delusion that determinacy is an impossibility.
-
- Posts: 12357
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
You have not countered this?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:10 pm 1 Objective morality - the existence of moral facts - isn't even a very remote possibility.
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
You have repeated your view "objective morality is impossible" ad nauseam but have not provided any sound argument with credible references and groundings.
You are merely continuing with the bastardized views and farts of the logical positivists on their stance towards ethics as nonsense.
- The influential wrongness of AJ Ayer
Ayer’s work tells us important things about the shortcomings of Anglophone philosophy
Ayer was catapulted to fame by Language, Truth and Logic, a book published at the philosophically precocious age of 26. Inspired by a year in Austria in the company of the Vienna Circle, he had returned to proselytise his version of the group’s creed.
The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
I know. Let's do it again.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:05 amYou have not countered this?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:10 pm 1 Objective morality - the existence of moral facts - isn't even a very remote possibility.
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
You have repeated your view "objective morality is impossible" ad nauseam but have not provided any sound argument with credible references and groundings.
You are merely continuing with the bastardized views and farts of the logical positivists on their stance towards ethics as nonsense.
- The influential wrongness of AJ Ayer
Ayer’s work tells us important things about the shortcomings of Anglophone philosophy
Ayer was catapulted to fame by Language, Truth and Logic, a book published at the philosophically precocious age of 26. Inspired by a year in Austria in the company of the Vienna Circle, he had returned to proselytise his version of the group’s creed.
The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
1 A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. If it does, then the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.
2 If the ought in an assertion is non-moral - if it doesn't refer to the moral rightness or wrongness, propriety or impropriety, of behaviour - then it isn't a moral assertion, so it can't assert a so-called moral fact.
3 The logical positivists were wrong to say that non-factual, non-empirical assertions are meaningless nonsense. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a logical positivist.
Suggestion. Instead of talking about foundations and grounding, why not actually address and try to refute 1 and 2 above? Claims and arguments are what matter - not who made or makes them.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Objective moral facts exist by virtue of objective principles, which may be physical as well as evaluative.
The principle that underlies the existence of objective moral principles is naturalism. Naturalism is the axiom that nature is determined by immutable laws and there is no fact that is not natural fact.
This is why the existence of objective moral principles is a function of man as social species, a natural fact. Social species survive partly by cooperation between individuals. For most species, but not with man, cooperation is instinctive.
According to naturalism if men followed their animal instincts they would not depart from natural law. Please see https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/#H1 Scroll down to 'Two kinds of natural law theory'.
Man is the only known species that uses language to codify moral laws.
The principle that underlies the existence of objective moral principles is naturalism. Naturalism is the axiom that nature is determined by immutable laws and there is no fact that is not natural fact.
This is why the existence of objective moral principles is a function of man as social species, a natural fact. Social species survive partly by cooperation between individuals. For most species, but not with man, cooperation is instinctive.
According to naturalism if men followed their animal instincts they would not depart from natural law. Please see https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/#H1 Scroll down to 'Two kinds of natural law theory'.
Man is the only known species that uses language to codify moral laws.
-
- Posts: 12357
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Your thinking above is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:41 amI know. Let's do it again.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:05 amYou have not countered this?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:10 pm 1 Objective morality - the existence of moral facts - isn't even a very remote possibility.
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
You have repeated your view "objective morality is impossible" ad nauseam but have not provided any sound argument with credible references and groundings.
You are merely continuing with the bastardized views and farts of the logical positivists on their stance towards ethics as nonsense.
- The influential wrongness of AJ Ayer
Ayer’s work tells us important things about the shortcomings of Anglophone philosophy
Ayer was catapulted to fame by Language, Truth and Logic, a book published at the philosophically precocious age of 26. Inspired by a year in Austria in the company of the Vienna Circle, he had returned to proselytise his version of the group’s creed.
The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
1 A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. If it does, then the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.
Deduction is merely a useful guide subject to its limitations, but it can also generate shit conclusions, note GIGO, i.e. garbage in garbage out.
Induction is a more effective tool to generate more realistic conclusions.
Note the first premise is always not deductive but always empirical and inductive.
I ask you,
how it is that a non-scientific common sense observation of an apple falling, and the likes be concluded as an objective scientific fact?
how it is that the non-legal evidence of someone -X stabbing into the heart of another human -Y be concluded as a legal fact, i.e. X is the murderer of Y?
The same apply to other situations where,
a non-X evidence can lead to a X-factual conclusion via induction.
You ignore my counter above?
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
You ignore my counter above?2 If the ought in an assertion is non-moral - if it doesn't refer to the moral rightness or wrongness, propriety or impropriety, of behaviour - then it isn't a moral assertion, so it can't assert a so-called moral fact.
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
What is critical is we must define, what is fact, what is morality, what is objectivity, and other relevant terms. That is the most effective way to do philosophy.
I have never stated "you are a logical positivist" rather you are influenced and has adopted their views partially with reference to moral facts.3 The logical positivists were wrong to say that non-factual, non-empirical assertions are meaningless nonsense. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a logical positivist.
Yours is one of the broken spoke of a 120 years long tradition of analytic philosophy [analyticism] which is facing its death at present.
There is no way we can get through your 1 and 2 without any reference to foundations and grounding.Suggestion. Instead of talking about foundations and grounding, why not actually address and try to refute 1 and 2 above? Claims and arguments are what matter - not who made or makes them.
I have given you a clue, your grounding is traceable to Hume's "no ought from is" which is with reference to very common religious oughts from an illusory God which obviously is nonsensical.
Because the majority of people are theists, that moral oughts that are raised in whatever ways is traceable to God's commands.
Hume did not deny moral sentiments and he intuitively claimed they arise from sympathy [empathy]. He could not dig deeper than this speculation because there was no neuroscience during his time.Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs;
when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence.
For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained;
and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.[3][4]
Wiki
Now I am not referring to religious moral oughts nor arbitrary moral opinions and beliefs but rather is tracing the moral potentiality [moral oughtness] as moral fact as matter-of-fact in terms of physical neurons in the brain.
You cannot follow on this because your thinking is too archaic and not open to new knowledge.
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
We can't get from non-moral premises to a moral conclusion by induction either. And if you're thinking of probabilistic induction - how do we calculate the probability that, say, slavery is morally wrong? Ridiculous!Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:29 amYour thinking above is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:41 amI know. Let's do it again.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:05 am
You have not countered this?
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
You have repeated your view "objective morality is impossible" ad nauseam but have not provided any sound argument with credible references and groundings.
You are merely continuing with the bastardized views and farts of the logical positivists on their stance towards ethics as nonsense.
- The influential wrongness of AJ Ayer
Ayer’s work tells us important things about the shortcomings of Anglophone philosophy
Ayer was catapulted to fame by Language, Truth and Logic, a book published at the philosophically precocious age of 26. Inspired by a year in Austria in the company of the Vienna Circle, he had returned to proselytise his version of the group’s creed.
The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
1 A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. If it does, then the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.
Deduction is merely a useful guide subject to its limitations, but it can also generate shit conclusions, note GIGO, i.e. garbage in garbage out.
Induction is a more effective tool to generate more realistic conclusions.
Note the first premise is always not deductive but always empirical and inductive.
I ask you,
how it is that a non-scientific common sense observation of an apple falling, and the likes be concluded as an objective scientific fact?
how it is that the non-legal evidence of someone -X stabbing into the heart of another human -Y be concluded as a legal fact, i.e. X is the murderer of Y?
The same apply to other situations where,
a non-X evidence can lead to a X-factual conclusion via induction.
You ignore my counter above?
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
You ignore my counter above?2 If the ought in an assertion is non-moral - if it doesn't refer to the moral rightness or wrongness, propriety or impropriety, of behaviour - then it isn't a moral assertion, so it can't assert a so-called moral fact.
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
What is critical is we must define, what is fact, what is morality, what is objectivity, and other relevant terms. That is the most effective way to do philosophy.
I have never stated "you are a logical positivist" rather you are influenced and has adopted their views partially with reference to moral facts.3 The logical positivists were wrong to say that non-factual, non-empirical assertions are meaningless nonsense. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a logical positivist.
Yours is one of the broken spoke of a 120 years long tradition of analytic philosophy [analyticism] which is facing its death at present.
There is no way we can get through your 1 and 2 without any reference to foundations and grounding.Suggestion. Instead of talking about foundations and grounding, why not actually address and try to refute 1 and 2 above? Claims and arguments are what matter - not who made or makes them.
I have given you a clue, your grounding is traceable to Hume's "no ought from is" which is with reference to very common religious oughts from an illusory God which obviously is nonsensical.
Because the majority of people are theists, that moral oughts that are raised in whatever ways is traceable to God's commands.
Hume did not deny moral sentiments and he intuitively claimed they arise from sympathy [empathy]. He could not dig deeper than this speculation because there was no neuroscience during his time.Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs;
when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence.
For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained;
and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.[3][4]
Wiki
Now I am not referring to religious moral oughts nor arbitrary moral opinions and beliefs but rather is tracing the moral potentiality [moral oughtness] as moral fact as matter-of-fact in terms of physical neurons in the brain.
You cannot follow on this because your thinking is too archaic and not open to new knowledge.
-
- Posts: 12357
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Trying to be deceptive again?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:56 am We can't get from non-moral premises to a moral conclusion by induction either. And if you're thinking of probabilistic induction - how do we calculate the probability that, say, slavery is morally wrong? Ridiculous!
Nope where do you get the notion I am talking about probabilistic induction to the extreme of computing probabilities for every conclusion.
Note 'Induction'
Science is based on inductive reasoning, do scientists ever calculate the probability of 'water is H20'.Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is considered to derive a general principle.[1]
It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations.[2]
Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning.
If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
As I had stated, my proposed moral FSK will take in inputs from and has equivalent credibility of the scientific FSK.
Putting 'slavery' aside,
I have argued there is an 'ought-not_ness of killing humans' which is a potentiality within the inherent moral potential represented by the neural network of physical neurons in the brain as a matter of fact.
This is the objective moral fact when processed within a credible moral FSK.
The same principle as above is applicable to slavery, rapes, violence, crimes and other evil acts against other humans.
The question of right or wrong is irrelevant in my case.
Your banking of 'the question of right or wrong' is based on your limited view of 'what is morality.'
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
No amount of non-moral observations could lead inductively to a moral conclusion - a 'general principle'.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:40 amTrying to be deceptive again?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:56 am We can't get from non-moral premises to a moral conclusion by induction either. And if you're thinking of probabilistic induction - how do we calculate the probability that, say, slavery is morally wrong? Ridiculous!
Nope where do you get the notion I am talking about probabilistic induction to the extreme of computing probabilities for every conclusion.
Note 'Induction'
Science is based on inductive reasoning, do scientists ever calculate the probability of 'water is H20'.Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is considered to derive a general principle.[1]
It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations.[2]
Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning.
If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
As I had stated, my proposed moral FSK will take in inputs from and has equivalent credibility of the scientific FSK.
Putting 'slavery' aside,
I have argued there is an 'ought-not_ness of killing humans' which is a potentiality within the inherent moral potential represented by the neural network of physical neurons in the brain as a matter of fact.
This is the objective moral fact when processed within a credible moral FSK.
The same principle as above is applicable to slavery, rapes, violence, crimes and other evil acts against other humans.
The question of right or wrong is irrelevant in my case.
Your banking of 'the question of right or wrong' is based on your limited view of 'what is morality.'