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

popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

THE WORD IS NOT THE THING!
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: Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:57 pm Consider the following claims.

1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.

2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.

I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
Strawmaning yet again with very shallow views!

PH:1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.

I agree as with conventional Science [QM the exception] that the perceived [reality] do exists outside a perception.
When we see an apple on a tree in the orchard from our window, it is undeniable from that perspective, that the perceived apple exists outside our perception of the apple.
So a perception does not create the perceived in this perspective.

The problem starts with the ideology of Philosophical Realism,
  • Philosophical realism .. about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views..
    Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical Realism claim the perceived [reality] is absolutely independent of the human self, mind-independent existence, i.e. exists as a thing-in-itself unconditionally.

Now while I agree the perceived [reality] exists outside of perception, it is not absolutely independent from the human self. This is the conventional, scientific or empirical perspective.
From a more refined perspective, the perceived [reality], cannot be absolutely independent from the human self which is intricately part and parcel of reality.

Note the equivalent progress of cognition of reality in Physics;

1. Classical Newtonian physics adopt the Philosophical Realists' perspective which include the God's Eye View of reality where every thing perceived exist absolutely outside perception. While such a perspective has its utility, it has its limitation to what is reality.

2. Then we have Einstein's Relativity & the Observers' Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
  • Einstein's revelation was that observers in relative motion experience time differently: it's perfectly possible for two events to happen simultaneously from the perspective of one observer, yet happen at different times from the perspective of the other. And both observers would be right.
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... ing-genius#:
In this case, while observed reality may be relative to the observer, Einstein still maintain there is still a thing-in-itself which is not effected by the observer.
This is why Einstein insisted the moon is still there when no one is observing it.

3. At present we have Quantum Mechanics, starting with the Wave Collapse Function to where the latest view acceptable to most quantum physicists is, there is no absolute reality out there.
What is reality is conditioned and entangled with the human self.
In fact the last Nobel Prize of Physics on non-locality is based on this theory.

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/

Note Model Dependent Realism;
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#:~

It is not the case that perception [crude] that create 'the perceived' but rather there is a complex process that enable the emergence of a thing or object where common sense necessarily objectify it as outside the self as a convenience.
You ignorantly and dogmatically insist this common sense reality is the sole reality and nothing else matters.

Many Quantum Physicists will agree with [against their intuition], if no subjects are cognizing the moon, there is no moon.
Such a view had been proposed by Eastern Philosophers >2000 years ago or even the Greeks, i.e. Protagoras' "Man is the Measure of All Things'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras


PH: 2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
This is a strawman based on stupidity and desperation.

Despite the changing cognition of reality to a more realistic perspective, you are so pathetically stuck with your dogmatic ideology of Philosophical Realism which is mainly a reliance of words and their meanings, not on reality per se.
I claimed this dogmatism of yours and the likes is driven a desperate existential angst which is a psychological defense mechanism to secure the status quo of yours.

My perspective of objective moral facts hinge on the latest scientific facts of human nature.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:33 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:36 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:57 pm

These claims are true because we may be mistaken about the existence of everything except the existence of experience.
Okay, so here's a formulation of your argument:

Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.

This is a non sequitur. But - please rephrase it if my formulation is incorrect.
Experience IS reality. There is no other reality except experience. No experience can possibly be not the case. Think of any experience and it cannot be not the case.
Of course - experiences are real. They are real occurrences. Who's ever denied that?

But this claim - there is no other reality except experience - is mystical nonsense. That rock on that planet on the other side of the universe is real, and is not 'experience' - whatever that could possibly mean.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:31 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:34 pm

Gosh first strawman of the week??
You might want to learn to read.
Jog on moron
No need to be unpleasant. Sorry if I misunderstood. Glad to know you don't think water is the way it is because that's the way we perceive and describe it.
You are only making a fool of yourself.

We are talking about these two statement.
1 We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
2. Our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.

If you were less of a cont and more of a scholar you might have taken the trouble to READ these statements.

It's not about Reality, or your version of it.
It's about how we chose to describe it.

Water is not H2O. H2O is three ASCII characters.

I cannot believe that a person who claims to have an interest in philosophy can be quite so dull witted.


pipe.JPG
Why the need to be unpleasant? Does calling me a 'cont' make you feel better? Do you think it improves your argument?

Here are the two assertions, which were my formulation of Belinda's argument.

Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.

The premise is obviously true. But the conclusion doesn't follow. And, anyway, the conclusion is false. A perception or a description doesn't create the thing being perceived or described - which is what Belinda seems to be saying.

But if you think it does, by all means present your argument.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:53 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:33 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:36 pm

Okay, so here's a formulation of your argument:

Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.

This is a non sequitur. But - please rephrase it if my formulation is incorrect.
Experience IS reality. There is no other reality except experience. No experience can possibly be not the case. Think of any experience and it cannot be not the case.
Of course - experiences are real. They are real occurrences. Who's ever denied that?

But this claim - there is no other reality except experience - is mystical nonsense. That rock on that planet on the other side of the universe is real, and is not 'experience' - whatever that could possibly mean.
That rock on that planet on the other side of the universe is a fantasy. Fantasies are experiences.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Premise: The connotation AND denotation of all terms are socially constructed.

(True. Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.)

Conclusion: Therefore, things are the way they are because that's how we name and describe them.

(Non sequitur, and fatuous nonsense. Our describing what we call water as what we call H2O has no bearing on the nature of water, which was, is and will be what it is regardless of how it's named or described.)
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:21 am Premise: The connotation AND denotation of all terms are socially constructed.

(True. Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.)

Conclusion: Therefore, things are the way they are because that's how we name and describe them.

(Non sequitur, and fatuous nonsense. Our describing what we call water as what we call H2O has no bearing on the nature of water, which was, is and will be what it is regardless of how it's named or described.)
Water does not experience anything as it's not alive.The nature of water is nothing but its history . Water has no future apart from how experiencers experience water.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:11 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:31 pm
No need to be unpleasant. Sorry if I misunderstood. Glad to know you don't think water is the way it is because that's the way we perceive and describe it.
You are only making a fool of yourself.

We are talking about these two statement.
1 We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
2. Our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.

If you were less of a cont and more of a scholar you might have taken the trouble to READ these statements.

It's not about Reality, or your version of it.
It's about how we chose to describe it.

Water is not H2O. H2O is three ASCII characters.

I cannot believe that a person who claims to have an interest in philosophy can be quite so dull witted.


pipe.JPG
Why the need to be unpleasant? Does calling me a 'cont' make you feel better? Do you think it improves your argument?

Here are the two assertions, which were my formulation of Belinda's argument.

Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.

The premise is obviously true. But the conclusion doesn't follow. And, anyway, the conclusion is false. A perception or a description doesn't create the thing being perceived or described - which is what Belinda seems to be saying.

But if you think it does, by all means present your argument.
It's pointless bandying words with a person who can't read, and who uses strawman to try to undermine others' arguments.
You are doing it again right here.
I told you that both statements are true and need not be sequiturs. Why can't you read and respond to what is said, and not what you want to have been said.
The answer is that you are floundering, so have to change the things you are attacking to something easy to burn.
When you address what I said then maybe we can talk
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:43 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:21 am Premise: The connotation AND denotation of all terms are socially constructed.

(True. Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.)

Conclusion: Therefore, things are the way they are because that's how we name and describe them.

(Non sequitur, and fatuous nonsense. Our describing what we call water as what we call H2O has no bearing on the nature of water, which was, is and will be what it is regardless of how it's named or described.)
Water does not experience anything as it's not alive.The nature of water is nothing but its history . Water has no future apart from how experiencers experience water.
So what? We're talking about the existence of water. And water is not 'experience'. The end.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:14 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:53 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:33 pm
Experience IS reality. There is no other reality except experience. No experience can possibly be not the case. Think of any experience and it cannot be not the case.
Of course - experiences are real. They are real occurrences. Who's ever denied that?

But this claim - there is no other reality except experience - is mystical nonsense. That rock on that planet on the other side of the universe is real, and is not 'experience' - whatever that could possibly mean.
That rock on that planet on the other side of the universe is a fantasy. Fantasies are experiences.
Sophistry. That rock (like any rock anywhere) is real, and I humbly suggest you know damn well it is. Please give up this word salad game.
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: Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:24 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:57 pm Consider the following claims.

1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.

2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.

I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
Strawmaning yet again with very shallow views!

PH:1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.

I agree as with conventional Science [QM the exception] that the perceived [reality] do exists outside a perception.
When we see an apple on a tree in the orchard from our window, it is undeniable from that perspective, that the perceived apple exists outside our perception of the apple.
So a perception does not create the perceived in this perspective.

The problem starts with the ideology of Philosophical Realism,
  • Philosophical realism .. about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views..
    Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical Realism claim the perceived [reality] is absolutely independent of the human self, mind-independent existence, i.e. exists as a thing-in-itself unconditionally.

Now while I agree the perceived [reality] exists outside of perception, it is not absolutely independent from the human self. This is the conventional, scientific or empirical perspective.
From a more refined perspective, the perceived [reality], cannot be absolutely independent from the human self which is intricately part and parcel of reality.

Note the equivalent progress of cognition of reality in Physics;

1. Classical Newtonian physics adopt the Philosophical Realists' perspective which include the God's Eye View of reality where every thing perceived exist absolutely outside perception. While such a perspective has its utility, it has its limitation to what is reality.

2. Then we have Einstein's Relativity & the Observers' Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
  • Einstein's revelation was that observers in relative motion experience time differently: it's perfectly possible for two events to happen simultaneously from the perspective of one observer, yet happen at different times from the perspective of the other. And both observers would be right.
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... ing-genius#:
In this case, while observed reality may be relative to the observer, Einstein still maintain there is still a thing-in-itself which is not effected by the observer.
This is why Einstein insisted the moon is still there when no one is observing it.

3. At present we have Quantum Mechanics, starting with the Wave Collapse Function to where the latest view acceptable to most quantum physicists is, there is no absolute reality out there.
What is reality is conditioned and entangled with the human self.
In fact the last Nobel Prize of Physics on non-locality is based on this theory.

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/

Note Model Dependent Realism;
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#:~

It is not the case that perception [crude] that create 'the perceived' but rather there is a complex process that enable the emergence of a thing or object where common sense necessarily objectify it as outside the self as a convenience.
You ignorantly and dogmatically insist this common sense reality is the sole reality and nothing else matters.

Many Quantum Physicists will agree with [against their intuition], if no subjects are cognizing the moon, there is no moon.
Such a view had been proposed by Eastern Philosophers >2000 years ago or even the Greeks, i.e. Protagoras' "Man is the Measure of All Things'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras


PH: 2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
This is a strawman based on stupidity and desperation.

Despite the changing cognition of reality to a more realistic perspective, you are so pathetically stuck with your dogmatic ideology of Philosophical Realism which is mainly a reliance of words and their meanings, not on reality per se.
I claimed this dogmatism of yours and the likes is driven a desperate existential angst which is a psychological defense mechanism to secure the status quo of yours.

My perspective of objective moral facts hinge on the latest scientific facts of human nature.
So you agree that the perceived exists outside perception - from which it follows that the described exists outside description. (Quantum mechanical descriptions are no exception to this.)

Moral realists and objectivists never produce one example of a moral fact - because there's no such thing. But the faith must be maintained. Hence the spurious arguments designed to demonstrate moral objectivity by some other means.

Yours involves the silly idea that the perceived and described aren't really outside perception and description, because we have to perceive and describe things in a human way.

You've been suckered by an idea that became fashionable in philosophy at least seventy years ago, but which has much older roots. Here are two forms of the idea.

Premise: To assert a fact is to express an opinion.
Conclusion: Therefore: there are no facts, but only opinions; and any opinion can assert a fact.

Premise: To assert a fact is to produce a (necessarily contextual) description.
Conclusion: Therefore: there are no facts, but only (necessarily contextual) descriptions; and any description can assert a fact.

You don't or can't afford to recognise the invalidity of these arguments, and the stupidity of the conclusions, because they demolish your argument for moral objectivity.

(We can ignore your appeal to quantum mechanics, because it does nothing to support the argument for moral objectivity.)
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Nothing can be proven to exist outside one's subjectivity. However, as surely as we know apparent reality as object/s through the alterations they make to our biological natures, so too it is feasible that the objects themselves are created in a similar fashion. They would then be biological readouts of one's biological reactions to the energies that surround us. Alter one's biology and one transform one's apparent reality. Nothing can be proven to be objective, read independent of conscious subjectivity.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:30 pm Nothing can be proven to exist outside one's subjectivity. However, as surely as we know apparent reality as object/s through the alterations they make to our biological natures, so too it is feasible that the objects themselves are created in a similar fashion. They would then be biological readouts of one's biological reactions to the energies that surround us. Alter one's biology and one transform one's apparent reality. Nothing can be proven to be objective, read independent of conscious subjectivity.
Can 'one's subjectivity' be proven to exist? Couldn't the malicious demon fool me into thinking that I think?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:21 am Premise: The connotation AND denotation of all terms are socially constructed.

(True. Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.)

Conclusion: Therefore, things are the way they are because that's how we name and describe them.

(Non sequitur, and fatuous nonsense. Our describing what we call water as what we call H2O has no bearing on the nature of water, which was, is and will be what it is regardless of how it's named or described.)
You are necessarily implying that there's a difference between water and its nature!
You are most certainly implying that water has an aboutness about it that you call "nature"!

What is "the nature of water" outside of our linguistic descriptions?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:57 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:30 pm Nothing can be proven to exist outside one's subjectivity. However, as surely as we know apparent reality as object/s through the alterations they make to our biological natures, so too it is feasible that the objects themselves are created in a similar fashion. They would then be biological readouts of one's biological reactions to the energies that surround us. Alter one's biology and one transform one's apparent reality. Nothing can be proven to be objective, read independent of conscious subjectivity.
Can 'one's subjectivity' be proven to exist? Couldn't the malicious demon fool me into thinking that I think?
I think Descartes already answered that one, google it! " I think, therefore I am."
Post Reply