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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:33 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:53 pm Ultimately, whether murder is objectively wrong depends on the ethical framework or moral philosophy one subscribes to.
In other words, whether murder is objectively wrong is a matter of opinion, which is an absurd thing to say. It is probably a fact that the vast majority of human beings consider murder to be morally wrong. Why not just leave it at that if we have to bring the word "fact" into the matter? Nothing can ever be morally wrong, it can only be considered to be morally wrong.
I think VA can feel vindicated now.
No, he is not entitled to feel vindicated, but at least he is not alone in his mistaken position; he has you for company.
Because the terms 'right' or 'wrong' are too loose, I do not prefer to relate them with 'morality'.

Note the OP question is "What could make morality objective?"
If it is not objective, then it is subjective.

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being. [note 'a' i.e. one, uno].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Note the above "depends on the ethical framework or moral philosophy one subscribes to"
A 'framework' is supported by a "collective of subjects" [hundreds to millions or even billions of humans] not 'a subject', therefore it is 'objective' by definition.
This is where my use of 'Framework and System of Knowledge' FSK [explained in detail] is essential to the discussion.

Reliance upon a FSK is objective [by definition] but there has to be a consideration as to the credibility and reliability of the FSK relied upon.
At present, the best, most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK [despite its weaknesses]. You deny this?

I have asserted my Moral FSK would have near equivalent credibility and reliability to the scientific FSK because the majority of its inputs are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.
Therefore, Morality is objective re my moral FSK.
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 Mar 28, 2023 5:20 am A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being. [note 'a' i.e. one, uno].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Leaving aside the confused redundancy 'objective truth' - cos what is 'subjective truth? - and leaving aside the defunct mentalism of 'the mind of a sentient being' - and leaving aside the mistaken correspondence theory implicit in 'its truth conditions are met' - VA rests this account of objectivity on nothing more than consensus.

'If enough people - (but how many is enough?) - think a factual assertion is true, then it's true.'

And this assertion is patently false.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Elsewhere, VA quotes a writer who criticises objectivism as essentialist. And this is a straw man.

Such fashionable rejections of realism and objectivism arise from mistaking a description - such as 'water is H2O' - for the thing described, and then claiming that such a description claims to capture the essence or fundamental nature of the described - as though there could be such a thing.

And then the delusion deepens: no description can capture essence of fundamental nature, because there is no such thing. (Who ever says there is?) So...we can never know what reality really is. We have to invent or construct it - by reaching an intersubjective consensus.

The intellectual contortions and convolutions we've gone through to reach this pretty pass are fascinating. And tracing the way back through them isn't easy.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 5:20 am A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being. [note 'a' i.e. one, uno].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Leaving aside the confused redundancy 'objective truth' - cos what is 'subjective truth? - and leaving aside the defunct mentalism of 'the mind of a sentient being' - and leaving aside the mistaken correspondence theory implicit in 'its truth conditions are met' - VA rests this account of objectivity on nothing more than consensus.

'If enough people - (but how many is enough?) - think a factual assertion is true, then it's true.'

And this assertion is patently false.
It's false if you reject the principle of charity.
It's true if you accept the principle of charity.

Why do you reject the principle of charity?

If we use the word "triangle" to refer to this object, then it's true that this is a triangle. Seems Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes has changed his mind since the last time he sang his mantra.
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:14 am Now, words can mean only what we use them to mean.
Image
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 5:20 am A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being. [note 'a' i.e. one, uno].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Leaving aside the confused redundancy 'objective truth' - cos what is 'subjective truth? - and leaving aside the defunct mentalism of 'the mind of a sentient being' - and leaving aside the mistaken correspondence theory implicit in 'its truth conditions are met' - VA rests this account of objectivity on nothing more than consensus.

'If enough people - (but how many is enough?) - think a factual assertion is true, then it's true.'

And this assertion is patently false.
You are ignorant and dogmatically rigid;
In any situation, there can be as many descriptions of an event as there are people who experience it. The Four Truths, as a model, helps you understand such a phenomenon because it describes four ways people see their own truth in the world.

Objective Truth is what exists and can be proved in this physicality. (The sun moves across the sky each day.)
Normative Truth is what we, as a group, agree is true. (English speakers agreed to use the word day to name that time when the sky is lit by the sun.)
Subjective Truth is how the individual sees or experiences the world. (Today is a good day for me.)
Complex Truth recognizes the validity of all those truths and allows you to focus on the one is most useful at any given time. (The sun is up; the day is bright. Today is a good day for MOM, so lets take advantage of that and ask for ice cream for dinner.)
https://www.hsdinstitute.org/resources/four-truths.html#:
There is even 'half truth'.
-a statement that conveys only part of the truth, especially one used deliberately in order to mislead someone. - Oxford Dictionary

Yes, consensus within a FSK.
The scientific FSK which is conditioned upon consensus is the most credible and reliable at present.
You deny this?
All other FSKs' reliability and credibility can be evaluated with the scientific FSK as the standard.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:08 am Elsewhere, VA quotes a writer who criticises objectivism as essentialist. And this is a straw man.

Such fashionable rejections of realism and objectivism arise from mistaking a description - such as 'water is H2O' - for the thing described, and then claiming that such a description claims to capture the essence or fundamental nature of the described - as though there could be such a thing.

And then the delusion deepens: no description can capture essence of fundamental nature, because there is no such thing. (Who ever says there is?) So...we can never know what reality really is. We have to invent or construct it - by reaching an intersubjective consensus.

The intellectual contortions and convolutions we've gone through to reach this pretty pass are fascinating. And tracing the way back through them isn't easy.
Don't just blabber [your dirty habit] here.
Address the points specifically in the OP and provide your argument.
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 Mar 28, 2023 8:19 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:08 am Elsewhere, VA quotes a writer who criticises objectivism as essentialist. And this is a straw man.

Such fashionable rejections of realism and objectivism arise from mistaking a description - such as 'water is H2O' - for the thing described, and then claiming that such a description claims to capture the essence or fundamental nature of the described - as though there could be such a thing.

And then the delusion deepens: no description can capture essence of fundamental nature, because there is no such thing. (Who ever says there is?) So...we can never know what reality really is. We have to invent or construct it - by reaching an intersubjective consensus.

The intellectual contortions and convolutions we've gone through to reach this pretty pass are fascinating. And tracing the way back through them isn't easy.
Don't just blabber [your dirty habit] here.
Address the points specifically in the OP and provide your argument.
I've explained why your argument is fallacious. Try thinking very, very hard about what I've said. For a change.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:23 am I've explained why your argument is fallacious.

So what?

Is there anything objectively wrong with "fallacious arguments"?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:23 am Try thinking very, very hard about what I've said. For a change.
I thought all you had in your head is brain and other tissues?

What or where is your "thinking"?
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:19 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:08 am Elsewhere, VA quotes a writer who criticises objectivism as essentialist. And this is a straw man.

Such fashionable rejections of realism and objectivism arise from mistaking a description - such as 'water is H2O' - for the thing described, and then claiming that such a description claims to capture the essence or fundamental nature of the described - as though there could be such a thing.

And then the delusion deepens: no description can capture essence of fundamental nature, because there is no such thing. (Who ever says there is?) So...we can never know what reality really is. We have to invent or construct it - by reaching an intersubjective consensus.

The intellectual contortions and convolutions we've gone through to reach this pretty pass are fascinating. And tracing the way back through them isn't easy.
Don't just blabber [your dirty habit] here.
Address the points specifically in the OP and provide your argument.
I've explained why your argument is fallacious. Try thinking very, very hard about what I've said. For a change.
Yours is merely blabbering, how can that be clear.
The onus is on you to provide arguments that are clear instead of cryptic ones.
Refer [with links] to the specific point in quotes and provide valid arguments.

Your whole argument of this OP is grounded on your sort of 'fact' [illusory] with the example 'water is H20'
but as I had shown in
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844
your "what is fact" is a falsehood.
Thus you do not have any grounds to claim 'Morality is Not Objective'.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:31 pmWhen somebody asks you to demonstrate truth it's because they don't think it's true.
That's one way of looking at it.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:31 pm
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:18 pmWho said murder is objectively wrong?
You did. You said it's true that murder is wrong.
Objectively true. Subjectively true. Same difference. Differently the same.
That's in the context of
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amtruth is the property of all true things.
I might as easily agree with your friend Peter Holmes's context of truth corresponding with an objective reality. So could you if the charity you claim were the sort of charity I would call charity without being persuaded by you that your concept of charity is one I could subscribe to.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:31 pmI can't possibly imagine how my haves and your wants intersect unless you tell me what you want.

And it seems like guessing is really stupid game when you can just tell me.
That's not how it works. If you have something to sell, you have to advertise.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Elsewhere, VA claims that water is not H2O - and, presumably, water is not water. The question is: why say that?

VA agrees that a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual. So in chemistry, physics, geology, history - and so on - there are different kinds of description, and so different truth-claims. A truth-claim is relative to or dependent on a descriptive context, each of which serves a purpose.

For example, in physics, a quantum mechanical description is quite different from a classical or Newtonian description. But it makes no sense to say that qm truth-claims are true, while Newtonian truth-claims are false. Engineers use and rely on Newtonian calculations all the time - successfully.

VA's eccentric use of qm theory - usefully criticised here by Flannel Jesus and Harbal - belies the understanding that a truth-claim is contextual. VA's conclusion is this: 'water is not H2O, because, in a quantum mechanical description, water isn't even water.' This is precisely the essentialist delusion that VA accuses realists and objectivists of holding. But as Wittgenstein put it, laconically: essence is grammatical. (Linguistic.)

The fact that we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways does not mean that features of reality, such as water and its chemical composition, are so 'entangled with the human conditions' that they don't and wouldn't exist if there were no humans. That is an absurd and utterly unscientific conclusion.
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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:21 am Elsewhere, VA claims that water is not H2O - and, presumably, water is not water. The question is: why say that?
Strawman again - the millionth time.

I stated very clearly,

water [linguistic FSK] is not H2O [science-chemistry FSK]
VA agrees that a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual. So in chemistry, physics, geology, history - and so on - there are different kinds of description, and so different truth-claims. A truth-claim is relative to or dependent on a descriptive context, each of which serves a purpose.
Strawman again.
I stated what is fact [truth] is always conditioned upon a FSK.
What is described is always subsequent to a realization within the FSK.
For example, in physics, a quantum mechanical description is quite different from a classical or Newtonian description. But it makes no sense to say that qm truth-claims are true, while Newtonian truth-claims are false. Engineers use and rely on Newtonian calculations all the time - successfully.
Strawman again.
I stated what is fact [truth] is always conditioned upon a FSK.
Newtonian fact [truths] are true but only with qualification to the Newtonian FSK and so on.
VA's eccentric use of qm theory - usefully criticised here by Flannel Jesus and Harbal - belies the understanding that a truth-claim is contextual. VA's conclusion is this: 'water is not H2O, because, in a quantum mechanical description, water isn't even water.' This is precisely the essentialist delusion that VA accuses realists and objectivists of holding. But as Wittgenstein put it, laconically: essence is grammatical. (Linguistic.)
Flannel Jesus and Harbal are merely giving their views which is not necessary authoritative.

Strawman again,
Water is water only within the ordinary language FSK.
Water is NOT H20 in terms of your definition of fact.
Whether water is or is-not H2O must be fully qualified and not to be taken as absolute as you do.
The fact that we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways does not mean that features of reality, such as water and its chemical composition, are so 'entangled with the human conditions' that they don't and wouldn't exist if there were no humans. That is an absurd and utterly unscientific conclusion.
What are you blabbering about?

The principle is
whatever the fact, it must always be conditioned to a specific FSK.

Whatever I claim as fact is conditioned to its specific FSK which must be credible and reliable, e.g. the scientific FSK and a moral FSK [of near equivalence to the scientific FSK].

On the other hand, you are trying to be God with omnipotent and omniscient to make claims of 'fact' without qualifications at all to any conditions [FSK]. Obviously this more absurd.

So far, what you claim as 'fact' which is unconditional is a noumenal illusion, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844
Prove to me if otherwise.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tillingborn »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:34 amThe principle is whatever the fact, it must always be conditioned to a specific FSK.
You are using the word fact in the context of a particular FSK. As far as I can tell the meaning of fact within that FSK is something like 'an expression of a belief about some feature of our experience'; perhaps you would go so far as to say an external reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:34 amWhatever I claim as fact is conditioned to its specific FSK which must be credible and reliable, e.g. the scientific FSK and a moral FSK [of near equivalence to the scientific FSK].
What about the scientific FSK makes it reliable? What would be the near equivalent in a moral FSK?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:34 am"Water is Not H20"
Prove to me if otherwise.
If
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:34 amThe principle is whatever the fact, it must always be conditioned to a specific FSK.
then in the context of a specific FSK according to which water is H2O, it is a fact that water is H2O.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:17 am What about the scientific FSK makes it reliable? What would be the near equivalent in a moral FSK?
Some would say there's no difference between science and morality; so what makes it 'reliable' is the results.
So a second characterization of pragmatism might go like this: there is no epistemological
difference between truth about what ought to be and truth about what is, nor any metaphysical
difference between facts and values, nor any methodological difference between morality and
science --Richard Rorty
I agree in general. but of course nitpickers would disagree in particular.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:34 amThe principle is whatever the fact, it must always be conditioned to a specific FSK.
You are using the word fact in the context of a particular FSK. As far as I can tell the meaning of fact within that FSK is something like 'an expression of a belief about some feature of our experience'; perhaps you would go so far as to say an external reality.
A FSK is constructed and maintained by a collective of human subjects.
If a FSK deliberate of an external reality,
whatever is concluded of that external reality, it is ultimately conditioned by subjects, i.e. human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:34 amWhatever I claim as fact is conditioned to its specific FSK which must be credible and reliable, e.g. the scientific FSK and a moral FSK [of near equivalence to the scientific FSK].
What about the scientific FSK makes it reliable?
What would be the near equivalent in a moral FSK?
What about the scientific FSK makes it reliable?
note these features that make a scientific FSK reliable and credible;
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

If the majority of inputs into a moral FSK is from the scientific FSK, i.e. scientific facts, then the moral FSK will have near equivalent to the scientific FSK in contrast to say a theistic FSK which is grounded on faith.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:34 am"Water is Not H20"
Prove to me if otherwise.
If
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:34 amThe principle is whatever the fact, it must always be conditioned to a specific FSK.
then in the context of a specific FSK according to which water is H2O, it is a fact that water is H2O.
Yes, if one claim water is H20 and qualify the FSK it is grounded on, there is no issue.
In the general conventional FSK, water is H20, and as long as it is qualified to the specific FSK, there is no issue.

The problem with PH is he claimed 'Water is H20' as a fact, feature of reality as absolute independent of the human conditions, without accepting any qualification at all.
To PH, anyone who claim otherwise is talking nonsense.

Rightly, it should have the following qualifications, i.e.
'water [ordinary language FSK] is H20 [science-chemistry FSK].
Post Reply