What could make morality objective?
-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Elsewhere, VA offers this killer syllogism.
P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Morality is part of human nature
C1 Morality is an objective fact
P1 and P2 are false, or at least not shown to be true - so the argument is unsound, or at least not shown to be sound.
P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Morality is part of human nature
C1 Morality is an objective fact
P1 and P2 are false, or at least not shown to be true - so the argument is unsound, or at least not shown to be sound.
-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Elsewhere, VA has posted yet again, this time on the 'sociobiology of morality'.
But VA makes the same mistake every time. To show why humans may think some actions are morally right or wrong is not to show that some actions are morally right or wrong.
Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.
But VA makes the same mistake every time. To show why humans may think some actions are morally right or wrong is not to show that some actions are morally right or wrong.
Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.
Re: What could make morality objective?
That's an imperative statement, so it's not true.
Non-moral premises can and do entail moral conclusions.
It's only an "error" because non-moral premises are not allowed to entail moral conclusions. Or so philosophers insist.
Awkward.
Re: What could make morality objective?
P1 is hugely problematic. What is and is not nature and what is and if not nurture, culture and socialisation is hotly debated.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:24 pm Elsewhere, VA offers this killer syllogism.
P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Morality is part of human nature
C1 Morality is an objective fact
P1 and P2 are false, or at least not shown to be true - so the argument is unsound, or at least not shown to be sound.
P2 Is hugely debated. WHilst some humans have what we like to call a "moral sense" or a "moral compass" the content of that morality is not universal. It is also questionable to parts of morality is natural, or cultural or due to social nurture and intellectual design.
C1 is not found. And is next to meaningless. It's not as if anyone and I mean ANYONE denies there morality exists
These are the objections that have been raised to VA for what seems like years now, These are objections he studiously avoids,
I think we can only winder at how we ought to categorise his failure as a human being, and specifically which psychological problems could result in this dogged persistence, and failure to see a problem here.
His attitude seems rather Trumpian..
Perhaps we could suggest narcisism?
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Nothing is objective, as all meaning/s are experiences of subjective biological consciousness. Take away that consciousness and the world ceases to be, SUBJECTIVELY, matter is not made of matter, thus the energies that alter our bodies as experience are forged into apparent reality, subjectively. There are no things, no objects independent of subjective interpretation.
-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
'Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions' is a declarative clause, not an imperative clause. An imperative usually gives a command, such as 'fuck off'.
And non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions, because that's a rule of deductive logic. But there's no compulsion or moral requirement to play by those rules. One can always fuck off and play on one's own.
And non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions, because that's a rule of deductive logic. But there's no compulsion or moral requirement to play by those rules. One can always fuck off and play on one's own.
-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Then what constitutes a conscious subject? What's it made of? Presumably, it can't be physical, because then it would be just another biological read-out.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:18 am Nothing is objective, as all meaning/s are experiences of subjective biological consciousness. Take away that consciousness and the world ceases to be, SUBJECTIVELY, matter is not made of matter, thus the energies that alter our bodies as experience are forged into apparent reality, subjectively. There are no things, no objects independent of subjective interpretation.
I suggest your model can't escape either out-and-out substance-dualism or special pleading.
Re: What could make morality objective?
No it isn't. Here's a non-moral premise entailing a moral conclusion: Today is Saturday, therefore murder is wrong.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 9:04 am 'Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions' is a declarative clause, not an imperative clause.
All rules are imperatives, not declaratives.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 9:04 am And non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions, because that's a rule of deductive logic.
Then why are you refereeing and enforcing that rule if there's no 'compulsion' to adhere to it?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 9:04 am But there's no compulsion or moral requirement to play by those rules.
I agree! If one is unwilling to justify why we ought to play by those particular rules then one should definitely fuck off and play on one's own.
-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
The assertion of a rule - 'X is the rule' - is not an imperative. It's a declarative, with a truth-value. This is grammar 101. There's no oppressive conspiracy.
For example: 'that chess move is disallowed' is not an imperative. And to say 'non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions' is merely to assert a classical deductive rule. And it's not a justification for the rule.
Heroic rebels can always fuck off and play on their own. Go ahead. Fuck off. Why should anyone else give a shit? Stop whingeing about why the rest of us play by the rules. Just grow up and fuck off. (Those are imperatives.)
For example: 'that chess move is disallowed' is not an imperative. And to say 'non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions' is merely to assert a classical deductive rule. And it's not a justification for the rule.
Heroic rebels can always fuck off and play on their own. Go ahead. Fuck off. Why should anyone else give a shit? Stop whingeing about why the rest of us play by the rules. Just grow up and fuck off. (Those are imperatives.)
-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
The dick-for-brains has pumped this out:
'Here's a non-moral premise entailing a moral conclusion: Today is Saturday; therefore murder is wrong.'
And here's another gem; Today is Tuesday; therefore water is H2O.
'How deductive entailment works' is probably a chapter the wanker hasn't reached yet.
'Here's a non-moral premise entailing a moral conclusion: Today is Saturday; therefore murder is wrong.'
And here's another gem; Today is Tuesday; therefore water is H2O.
'How deductive entailment works' is probably a chapter the wanker hasn't reached yet.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Q.E.DPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:43 pm The assertion of a rule - 'X is the rule' - is not an imperative. It's a declarative, with a truth-value. This is grammar 101. There's no oppressive conspiracy.
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes believes that rules have truth-value.
Therefore moral rules have truth-value.
Like the rule "Murder is not allowed.
Settled then!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:43 pm For example: 'that chess move is disallowed' is not an imperative.
Murder is not allowed is a declarative with truth-value.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Hi Kettle, I am pot.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:42 pm 'How deductive entailment works' is probably a chapter the wanker hasn't reached yet.
If rules have truth values, why is it that moral rules don't have truth-values?
-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
If the premises are false, the argument is unsound, so validity is irrelevant. And if the argument is invalid, the truth-value of the premises or the conclusion is irrelevant, because the premises don't entail the conclusion.
Why not just fuck off, you nasty, stupid wanker?
Why not just fuck off, you nasty, stupid wanker?
Re: What could make morality objective?
None of this matters when the conclusion is true.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:51 pm If the premises are false, the argument is unsound, so validity is irrelevant. And if the argument is invalid, the truth-value of the premises or the conclusion is irrelevant, because the premises don't entail the conclusion.
After you, Sir!
I refuse to play by the very rules you refuse to follow.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3789
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Fuck off, you nasty, stupid wanker.