Thank you.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 11, 2022 7:37 pmEXCELLENT!Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:10 pm What could make morality objective?
How many times has this question appeared on this and other Forums?
Too many times!
And how many times have any proponents of the idea even tried to field a single moral rule which is objectively sound?
Not once!
What could make morality objective?
Nothing!
What could make morality objective?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Re: What could make morality objective?
What can be clearly seen here is another great example of when one BELIEVES some thing to be true then that are NOT at all OPEN to ANY thing contrary.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:40 amThat can't be what's happening here.
Well you are absolutely FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want. But the hypocrisy and contradiction within it is completely obvious.
Enjoy this BELIEF of yours here, as it does, after all, provide another great example of what it is that I want to communicate, and show.
Re: What could make morality objective?
You are absolutely FREE to bet whatever you like, but doing so does NOT make you right in ANY way what so ever
I bet you believe you were once a child, and your vivid memories of your childhood really happened much as you remember them.
You can, but you would lose.
You went OFF TRACK,SO QUICKLY. And, AGAIN, this was because of the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS you made up and concluded, BEFORE, you soought out ANY CLARIFICATION, AT ALL.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Well, people can be wrong about their beliefs and one can point out evidence and disagree with what they say their beliefs are. That's all. And be reasonable when doing this. I don't see it leading to an infinite regress, at least not necessarily. I've even been in situations where pointing out contradictions between an asserted belief and the person's behavior has led to the person reevaluating their belief. No infinite regress. In fact, not even a multi-step regress. Psychologists often help people realize that their beliefs are not what they think they are. And solid partners and spouses. This is a tangent, but then, the orginal statement is one also.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:14 pmTelling lies or holding to a distorted cognition are tangential matters . I did consider mentioning these but I thought it was better to keep the discussion to its elements.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:06 pmActually they can. There are a number of ways this can be well justified, but a very common one is to point to behavior. If someone says they believe the races are equal but repeatedly treats one race very differently from others, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.
Language use can often indicate someone believes something other than what they say they believe. If they repeated refer to things being out of their control, but when they engage in a discussion of free will vs. determinism they assert that we are totally free, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.
There are other ways one can be justified in doubting what people say and even honestly believe they believe.
And we can be mistaken about what we believe. This does not mean that the person is lying. Our egos and super egos present us will all sorts of motivations to believe we believe one thing when in fact we believe another. And also we can have contradictory beliefs about something.
If you go along that tangent you are in an infinite regress. "He said he believed the world was round but he was lying. He believed he was lying but he conveniently forgot his belief was a lie. He did however believe that he did not always think straight, and that he believed all the time the world round.And so forth.
Re: What could make morality objective?
I am NOT sure.
How many is 'enough', and, how many was 'too many'?
Well let me change this, for you.
A single moral rule, or lore, which is objectively sound IS:
Do not abuse ANY thing.
And, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS NOW is that you can NOT SEE this because you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO moral rule, which could even be objectively sound.
And you have and HOLD this BELIEF partly because you do NOT YET KNOW how to even find NOR obtain 'objectivity', properly.
The thing that makes things objective. And, what that is, is 'that', which is in AGREEMENT with EVERY one. One first needs to be able to SEE from EVERY thing's perspective to be able to obtain 'objectivity'.
But one has to also learn how to find and obtain, correctly, what is morally right and morally wrong in Life, AS WELL, in order to KNOW HOW to gain 'moral objectivity'.
Are you 100% absolutely sure and positive, without ANY doubt AT ALL, of this?
Re: What could make morality objective?
I found that by NOT choosing to have or hold ANY BELIEF, AT ALL, then ALL issues raised above do NOT even exist.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:51 pmWell, people can be wrong about their beliefs and one can point out evidence and disagree with what they say their beliefs are. That's all. And be reasonable when doing this. I don't see it leading to an infinite regress, at least not necessarily. I've even been in situations where pointing out contradictions between an asserted belief and the person's behavior has led to the person reevaluating their belief. No infinite regress. In fact, not even a multi-step regress. Psychologists often help people realize that their beliefs are not what they think they are. And solid partners and spouses. This is a tangent, but then, the orginal statement is one also.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:14 pmTelling lies or holding to a distorted cognition are tangential matters . I did consider mentioning these but I thought it was better to keep the discussion to its elements.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:06 pm Actually they can. There are a number of ways this can be well justified, but a very common one is to point to behavior. If someone says they believe the races are equal but repeatedly treats one race very differently from others, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.
Language use can often indicate someone believes something other than what they say they believe. If they repeated refer to things being out of their control, but when they engage in a discussion of free will vs. determinism they assert that we are totally free, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.
There are other ways one can be justified in doubting what people say and even honestly believe they believe.
And we can be mistaken about what we believe. This does not mean that the person is lying. Our egos and super egos present us will all sorts of motivations to believe we believe one thing when in fact we believe another. And also we can have contradictory beliefs about something.
If you go along that tangent you are in an infinite regress. "He said he believed the world was round but he was lying. He believed he was lying but he conveniently forgot his belief was a lie. He did however believe that he did not always think straight, and that he believed all the time the world round.And so forth.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Yes, you are right. But what about stuff most competent adults believe, that they were born and that they will die? That when they feel thirsty they like to drink? There must be a spectrum of probability on which an individual arranges their beliefs.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:51 pmWell, people can be wrong about their beliefs and one can point out evidence and disagree with what they say their beliefs are. That's all. And be reasonable when doing this. I don't see it leading to an infinite regress, at least not necessarily. I've even been in situations where pointing out contradictions between an asserted belief and the person's behavior has led to the person reevaluating their belief. No infinite regress. In fact, not even a multi-step regress. Psychologists often help people realize that their beliefs are not what they think they are. And solid partners and spouses. This is a tangent, but then, the orginal statement is one also.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:14 pmTelling lies or holding to a distorted cognition are tangential matters . I did consider mentioning these but I thought it was better to keep the discussion to its elements.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:06 pm Actually they can. There are a number of ways this can be well justified, but a very common one is to point to behavior. If someone says they believe the races are equal but repeatedly treats one race very differently from others, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.
Language use can often indicate someone believes something other than what they say they believe. If they repeated refer to things being out of their control, but when they engage in a discussion of free will vs. determinism they assert that we are totally free, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.
There are other ways one can be justified in doubting what people say and even honestly believe they believe.
And we can be mistaken about what we believe. This does not mean that the person is lying. Our egos and super egos present us will all sorts of motivations to believe we believe one thing when in fact we believe another. And also we can have contradictory beliefs about something.
If you go along that tangent you are in an infinite regress. "He said he believed the world was round but he was lying. He believed he was lying but he conveniently forgot his belief was a lie. He did however believe that he did not always think straight, and that he believed all the time the world round.And so forth.
People have standards they use to evaluate their beliefs regardless of whether the beliefs are ethics or facts. Standards themselves need to be evaluated. The standard of belief which is some authority or other is itself an immoral standard.
But then I find that I myself pin my faith on what experts such as medical doctors' and pharmacists' authority. The social world runs on trust. People have become less trusting of authorities and rightly so. There is a balance to be found between trust and scepticism, and here too we rely on our subjective interpretation of probabilities.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Truth to the individual is experience, truth to the group is an agreement.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 12:38 amYes, you are right. But what about stuff most competent adults believe, that they were born and that they will die? That when they feel thirsty they like to drink? There must be a spectrum of probability on which an individual arranges their beliefs.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:51 pmWell, people can be wrong about their beliefs and one can point out evidence and disagree with what they say their beliefs are. That's all. And be reasonable when doing this. I don't see it leading to an infinite regress, at least not necessarily. I've even been in situations where pointing out contradictions between an asserted belief and the person's behavior has led to the person reevaluating their belief. No infinite regress. In fact, not even a multi-step regress. Psychologists often help people realize that their beliefs are not what they think they are. And solid partners and spouses. This is a tangent, but then, the orginal statement is one also.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:14 pm Telling lies or holding to a distorted cognition are tangential matters . I did consider mentioning these but I thought it was better to keep the discussion to its elements.
If you go along that tangent you are in an infinite regress. "He said he believed the world was round but he was lying. He believed he was lying but he conveniently forgot his belief was a lie. He did however believe that he did not always think straight, and that he believed all the time the world round.And so forth.
People have standards they use to evaluate their beliefs regardless of whether the beliefs are ethics or facts. Standards themselves need to be evaluated. The standard of belief which is some authority or other is itself an immoral standard.
But then I find that I myself pin my faith on what experts such as medical doctors' and pharmacists' authority. The social world runs on trust. People have become less trusting of authorities and rightly so. There is a balance to be found between trust and scepticism, and here too we rely on our subjective interpretation of probabilities.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Agreed. And this would include beliefs about what one believes. I am not arguing - in case this was/is an issue - that we just throw up our arms and decide we can't know our beliefs or that there is no foundation for any belief, etc.
I agree with the first sentence. I certainly value evaluating my standards (re, sentence two). I am not sure what sentence 3 means.People have standards they use to evaluate their beliefs regardless of whether the beliefs are ethics or facts. Standards themselves need to be evaluated. The standard of belief which is some authority or other is itself an immoral standard.
I certainly use such experts in deciding things, but I don't have faith in them. I experienced a problematic dark side of medical and pharmaceutical experts when I was a child. And I do not mean some doctor's error, but systematic problems - money affecting 'scientific' conclusions and paradigmatic distortions. As a child I only had a gut feeling something was off, but later as an adult I could investigate and understand what had been going on. I do not assume all conclusions or even most conclusiosn are wrong with those experts. But I think combining knowledge of how monied interests distort science with an understand of how dominant paradigms distort expertise, you can develop some pretty good heuristics for, yes, using such experts, but also knowing when to call their expertise into quetions. IOW how to recognize the patters of skewdness, why they are there and when to go against expert conclusions. Not that this process is infallible. But none is.But then I find that I myself pin my faith on what experts such as medical doctors' and pharmacists' authority.
h
I agree with a proviso: I think one can also use objectively achieved information to guide this. I do say, also.The social world runs on trust. People have become less trusting of authorities and rightly so. There is a balance to be found between trust and scepticism, and here too we rely on our subjective interpretation of probabilities.
Re: What could make morality objective?
by "standard of belief which is some authority" I mean e.g. "Because The Bible said it" or "Because the King said it" or "Because Trump said it" or "Because the terrorist said it". But at this point in my argument I find thatIwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:44 amAgreed. And this would include beliefs about what one believes. I am not arguing - in case this was/is an issue - that we just throw up our arms and decide we can't know our beliefs or that there is no foundation for any belief, etc.
I agree with the first sentence. I certainly value evaluating my standards (re, sentence two). I am not sure what sentence 3 means.People have standards they use to evaluate their beliefs regardless of whether the beliefs are ethics or facts. Standards themselves need to be evaluated. The standard of belief which is some authority or other is itself an immoral standard.
I certainly use such experts in deciding things, but I don't have faith in them. I experienced a problematic dark side of medical and pharmaceutical experts when I was a child. And I do not mean some doctor's error, but systematic problems - money affecting 'scientific' conclusions and paradigmatic distortions. As a child I only had a gut feeling something was off, but later as an adult I could investigate and understand what had been going on. I do not assume all conclusions or even most conclusiosn are wrong with those experts. But I think combining knowledge of how monied interests distort science with an understand of how dominant paradigms distort expertise, you can develop some pretty good heuristics for, yes, using such experts, but also knowing when to call their expertise into quetions. IOW how to recognize the patters of skewdness, why they are there and when to go against expert conclusions. Not that this process is infallible. But none is.But then I find that I myself pin my faith on what experts such as medical doctors' and pharmacists' authority.
hI agree with a proviso: I think one can also use objectively achieved information to guide this. I do say, also.The social world runs on trust. People have become less trusting of authorities and rightly so. There is a balance to be found between trust and scepticism, and here too we rely on our subjective interpretation of probabilities.
is true for me, not because it's in The Bible but because it makes sense.A healthy tree bears good fruit, but a poor tree bears bad fruit. ... In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a rotten tree produces bad fruit.
The holy grail of historians is ability to understand other cultures of belief, and for everyone the truth aim is the same method : to rise above , or circumvent, one's own prejudices. With authorities separated into good authorities and bad authorities by Matthew's method, it's bad to relinquish one's own moral responsibility to a bad authority.
Your discussion of how to recognise evil is especially meaningful in the context of which trees are the ones that bear good fruit and which bear bad fruit. And I think the discussion of how to recognise evil should be a dedicated forum.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
There's no such thing as an objective rule, sound or not. A rule - do this, don't do that - isn't a declarative. It doesn't assert a fact: this is the case. And objectivity is about facts. Imperatives have no truth-value.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Yes, there is.
Any rule which has causal effect on reality is objective rule.
Such as the rule to stop at red stop signs which causes people to stop at red stop signs.
The software which causes your computer to function - objective rules.
Yes they do.
Having imperatively programmed your alarm clock for 7am it is true; and not false that your alarm clock will ring at 7am.
Having uttered "Alexa, turn on the lights" it is true and not false that the lights in my house turned on.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
It can be a fact - a feature of reality - that a rule has a causal effect. And that a rule exists and people obey it can be a fact. And objectivity is about facts.
But to say a rule - a command - is or asserts a fact is a category error. It's like saying that, because people believe something, what they believe is a fact. For example: it's a fact that many benighted people believe there are gods; therefore, there are gods. (This is absurd.)
An imperative has no truth-value. The command 'go away' is neither true nor false. And obedience to it doesn't make it true, just as disobedience doesn't make it false. The prediction that people will go away can turn out to be true or false, but that doesn't make the command true or false. (I wonder why this needs explaining.)
But to say a rule - a command - is or asserts a fact is a category error. It's like saying that, because people believe something, what they believe is a fact. For example: it's a fact that many benighted people believe there are gods; therefore, there are gods. (This is absurd.)
An imperative has no truth-value. The command 'go away' is neither true nor false. And obedience to it doesn't make it true, just as disobedience doesn't make it false. The prediction that people will go away can turn out to be true or false, but that doesn't make the command true or false. (I wonder why this needs explaining.)
Re: What could make morality objective?
I don't understand what you mean by "error".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm But to say a rule - a command - is or asserts a fact is a category error.
I have presented you with a taxonomy in which imperatives have truth-value by extending the usual notions to apply to the future: My alarm clock will ring at 7:00am tomorrow - it's an objective fact. The state of my lights factually and objectively corresponds to the imperative "Alxea, turn on the lights". I ought to have coffee will objectively factualise in 5 minutes.
The imperatives correspond to the future; and are therefore true!
Naturally, you don't have to agree with my world-view, but a disagreement on your part doesn't amount to an "error" on mine. Asserting deliberate actions as "erroneous" is a moral claim.
The burden of proof is in your court. May I burn in hell for my "miscategorisation".
Re: What could make morality objective?
AND, as I just VERY CLEARLY STATED, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS NOW, has ABSOLUTELY been Truly backed up with IRREFUTABLE PROOF.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:15 pmThere's no such thing as an objective rule, sound or not.
SO WHAT? It is AGREED WITH AND ACCEPTED by EVERY one. WHICH MEANS that it is OBJECTIVELY True, which makes it an OBJECTIVE Truth, as well as being OBJECTIVELY Right in this case,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:15 pm A rule - do this, don't do that - isn't a declarative.
If absolutely EVERY one is in AGREEMENT WITH it, then it is A Fact.
Or, if you like, if NO one is DISAGREEING with it, then there is NO one refuting it, which, ONCE AGAIN, means it is A Fact.
Where were you thinking Facts come from anyway, EXACTLY?
And I have just expressed ANOTHER Fact, which is OBJECTIVELY True, Right, AND Correct.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:15 pm And objectivity is about facts. Imperatives have no truth-value.
Also, NO amount of 'your' SUBJECTIVE thoughts on the matter could OVERRIDE this IRREFUTABLE Fact, which I have just expressed here.
AGAIN, A moral lore, which IS OBJECTIVELY SOUND IS: Do not abuse ANY thing.
Now, IF you want to TWIST and DISTORT things AGAIN here and say it is NOT an objective rule when I specifically SAID and STATED that it IS a MORAL rule, or lore, which is OBJECTIVELY SOUND, then go ahead and TWIST and DISTORT things around AGAIN.