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

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:02 pm Thing is, we're not arguing about moral opinions.
I know that. Occasionally I throw a bone to him, because sometimes he seems not to know that.. I have seen him assume that you or we don't care. That we are indifferent about murder. This could drive someone even harder to argue points that are lost causes.

Not that I am optimistic that pointing this out will bring him round, but hey in the club of still holding out hope where one shouldn't I think I come in third.
The issue is: are there any moral facts
Sure, and the first part of my post dealt with that. He says rightness and wrongness based moralities did not work. His Copernican Revolution includes the idea of not doing evil. That's not a revolution.

Evil, moral wrongness, both include moral objectivities.

I can remember working at a childcare facility where the word 'harmony' and 'disharmony' and their adjectives were used. To avoid moral judgments. Well, it was just new words for moral judgments.

A more interesting, though not particularly original is his train this tendency approach. Mirror neurons to more empathy to better behavior for us all. However as we have all pointed out, this does not need not does it entail objective morals or moral facts.

It does become more unique if one let's go of the moral facts, and just admits that one would prefer a world where we were more empathetic and here's a way to head there.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:14 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:02 pm Thing is, we're not arguing about moral opinions.
I know that. Occasionally I throw a bone to him, because sometimes he seems not to know that.. I have seen him assume that you or we don't care. That we are indifferent about murder. This could drive someone even harder to argue points that are lost causes.

Not that I am optimistic that pointing this out will bring him round, but hey in the club of still holding out hope where one shouldn't I think I come in third.
The issue is: are there any moral facts
Sure, and the first part of my post dealt with that. He says rightness and wrongness based moralities did not work. His Copernican Revolution includes the idea of not doing evil. That's not a revolution.

Evil, moral wrongness, both include moral objectivities.

I can remember working at a childcare facility where the word 'harmony' and 'disharmony' and their adjectives were used. To avoid moral judgments. Well, it was just new words for moral judgments.

A more interesting, though not particularly original is his train this tendency approach. Mirror neurons to more empathy to better behavior for us all. However as we have all pointed out, this does not need not does it entail objective morals or moral facts.

It does become more unique if one let's go of the moral facts, and just admits that one would prefer a world where we were more empathetic and here's a way to head there.
Fair enough. 'Here's my moral opinion; here's why I hold it; and here's why I think everyone should hold it.'

I think the 'universalising' follows inevitably from the need for moral consistency: if it's wrong, it always was and will be wrong, everywhere. (Thinking there are moral facts is an understandable misunderstanding.)
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of moral facts.

But there aren't any moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent. There can only be moral opinions.

So morality isn't and can't be objective.

How hard can it be to understand and accept this?

Evidently - extremely hard.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:54 am The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of moral facts.
Do you understand what is objectivity by the way?
Note my thread on objectivity, with a focus on moral objectivity;
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

What is objective [fact] is conditioned to a specific FSK.
Note what is most objective is scientific knowledge, facts and truths.
Do you deny that?

Scientific facts emerge from the scientific FSK [the most credible] which is conditioned to the human conditions.
All facts are conditioned to their specific FSK.
Therefore there are objective moral facts emerging from the moral FSK.
You cannot deny this?
The only question you can raise is whether the moral FSK claimed is as credible as the scientific FSK.

But there aren't any moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent. There can only be moral opinions.
Your thinking re 'moral' and 'fact' is too archaic on this.
Archaic thinking is a peculiarity of children and primitives. We now know this same thinking also occupies a large place in modern man and appears as soon as directed thinking ceases. Link

Your idea of 'fact' is based on the early-Wittgenstein idea of "what is fact" which W had subsequently abandoned and yet you are still stuck with it.
see:
Peter Holmes' grounding on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416

Your idea of 'moral' is also too 'vulgar' and dogmatic.
vulgar: current; popular; common:
It is so evident the idea of "what is morality" that is commonly held [morality is about what is right or wrong] had failed to be efficient in promoting the progress of morality to be ahead of the potential evil facing humanity, e.g. the threat of WMDs [biological and nuclear] and other immoral issues.

If you have any "sense of morality", that would be too subjective and not an objective stance, i.e. your view that "there is no objectivity morality" is not objective itself. That would make you an amoralist and thus by definition an immoral person.

Note the recent case where Salman Rushdie was stabbed and many Muslims insisted the stabber is 'right' and is praised as a hero to Islam while others [non-Muslims] condemned it as 'wrong' i.e. evil and immoral. This stand off will go on eternally without any potential of moral progress.

Note my stance on what is morality;
My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35464
i.e. with a moral model that will drive toward perpetual peace.
So morality isn't and can't be objective.
How hard can it be to understand and accept this?
Evidently - extremely hard.
I believe you DON'T understand rationally what you are talking about.
"Know Thyself" where you are merely an empty vessel in terms of Knowledge in Philosophy and human nature.

As I had stated this thread "What could make morality objective?" is merely trolling for it is so obvious whatever [morality. etc.] in terms of 'right' or 'wrong' [mental judgments] cannot be factual.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:54 am The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of moral facts.
Do you understand what is objectivity by the way?
Note my thread on objectivity, with a focus on moral objectivity;
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

What is objective [fact] is conditioned to a specific FSK.
Note what is most objective is scientific knowledge, facts and truths.
Do you deny that?

Scientific facts emerge from the scientific FSK [the most credible] which is conditioned to the human conditions.
All facts are conditioned to their specific FSK.
Therefore there are objective moral facts emerging from the moral FSK.
You cannot deny this?
The only question you can raise is whether the moral FSK claimed is as credible as the scientific FSK.

But there aren't any moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent. There can only be moral opinions.
Your thinking re 'moral' and 'fact' is too archaic on this.
Archaic thinking is a peculiarity of children and primitives. We now know this same thinking also occupies a large place in modern man and appears as soon as directed thinking ceases. Link

Your idea of 'fact' is based on the early-Wittgenstein idea of "what is fact" which W had subsequently abandoned and yet you are still stuck with it.
see:
Peter Holmes' grounding on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416

Your idea of 'moral' is also too 'vulgar' and dogmatic.
vulgar: current; popular; common:
It is so evident the idea of "what is morality" that is commonly held [morality is about what is right or wrong] had failed to be efficient in promoting the progress of morality to be ahead of the potential evil facing humanity, e.g. the threat of WMDs [biological and nuclear] and other immoral issues.

If you have any "sense of morality", that would be too subjective and not an objective stance, i.e. your view that "there is no objectivity morality" is not objective itself. That would make you an amoralist and thus by definition an immoral person.

Note the recent case where Salman Rushdie was stabbed and many Muslims insisted the stabber is 'right' and is praised as a hero to Islam while others [non-Muslims] condemned it as 'wrong' i.e. evil and immoral. This stand off will go on eternally without any potential of moral progress.

Note my stance on what is morality;
My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35464
i.e. with a moral model that will drive toward perpetual peace.
So morality isn't and can't be objective.
How hard can it be to understand and accept this?
Evidently - extremely hard.
I believe you DON'T understand rationally what you are talking about.
"Know Thyself" where you are merely an empty vessel in terms of Knowledge in Philosophy and human nature.

As I had stated this thread "What could make morality objective?" is merely trolling for it is so obvious whatever [morality. etc.] in terms of 'right' or 'wrong' [mental judgments] cannot be factual.
Here's VA's accumulative mistake. (The coinage, 'FSK', = framework and system of knowledge.)

P1 What we call facts are 'conditioned to a specific FSK' - iow, all facts exist in a descriptive context.
P2 What we call facts exist only because there is a specific FSK.
P3 Any FSK can 'produce' what we call facts.
P4 The credibility of an FSK depends on the empirical evidence for its factual claims.
P5 There is a morality FSK.
Conclusion: Therefore, within a credible morality FSK, there can be moral facts.

Critique.

P1 This first premise conflates two radically different ways in which we use the word fact. What we call a fact is: primarily, a feature of reality that is or was the case; or, derivatively, a description of such a feature of reality - typically, a linguistic expression. So P1 is true for the second meaning of the word fact, but false for the first (primary) meaning.

P2 is false, because it follows from the confusion in P1. The claim that what we call a fact exists only because there is a description is obviously false. For example, the fact that water is H2O doesn't exist only because, in chemistry, we describe water as H2O. Water just is what it is, how ever we describe it. A description doesn't create the thing being described, so describing the same thing in different ways doesn't create different things.

P3 is false, because it follows from the confusion in P1 and P2. For example, the so-called astrology FSK doesn't produce or create what we call facts-as-features-of-reality. So the existence of a so-called FSK doesn't, in itself, guarantee the existence of the things it describes - and so, the truth of its claims.

P4 Exposes the fallacy of the preceding premises, 1 to 3. If the credibility of an FSK depends on empirical evidence for its claims, that evidence must exist outside the FSK. For example, the evidence that water is H2O is not that, in chemistry, we call water H2O. That claim is circular and self-defeating.

P5 is back-to-front, and question-begging. There can be a credible 'morality FSK' only if there is empirical evidence for the existence of so-called moral facts, outside the morality FSK. Otherwise, the morality FSK has exactly the same status as the astrology FSK: no empirical evidence = no FSK in the first place.

The conclusion is the cumulative consequence of all the mistakes in the premises - so it's worthless.

VA's protestation that his invented 'morality proper' has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - which he dismisses as merely subjective matters of opinion - confuses the whole discussion about the supposed existence of moral facts. And his perverse claim that morality-proper is about the avoidance of evil makes no sense until he explains why it's a fact that we should avoid evil, given that the issue is not moral rightness and wrongness.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Just to nail this down - even if it will, inevitably, keep wriggling.

VA says 'morality-proper' is about the avoidance of evil, and nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

Asked to explain why we should avoid evil, his reply is that it's just a 'natural principle'.

VA says his reasoning is philosophically rigorous. But this ridiculous argument demonstrates complete philosophical incompetence.

(To clarify - I strongly believe we should avoid evil. But that isn't the point.)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:54 am The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of moral facts.
Do you understand what is objectivity by the way?
Note my thread on objectivity, with a focus on moral objectivity;
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

What is objective [fact] is conditioned to a specific FSK.
Note what is most objective is scientific knowledge, facts and truths.
Do you deny that?

Scientific facts emerge from the scientific FSK [the most credible] which is conditioned to the human conditions.
All facts are conditioned to their specific FSK.
Therefore there are objective moral facts emerging from the moral FSK.
You cannot deny this?
The only question you can raise is whether the moral FSK claimed is as credible as the scientific FSK.

But there aren't any moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent. There can only be moral opinions.
Your thinking re 'moral' and 'fact' is too archaic on this.
Archaic thinking is a peculiarity of children and primitives. We now know this same thinking also occupies a large place in modern man and appears as soon as directed thinking ceases. Link

Your idea of 'fact' is based on the early-Wittgenstein idea of "what is fact" which W had subsequently abandoned and yet you are still stuck with it.
see:
Peter Holmes' grounding on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416

Your idea of 'moral' is also too 'vulgar' and dogmatic.
vulgar: current; popular; common:
It is so evident the idea of "what is morality" that is commonly held [morality is about what is right or wrong] had failed to be efficient in promoting the progress of morality to be ahead of the potential evil facing humanity, e.g. the threat of WMDs [biological and nuclear] and other immoral issues.

If you have any "sense of morality", that would be too subjective and not an objective stance, i.e. your view that "there is no objectivity morality" is not objective itself. That would make you an amoralist and thus by definition an immoral person.

Note the recent case where Salman Rushdie was stabbed and many Muslims insisted the stabber is 'right' and is praised as a hero to Islam while others [non-Muslims] condemned it as 'wrong' i.e. evil and immoral. This stand off will go on eternally without any potential of moral progress.

Note my stance on what is morality;
My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35464
i.e. with a moral model that will drive toward perpetual peace.
So morality isn't and can't be objective.
How hard can it be to understand and accept this?
Evidently - extremely hard.
I believe you DON'T understand rationally what you are talking about.
"Know Thyself" where you are merely an empty vessel in terms of Knowledge in Philosophy and human nature.

As I had stated this thread "What could make morality objective?" is merely trolling for it is so obvious whatever [morality. etc.] in terms of 'right' or 'wrong' [mental judgments] cannot be factual.
Here's VA's accumulative mistake. (The coinage, 'FSK', = framework and system of knowledge.)

P1 What we call facts are 'conditioned to a specific FSK' - iow, all facts exist in a descriptive context.
P2 What we call facts exist only because there is a specific FSK.
P3 Any FSK can 'produce' what we call facts.
P4 The credibility of an FSK depends on the empirical evidence for its factual claims.
P5 There is a morality FSK.
Conclusion: Therefore, within a credible morality FSK, there can be moral facts.

Critique.

P1 This first premise conflates two radically different ways in which we use the word fact. What we call a fact is: primarily, a feature of reality that is or was the case; or, derivatively, a description of such a feature of reality - typically, a linguistic expression. So P1 is true for the second meaning of the word fact, but false for the first (primary) meaning.
Strawmaning as usual, especially P1.
Yes, "What we call facts are 'conditioned to a specific FSK' "
but I have never agreed that "all [such] facts exist in a descriptive context."

I have always refer to fact in this sense,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
with scientific facts from the scientific FSK as the most credible.

There are two aspects to the above, i.e.
1. The emergence of the facts as conditioned to the FSK.
2. The description of the emerged fact.

What you are strawmaning is 2 as what I am claiming as fact which I never did.
What I am claiming is the emergence of facts as conditioned upon a FSK and there is no fact that is pre-existing and independent by itself awaiting discovery. I have also mentioned this point a 'million' times but you cannot grasp and understood [not necessary agree with] my point.
P2 is false, because it follows from the confusion in P1. The claim that what we call a fact exists only because there is a description is obviously false. For example, the fact that water is H2O doesn't exist only because, in chemistry, we describe water as H2O. Water just is what it is, how ever we describe it. A description doesn't create the thing being described, so describing the same thing in different ways doesn't create different things.
Your P1 is a strawman, thus all your other premises are strawman and useless.

Your reliance on what is fact is archaic and dogmatic;
  • Your idea of 'fact' is based on the early-Wittgenstein idea of "what is fact" which W had subsequently abandoned and yet you are still stuck with it.
    see:

    Peter Holmes' grounding on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
    viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416
OTOH, what is most realistic is where 'what is fact' as based on emergence from a credible FSK and therefrom described by anyone.
P3 is false, because it follows from the confusion in P1 and P2. For example, the so-called astrology FSK doesn't produce or create what we call facts-as-features-of-reality. So the existence of a so-called FSK doesn't, in itself, guarantee the existence of the things it describes - and so, the truth of its claims.
Your argument here is useless because your critique of P1 is a strawman.

As I had stated "facts-as-features-of-reality" is archaic thinking from the early-Wittgenstein which was abandoned by the later-Wittgenstein as kindergartenish.

What is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified by a credible FSK.
We cannot deny a astrological FSK and claims of 'facts' by astrologers.
It is evident the astrological FSK is not credible, thus what is claimed as fact is not credible at all in contrast to scientific facts as the standard.
P4 Exposes the fallacy of the preceding premises, 1 to 3. If the credibility of an FSK depends on empirical evidence for its claims, that evidence must exist outside the FSK. For example, the evidence that water is H2O is not that, in chemistry, we call water H2O. That claim is circular and self-defeating.
Strawman again, I never claimed the above.
Empirical evidence is imperative but the credibility of a FSK depend on its processes of verification and justification of empirical evidence.
Note this:
Why the Scientific FSK is the most credible and trustworthy?
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
P5 is back-to-front, and question-begging. There can be a credible 'morality FSK' only if there is empirical evidence for the existence of so-called moral facts, outside the morality FSK. Otherwise, the morality FSK has exactly the same status as the astrology FSK: no empirical evidence = no FSK in the first place.
Again, your dependence of metaphysical realism [outside] is not realistic and too archaic.

With reference to my point re FSK, the moral facts emerge in entanglement with the moral FSK just like scientific facts are.
I have already provided clues that the moral facts are physical in terms of moral potentials supported by neurons, neural correlates, one of which are mirror neurons.

Astrologers merely speculate their claims of astrological facts based on speculation without supporting empirical evidences, e.g. if you are born within certain days of the year then your personality, etc. will be such an such. Such claims of so-called 'facts' are very irrational.
The conclusion is the cumulative consequence of all the mistakes in the premises - so it's worthless.
Your counter is based on your ignorance, is dependent on archaic ideas and a dogmatism driven by desperate psychology. Note I raised the thread 'Know Thyself'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35481
I bet you don't know much about yourself that is critical for such a discussion.
VA's protestation that his invented 'morality proper' has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - which he dismisses as merely subjective matters of opinion - confuses the whole discussion about the supposed existence of moral facts. And his perverse claim that morality-proper is about the avoidance of evil makes no sense until he explains why it's a fact that we should avoid evil, given that the issue is not moral rightness and wrongness.
Can't you see the primary purpose of morality is to avoid "evil" naturally and spontaneously.
If not what else?
You will note the elements with the heaviest weights within the topic of morality is about 'killing' [murder, genocides,] rapes, violence, serious crimes, and the likes which are elements of evilness.
The focus of morality is not primary on the 'good' because naturally avoiding evil will facilitate the related 'good' to emerge.

As I had stated I do not prefer to use the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' ['bloody' subjective] in relation to the topic of morality because such terms has been abused to the detriment and progress of moral competence within humanity.

Your strawmaning and ignorance exposed above.
Suggest you think and reflect deeper, wider and be less dogmatic on philosophical matters.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:40 am
What I am claiming is the emergence of facts as conditioned upon a FSK and there is no fact that is pre-existing and independent by itself awaiting discovery.
And this is false. The chemical constitution of water (that fact) did exist, independently, before we described it as 'H2O'. And it would have been what it is even if it had never been described through the whole history of the universe. You're just wrong. We've invented different ways to describe reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:40 am
What I am claiming is the emergence of facts as conditioned upon a FSK and there is no fact that is pre-existing and independent by itself awaiting discovery.
And this is false. The chemical constitution of water (that fact) did exist, independently, before we described it as 'H2O'. And it would have been what it is even if it had never been described through the whole history of the universe. You're just wrong. We've invented different ways to describe reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
Your above is too kindergartenish [philosophically]. I will agree with your points above if both of us are confined to a kindergarten class [philosophically] because it is so obvious from that limited perspective.

BUT from a more refined level of philosophical consideration, there is no real 'water-in-itself' nor 'H2O-in-itself'.
I have already gone through this argument a 'million' times already.

If you are still insisting, prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?

I have already explained a 'million' times the concept of emergence and gave clues of how emergence emerges in this analogy, i.e. the hollow mask illusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01LMFFpAWYM
Note how the real hollow mask becomes a 'real' 3D shape whenever your human conditions entangle with it. You just cannot perceive the real hollow mask no matter how hard you try.
Note this is just a clue to understanding what is emergence of reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
There you go again with your 'describe' rhetoric and strawman. Note I never mentioned 'ONLY' but rather 'conditioned' which is a more complex matter.
Your points above are merely childish-kindergartenish cries and are merely noises relative to higher philosophical deliberations.

Note the above clue, the hollow-concave mask ONLY appear to be 3D-convex when it entangles with the human conditions of perceptions.
Thereafter one will describes that "real" appearance.
So there are two independent process, i.e.
1. The Emergence process
2. The description of what emerged.

Principle:
1. All facts emerged as conditioned to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR].

What you are totally ignorant is the concept of emergence which is most realistic to what is real of reality.

Otherwise, repeat;
If you are still insisting, prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:58 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:40 am
What I am claiming is the emergence of facts as conditioned upon a FSK and there is no fact that is pre-existing and independent by itself awaiting discovery.
And this is false. The chemical constitution of water (that fact) did exist, independently, before we described it as 'H2O'. And it would have been what it is even if it had never been described through the whole history of the universe. You're just wrong. We've invented different ways to describe reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
Your above is too kindergartenish [philosophically]. I will agree with your points above if both of us are confined to a kindergarten class [philosophically] because it is so obvious from that limited perspective.

BUT from a more refined level of philosophical consideration, there is no real 'water-in-itself' nor 'H2O-in-itself'.
I have already gone through this argument a 'million' times already.

If you are still insisting, prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?

I have already explained a 'million' times the concept of emergence and gave clues of how emergence emerges in this analogy, i.e. the hollow mask illusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01LMFFpAWYM
Note how the real hollow mask becomes a 'real' 3D shape whenever your human conditions entangle with it. You just cannot perceive the real hollow mask no matter how hard you try.
Note this is just a clue to understanding what is emergence of reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
There you go again with your 'describe' rhetoric and strawman. Note I never mentioned 'ONLY' but rather 'conditioned' which is a more complex matter.
Your points above are merely childish-kindergartenish cries and are merely noises relative to higher philosophical deliberations.

Note the above clue, the hollow-concave mask ONLY appear to be 3D-convex when it entangles with the human conditions of perceptions.
Thereafter one will describes that "real" appearance.
So there are two independent process, i.e.
1. The Emergence process
2. The description of what emerged.

Principle:
1. All facts emerged as conditioned to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR].

What you are totally ignorant is the concept of emergence which is most realistic to what is real of reality.

Otherwise, repeat;
If you are still insisting, prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?
The fact that water is H2O didn't 'emerge' when humans described it. It always was and will be H2O. And that comes from the empirical evidence that you paradoxically say we can and should rely on - the evidence that makes chemistry a credible source of knowledge.

I can't believe you really think there was nothing before humans turned up to describe reality - that reality emerged only when that happened. Are you on drugs?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:58 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:13 am And this is false. The chemical constitution of water (that fact) did exist, independently, before we described it as 'H2O'. And it would have been what it is even if it had never been described through the whole history of the universe. You're just wrong. We've invented different ways to describe reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
Your above is too kindergartenish [philosophically]. I will agree with your points above if both of us are confined to a kindergarten class [philosophically] because it is so obvious from that limited perspective.

BUT from a more refined level of philosophical consideration, there is no real 'water-in-itself' nor 'H2O-in-itself'.
I have already gone through this argument a 'million' times already.

If you are still insisting, prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?

I have already explained a 'million' times the concept of emergence and gave clues of how emergence emerges in this analogy, i.e. the hollow mask illusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01LMFFpAWYM
Note how the real hollow mask becomes a 'real' 3D shape whenever your human conditions entangle with it. You just cannot perceive the real hollow mask no matter how hard you try.
Note this is just a clue to understanding what is emergence of reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
There you go again with your 'describe' rhetoric and strawman. Note I never mentioned 'ONLY' but rather 'conditioned' which is a more complex matter.
Your points above are merely childish-kindergartenish cries and are merely noises relative to higher philosophical deliberations.

Note the above clue, the hollow-concave mask ONLY appear to be 3D-convex when it entangles with the human conditions of perceptions.
Thereafter one will describes that "real" appearance.
So there are two independent process, i.e.
1. The Emergence process
2. The description of what emerged.

Principle:
1. All facts emerged as conditioned to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR].

What you are totally ignorant is the concept of emergence which is most realistic to what is real of reality.

Otherwise, repeat;
If you are still insisting, prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?
The fact that water is H2O didn't 'emerge' when humans described it. It always was and will be H2O. And that comes from the empirical evidence that you paradoxically say we can and should rely on - the evidence that makes chemistry a credible source of knowledge.

I can't believe you really think there was nothing before humans turned up to describe reality - that reality emerged only when that happened. Are you on drugs?
Strawmanning again!
I keep telling you, don't make reference to 'describe reality' but you keep doing it.
It is this habituated error that you need to "know thyself" to understand why you have this compulsive disorder for this habit.

There are the past existence and events [dinosaurs, etc.] in time which is seemingly obvious but that is upon the History FSK. Note a FSK is constructed and sustained by humans.

Note my claim has always been this;
Whenever you claim anything exists, it must always be conditioned to specific FSK be is common sense, conventional sense or some specialized FSK.

You cannot claim something exists in-itself independent of a FSK, i.e. basically the human conditions.
For thousands of years people has been trying to making this metaphysical realism claim, i.e. there are things existing before and independent of human conditions and they have failed, thus the shift in paradigm by Kant with his Copernican Revolution which is the more realistic sense of reality.

In you insist then,
justify something exists in-itself independent of a FSK, i.e. basically the human conditions.
refer:
PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?
viewtopic.php?p=590022#p590022
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:43 am
You cannot claim something exists in-itself independent of a FSK, i.e. basically the human conditions.
For thousands of years people has been trying to making this metaphysical realism claim, i.e. there are things existing before and independent of human conditions and they have failed, thus the shift in paradigm by Kant with his Copernican Revolution which is the more realistic sense of reality.
You claim that nothing exists in itself, independent from a human framework and system of knowledge.

So you claim that nothing existed before we turned up, and nothing will exist after we're gone. You're saying that humans magicked the reality of which we're a part into existence when we turned up.

And this a metaphysical or ontological claim. It's about what exists and why it exists. So it's not an epistemological claim about what is or can be known. That's a separate matter.

No natural scientist - at least that I've come across - agrees with you. All the scientific evidence we have indicates that your claim is false. (And Kant never said any such thing anyway.)

So what evidence do you have to support this extraordinary claim?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:43 am
You cannot claim something exists in-itself independent of a FSK, i.e. basically the human conditions.
For thousands of years people has been trying to making this metaphysical realism claim, i.e. there are things existing before and independent of human conditions and they have failed, thus the shift in paradigm by Kant with his Copernican Revolution which is the more realistic sense of reality.
1. You claim that nothing exists in-itself, independent from a human framework and system of knowledge.

2. So you claim that nothing existed before we turned up, and nothing will exist after we're gone. You're saying that humans magicked the reality of which we're a part into existence when we turned up.
[numbers & bold = mine]
Yes, I claimed for 1.

Thus 2 following should be corrected as follows;
  • So you claim that nothing existed in-itself before we turned up, and nothing in-itself will exist after we're gone. You're saying that humans magicked the reality of which we're a part into existence when we turned up.
Nevertheless the corrected statement 2 is still a strawman. The above are your statements, not mine.

My point is,
  • 1. whatever 'YOU' claimed as 'fact' i.e. a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves are illusory.

    2. whatever is fact existing as real are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The fact that before humans emerged on Earth, there were dinosaurs, and that is a evolutionary, scientific fact and also a historical fact conditioned upon their respective FSK.
All FSK are conditioned upon the human conditions.
Thus these facts cannot be independent of the human conditions.
And this a metaphysical or ontological claim. It's about what exists and why it exists. So it's not an epistemological claim about what is or can be known. That's a separate matter.
This is irrelevant.
Whatever is claimed as a real fact is always conditioned upon a specific FSK.
No natural scientist - at least that I've come across - agrees with you. All the scientific evidence we have indicates that your claim is false. (And Kant never said any such thing anyway.)
Your knowledge of science is so narrow and shallow.
It is likely the scientists of classical science will agree with your claim hinging on metaphysical realism, e.g. Newton [theist], Einstein [deist].
The more advanced scientists involving in modern science will agree with me.
So what evidence do you have to support this extraordinary claim?
Whatever 'extraordinary claims' you invented above are your strawman.
Kant was the one who demonstrated the thing-in-itself is illusory.

My claim is,
whatever are real facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK, e.g. scientific facts [the emerging reality not their descriptions] as verified and justified with empirical evidence; they are the most credible and are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

Now, prove or justify your claim H2O-in-itself is real by itself, i.e. independent of the human conditions.
Actually your claim is merely an opinion i.e. driven psychologically by desperate impulses necessary in the majority.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:24 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:43 am
You cannot claim something exists in-itself independent of a FSK, i.e. basically the human conditions.
For thousands of years people has been trying to making this metaphysical realism claim, i.e. there are things existing before and independent of human conditions and they have failed, thus the shift in paradigm by Kant with his Copernican Revolution which is the more realistic sense of reality.
1. You claim that nothing exists in-itself, independent from a human framework and system of knowledge.

2. So you claim that nothing existed before we turned up, and nothing will exist after we're gone. You're saying that humans magicked the reality of which we're a part into existence when we turned up.
[numbers & bold = mine]
Yes, I claimed for 1.

Thus 2 following should be corrected as follows;
  • So you claim that nothing existed in-itself before we turned up, and nothing in-itself will exist after we're gone. You're saying that humans magicked the reality of which we're a part into existence when we turned up.
Nevertheless the corrected statement 2 is still a strawman. The above are your statements, not mine.

My point is,
  • 1. whatever 'YOU' claimed as 'fact' i.e. a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves are illusory.

    2. whatever is fact existing as real are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The fact that before humans emerged on Earth, there were dinosaurs, and that is a evolutionary, scientific fact and also a historical fact conditioned upon their respective FSK.
All FSK are conditioned upon the human conditions.
Thus these facts cannot be independent of the human conditions.
And this a metaphysical or ontological claim. It's about what exists and why it exists. So it's not an epistemological claim about what is or can be known. That's a separate matter.
This is irrelevant.
Whatever is claimed as a real fact is always conditioned upon a specific FSK.
No natural scientist - at least that I've come across - agrees with you. All the scientific evidence we have indicates that your claim is false. (And Kant never said any such thing anyway.)
Your knowledge of science is so narrow and shallow.
It is likely the scientists of classical science will agree with your claim hinging on metaphysical realism, e.g. Newton [theist], Einstein [deist].
The more advanced scientists involving in modern science will agree with me.
So what evidence do you have to support this extraordinary claim?
Whatever 'extraordinary claims' you invented above are your strawman.
Kant was the one who demonstrated the thing-in-itself is illusory.

My claim is,
whatever are real facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK, e.g. scientific facts [the emerging reality not their descriptions] as verified and justified with empirical evidence; they are the most credible and are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

Now, prove or justify your claim H2O-in-itself is real by itself, i.e. independent of the human conditions.
Actually your claim is merely an opinion i.e. driven psychologically by desperate impulses necessary in the majority.
So here are your claims, as corrected by you.

1 Nothing exists in-itself, independent from a human framework and system of knowledge.

2 Nothing existed in-itself before we turned up, and nothing will exist in-itself after we're gone.

But what's the difference between a thing and a thing-in-itself? Can you spell it out?

If they're different, then I don't believe that things-in-themselves exist. Oh, wait - neither do you and Kant.

But if they're not different, then your claims are as I expressed them, because we can delete 'in-itself'. Nothing exists, etc; and nothing existed, etc. And that's an extraordinary metaphysical or ontological claim - for which you need to provide empirical, scientific evidence.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 12:48 pm So here are your claims, as corrected by you.

1 Nothing exists in-itself, independent from a human framework and system of knowledge.

2 Nothing existed in-itself before we turned up, and nothing will exist in-itself after we're gone.

But what's the difference between a thing and a thing-in-itself? Can you spell it out?

If they're different, then I don't believe that things-in-themselves exist. Oh, wait - neither do you and Kant.

But if they're not different, then your claims are as I expressed them, because we can delete 'in-itself'. Nothing exists, etc; and nothing existed, etc. And that's an extraordinary metaphysical or ontological claim - for which you need to provide empirical, scientific evidence.
Note I explain in this this thread;
P_Holmes Do Not Believe in a Thing-in-Itself??
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35502

A thing-in-itself [aka noumenon] is something that is claimed to be independent of an individual's opinion and belief.
This is exactly the definition for your 'what is fact' and 'what is truth'.

What is a real-thing is that which is verified and justified via a specific FSK that enable its emergence. [whatever that is described subsequent to the emergence is not relevant for this issue].
Thus what is a real-thing cannot be a thing-in-itself but rather it is a thing-with-FSK, thing-entangled-with-human-conditions and is wholly relative.
Post Reply