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

Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:47 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:10 am
Again you are making merely noises.
That there are disagreements with my views do not necessary they are frivolous or false.
If you are non-theists and you are facing a theists majority forum, they will say the same thing as what you are saying now.

As I stated, what count is solid arguments and justifications.
Are you that blind to insist Peter Holmes 'farts as facts' are absolute true and everyone should accept it just because he keep insisting on merely that point?

Don't just make noises, give me specific examples [sufficient] to justify your judgment on my views.
We already had longer debates about many topics, you usually made a fool out of yourself , as I said forget it.
Your memory is not reliable.
I don't recall you have any credible refutations, else I would not have let it go. It is an insult for me to ignore any sound arguments presented intellectually and amicably.

Note the hundred++ of threads I have raised in order to go into more details whenever there are serious disputes on the various issues.
Of course you don't recall the many refutations that you didn't understand. Your many threads were usually variations on the same bad arguments. But hey you don't have to listen to this, go ahead and try to publish your work.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:47 am Your memory is not reliable.
I don't recall you have any credible refutations, else I would not have let it go. It is an insult for me to ignore any sound arguments presented intellectually and amicably.

Note the hundred++ of threads I have raised in order to go into more details whenever there are serious disputes on the various issues.
Is it possible VA that you are wrong in YOUR self-assessment?
Is it possible that you, yes, went into more details, but did not present sound arguments?
Do you concede points made by people?
How much motivation do you think you have not to notice problems in your work?
Is it possible that as an autodidact, you haven't been in a position where you HAVE TO seriously consider a position that differs from yours? When one also goes through some kind of formal philosophical education, one runs into people who are much better versed not only in information but in logical arguments and so on. You are paying them or at least the state is paying them for you to give you that feedback. Here you can more easily assume you have trained better, know yourself better, would notice if you made a mistake. It's easy to dismiss other people and easy not to notice flaws in your own introspection and your own unconscious motives.

Do you ever consider that you may not be as good at this as you think?
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 Jun 30, 2022 8:42 am
Are you implying you believe theistic or pseudo-scientific claims are as credible as scientific claims?
No. Like you, I think scientific claims are credible, because they're based on evidence from the reality that you agree exists. And that's why theistic and pseudo-scientific claims are not credible.

So, as we agree, what makes an FSK credible is not the FSK itself. It's evidence from outside the FSK. That's why chemistry claims are credible, and astrology claims are not.

So your claim that an FSK - 'entangled with the human conditions' - is foundational for knowledge is false. False. False. How ever often you repeat it. Your own argument undermines itself and collapses in contradiction.

You've taken to agreeing with me that evidence and sound argument are all that matter in any context. But you have no evidence for the existence of so-called moral facts, and so no sound argument for the existence of a 'morality FSK' of any kind, credible or not.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:45 am

So your claim that an FSK - 'entangled with the human conditions' - is foundational for knowledge is false. False. False. How ever often you repeat it. Your own argument undermines itself and collapses in contradiction.
Looking in from the outside at those parts of the dialogue between you and VA, I agree, sometimes, depending on his formulation of the idea, with VA's ideas about knowledge, facts, models, propositions. The way we conceive reality is saturated with our perspective: the senses we have and their limitations. The fact that we experience time (or change) in moments. That we are local embodied beings. IOW our description of reality and experience of reality is vantaged (I think I am making up that word) due to what we are. (we can't have some timeless, non-vantage point, disembodied knowledge of ding an sich. And yes, I have in the back of my mind you objection to the various dichotomies. We don't have some other option. That said one can take steps to try to minimize the effects of this embodied vantage and technology can extend our senses. We can move toward a point we cannot reach. I think he is running with this situation, that our knowledge/experience is vantaged and sometimes claiming there is no reality 'out there' (my phrase) or we can know nothing about it or (sometimes) that any functional FSK (my adjective) create facts. So, sometimes he runs to conclusions that are not merited by the knowledge/conclusions being vantaged. And sometimes he seems to want to eliminate the idea of objectivity, when it suits him, other times assert it when it suits him. Other times he has seemed to argue that because knowledge if vantaged (my word), there is not external world, confusing epistemology with ontology. From we have a particular vantage on sometimes we get to since it is always vantaged, there is no something independent of us. This would imply that we just project our vantage on nothing OR there is ONLY an infinitely malleable quantum foam out there.

Either conclusion would undermine every single reference he has made to specific scientific research.
And something like moral facts would stand absolutely no chance of being the case.

The irony of the ontological anti-realist being the same person as the moral realist should never be dropped when reacting the VA.

I hit his kind of position a lot. Often there is the word 'hallucination' or the verb 'hallucinate' involved. What we think is reality is a hallucination. We hallucinate the universe. I get this quite a bit in online philosophy forums.

If I hallucinate a talk pink elephant in my bedroom, there is likely NOTHING in the qualities of the room helping the create the image.
If I look at a field and see holes and clumps and nettles and run through it and don't fall down and the blind man next to me at the start falls down all the time there is something objective about my seeing. Perhaps not the colors - though even here difference in color help me understand the shape of the field and see the nettles, etc. While colors may be qualia, they are not completely disconnected from reality and do give real objective information about what I can see.

So, even if my vantage is embodied and specific to a very smart primate which is a life form experiencing time in a certain way and has a specific locations and specific senses, this does not eliminate reality from my perception.

I think VA has very mixed feelings about all of this. He wants to destroy the Muslim FSK and to a lesser extent the Christian one. But he also want to extend science into morals.

He cannot seem capable of imagining that we have a strong motivation to consider our values both universal and objective. And that this is part of the typical social mammal vantaging and involved in all sorts of power struggles. It helps us overvalue our values when in conflict and generally when attempting to universalize our values. And to try to do this without thinking our values are objective and thus should be universal is more painful or anxiety producing. Universal is the goal, objectivity is the excuse.

So, he cannot for a moment consider that his choice of mirror neurons is cherry picking.
That his conclusion that mirror neurons are objective (not vantaged in social mammals) is part of hope, wishful thinking, projection and even a power play is off the table. It is not enough that he wants people to be more empathetic, it must be objectively good to have an empathetic character. Then we have the right to develop the mirror neurons and thus certain character tendencies, which suppressing others. And he really does want to suppress other parts of the brain whose potentials he thinks are bad.

He doesn't seem to realize he starts with a value - care about other people is good, not killing is bad - then is happy when he finds out about mirror neurons, and ONLY THEN says this justifies the moral fact that having an empathetic character is good. Which is about as circular as it gets.

He likes (and so do I) empathy as a significant part of character. But just liking it carries not much weight. How can he go into a meeting with Muslims, or extreme libertarians, etc., if he has to struggle for his goal by saying merely 'I prefer' 'I like'. So, suddenly science is hopping from is to ought and amazing his ought and not someone else's.
You've taken to agreeing with me that evidence and sound argument are all that matter in any context. But you have no evidence for the existence of so-called moral facts, and so no sound argument for the existence of a 'morality FSK' of any kind, credible or not.
Exactly. He wants it to somehow be less objective perhaps than science, but still 75% likely to be true, when in fact NOTHING in his arguments contains evidence of moral facts, just an assertion or two lopped onto IS propositions supported by current science.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:23 am Is it possible that you, yes, went into more details, but did not present sound arguments?
The problem is worse, most of the time, the real counterargument goes about 10 miles over his head. So he goes into more details about something else.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:59 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:23 am Is it possible that you, yes, went into more details, but did not present sound arguments?
The problem is worse, most of the time, the real counterargument goes about 10 miles over his head. So he goes into more details about something else.
Yes. Or I would say that he focuses on a specific moment in his position or a specific point he is arguing for or against. How this argument might damage or contradict other parts of his position, he doesn't see. Missing the forest for the trees.

He seems to think one's position is stronger if one has other philosophers who agree with one. (on a particular point. He'll appeal to the authority of an anti-realist when it has to do with something that allows him to support or seem to his FSK idea, but he does not notice their position is against moral realism.

And i think in general there is a pattern of making assertions and considering it an argument. Sometimes the assertions can be strung together in an argument, though nto that often. Other times there are giant leaps between 'steps' that are never mentioned let alone justified.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

What makes anything objective but conscious intent to manifest something in the world.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:36 pm What makes anything objective but conscious intent to manifest something in the world.
The physical existence of non-man-made things has nothing to do with the 'conscious intent to manifest something in the world'.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter,

The subject is what could make MORALITY objective. The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, it is the conscious subject that bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. If you do not understand the terms do not respond.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:11 pm Peter,

The subject is what could make MORALITY objective. The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, it is the conscious subject that bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. If you do not understand the terms do not respond.
I know what the OP subject is. And you seem confused about the subject/object distinction. And I have no idea why you think I don't understand these terms.

The words 'object', 'objective' and 'objectivity' refer precisely to the 'meaningless' physical reality consisting of what we call facts. And moral rightness and wrongness are not independent features of that physical reality - they aren't properties of things and events. And that's why morality isn't and can't be objective.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:34 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:11 pm Peter,

The subject is what could make MORALITY objective. The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, it is the conscious subject that bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. If you do not understand the terms do not respond.
I know what the OP subject is. And you seem confused about the subject/object distinction. And I have no idea why you think I don't understand these terms.

The words 'object', 'objective' and 'objectivity' refer precisely to the 'meaningless' physical reality consisting of what we call facts. And moral rightness and wrongness are not independent features of that physical reality - they aren't properties of things and events. And that's why morality isn't and can't be objective.
Peter,

It would seem we've found some common ground. Morality is first subjective as are the sentiments involved but thoughs sentiments are made manifest objectively in the forms of norms, morals, laws, and institutions both religious and legal. They are a biological extensions into the outer world manifestations of human nature. The only ways morality has objectivity are as biological expressions made manifest.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:47 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:34 am
We already had longer debates about many topics, you usually made a fool out of yourself , as I said forget it.
Your memory is not reliable.
I don't recall you have any credible refutations, else I would not have let it go. It is an insult for me to ignore any sound arguments presented intellectually and amicably.

Note the hundred++ of threads I have raised in order to go into more details whenever there are serious disputes on the various issues.
Of course you don't recall the many refutations that you didn't understand. Your many threads were usually variations on the same bad arguments. But hey you don't have to listen to this, go ahead and try to publish your work.
As usual you are making noises without substance with justifications.
Give me the evidence to support your accusations.

I recalled you started to read Kant but gave up, then you want to use whatever little you have scrapped from that reading to argue against my position re Kant? Is that the refutations I did not understand?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:42 am
Are you implying you believe theistic or pseudo-scientific claims are as credible as scientific claims?
No. Like you, I think scientific claims are credible, because they're based on evidence from the reality that you agree exists. And that's why theistic and pseudo-scientific claims are not credible.
You got it wrong here.

Basically Science merely ASSUME there is an independent reality out there.
What is scientific knowledge is only limited to as far as the empirical evidences can support it.
It is only Newtonian and Einsteinian [?] Physicists who agree with the assumption of an independent external reality however not all Quantum Physicists accept such an assumption but merely rely on the empirical evidences.
So, as we agree, what makes an FSK credible is not the FSK itself. It's evidence from outside the FSK. That's why chemistry claims are credible, and astrology claims are not.
What make an FSK credible is the qualities of its inherent features, therefore of itself. Surely it has to be evidences that justify the truths from the FSK.
For example, the scientific FSK assured that its best conclusions are repeatable by anyone and this has been justified for the very secured scientific truths, such as 'water is H2O'.
Note: Different scientific claims based on different scientific approaches are expected to have different credibility.
So your claim that an FSK - 'entangled with the human conditions' - is foundational for knowledge is false. False. False. How ever often you repeat it. Your own argument undermines itself and collapses in contradiction.
How come you are so ignorant of this very obvious fact?

ALL FSKs are constructed by humans and sustained by humans. How else?
Therefore it follows, whatever the conclusions from a FSK, they are entangled with the human conditions.
Show me if otherwise.
You've taken to agreeing with me that evidence and sound argument are all that matter in any context. But you have no evidence for the existence of so-called moral facts, and so no sound argument for the existence of a 'morality FSK' of any kind, credible or not.
You have the guile to say that?
You have never focused on evidence and sound argument from the beginning.

All you did is banking on the theory of your "farts as facts" and deduction, i.e. non-moral premises cannot be moral conclusions.
'What is fact' to you is merely 'that is the case' which you have repeated a 'million' times.

I was the one who was insisting on evidences and sound arguments re 'what is fact'.
You still have not confirm your agree on this 'what is fact'.
A fact is something that is true.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
If you now agree that evidence [human-based] and argument [human-based] is critical on the matter of reality, then, it follows that reality has to be entangled with the human conditions.

There is no "reality" that is not entangled with the human conditions. Such a reality-in-itself is impossible to be realized by any human.
Demonstrate to me this 'reality' independent of the human conditions is possible to be experienced?

What I have establish so far is the principle and its possibility;
1. All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a specific FSK constructed by humans.
2. At present the most credible FSK is the scientific FSK.
3. My proposed moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.
4. Just as there are scientific facts from the scientific FSK, there are moral facts from the credible moral FSK.

Therefore you cannot deny there can be moral facts from a moral FSK.
I agree the onus is on me to provide the evidence and justify the credibility of my proposed moral FSK.
I have not done the full justifications but I have provided clues.

The main point is you cannot deny the above possibility of 4, i.e. moral facts are possible which contra your OP.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:06 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:47 am
Your memory is not reliable.
I don't recall you have any credible refutations, else I would not have let it go. It is an insult for me to ignore any sound arguments presented intellectually and amicably.

Note the hundred++ of threads I have raised in order to go into more details whenever there are serious disputes on the various issues.
Of course you don't recall the many refutations that you didn't understand. Your many threads were usually variations on the same bad arguments. But hey you don't have to listen to this, go ahead and try to publish your work.
As usual you are making noises without substance with justifications.
Give me the evidence to support your accusations.

I recalled you started to read Kant but gave up, then you want to use whatever little you have scrapped from that reading to argue against my position re Kant? Is that the refutations I did not understand?
Just how little do you comprehend about anything, if that's what you recall? I only read the Critique to the point where it became clear where Kant went wrong. Which is the point I already reached on my own like 20 years ago, my philosophy continued to improve for worlds beyond that.

Every time I have a debate with Kantians and Kantian phenomenologists, it becomes clear that they are deep but not deep enough. And they all believe that Kant was infallible.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

What I have establish so far is the principle and its possibility;
1. All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a specific FSK constructed by humans.
2. At present the most credible FSK is the scientific FSK.
3. My proposed moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.
4. Just as there are scientific facts from the scientific FSK, there are moral facts from the credible moral FSK.

Therefore you cannot deny there can be moral facts from a moral FSK.
I agree the onus is on me to provide the evidence and justify the credibility of my proposed moral FSK.
I have not done the full justifications but I have provided clues.
I would say that those two sentences [my emphasis added] pretty much end the discussion. Peter would be correct to reject what has come so far. VA should admit that clues are not enough and respect PH's rejection. VA is welcome to come back with full justifications when he wants to or can perform them. Period.
Post Reply