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

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

promethean75 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:40 pm Nuthin.

If a moral statement is an imperative, e.g., 'IC shalt not beat up Marx!', it can't be true or false, since it expresses only a command (and commands can't be true or false).
So what do you make of the fact that when I utter the English sentence "Alexa, turn on the lights" the lights actually turn on?

It sure seems true to me that my imperatives reflect a future truth.

promethean75 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:40 pm If a moral statement is indicative, e.g., 'Marx sucks!', it's only emotive and expresses facts which aren't truth-apt. It is equivalent to saying 'boo Marx!', and that (boo) also can't be true or false.
Moral statements express intent. Intent has causal effects on reality. Those effects are as real as gravity.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12403
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

promethean75 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:40 pm Nuthin.
If a moral statement is an imperative, e.g., 'IC shalt not beat up Marx!', it can't be true or false, since it expresses only a command (and commands can't be true or false). If a moral statement is indicative, e.g., 'Marx sucks!', it's only emotive and expresses facts which aren't truth-apt. It is equivalent to saying 'boo Marx!', and that (boo) also can't be true or false.
I have participated extensively in this OP and other related moral threads.
I have argued Morality is Objective when verified and justified within a Framework and System of Morality, just like how scientific knowledge are objective within the scientific framework.

Note: What is Objectivity [relative not absolute].
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Here is a refresher.

Normally posters like you and Peter Holmes will jump into the subject without a proper definition of what is morality-proper or ethics-proper.
SEP wrote:There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense.
More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either
  • 1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or

    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.
Which of these two senses of “morality” a moral philosopher is using plays a crucial, although sometimes unacknowledged, role in the development of an ethical theory.
If one uses “morality” in its descriptive sense, and therefore uses it to refer to codes of conduct actually put forward by distinct groups or societies, one will almost certainly deny that there is a universal morality that applies to all human beings.
The descriptive use of “morality” is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
In your case, yours is that of the 'descriptive' mode of morality which is subjective and relative to different individuals and groups.

In my case, I am arguing on the 'Normative' basis leveraged upon a universal moral framework.

Thus 'No human shall kill another human' is objective because by default as a human being, no normal human will volunteer to be killed.
Thus 'No human shall kill another human' is an objective principle which is inherent in all humans and this can be verified and justified empirically within a scientific framework lending support to its objectivity within the moral framework.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3733
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:28 pm Peter Holmes wrote:
Yep - nothing can make morality objective.
Nothing can make facts objective either.
Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. And this applies to the words truth, fact, knowledge, objectivity and meaning.

So your statement is non-sense - unless and until you give those words meanings different from their standard uses.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:39 am Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. And this applies to the words truth, fact, knowledge, objectivity and meaning.

So your statement is non-sense - unless and until you give those words meanings different from their standard uses.
Appeal to normative semantics :roll:

Logocentrism is dead. Move on...
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:54 pm
promethean75 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:40 pm Nuthin.

If a moral statement is an imperative, e.g., 'IC shalt not beat up Marx!', it can't be true or false, since it expresses only a command (and commands can't be true or false). If a moral statement is indicative, e.g., 'Marx sucks!', it's only emotive and expresses facts which aren't truth-apt. It is equivalent to saying 'boo Marx!', and that (boo) also can't be true or false.
Yep - nothing can make morality objective.
Is that an objective statement, or is that just your own subjective viewpoint, which is just you expressing your own beliefs, judgments, or opinions?

If it is the latter, then it therefore could be false, wrong, and/or incorrect, correct?

But if it is the former, then what, EXACTLY, makes that one an objective statement?

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:54 pm Nothing can make facts objective either.
Can opinions be wrong?

If yes, then EVERY thing you write and say here are just your opinions, right?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:54 pm It can never be a fact that a thing is ugly/beautiful, or that an action is morally wrong/right.
Absolutely EVERY is relative, to the observer.

And, when, and IF, you ever SEE what 'objective' is relative to, EXACTLY, then you will SEE how 'morality' can be VERY objective.

Also, it is NOT action, which is morally wrong or right. It is the mis/behavior that 'you', adult human beings, do, which is morally wrong/right. Which, by the way, is an objective, and IRREFUTABLE, Fact.

When one has arrived at an IRREFUTABLE Fact, then they have also reached objectivity, itself.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:39 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:28 pm Peter Holmes wrote:
Yep - nothing can make morality objective.
Nothing can make facts objective either.
Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. And this applies to the words truth, fact, knowledge, objectivity and meaning.

So your statement is non-sense - unless and until you give those words meanings different from their standard uses.
Truth, fact, knowledge, objectivity, meaning, mathematics, the fossilised huge centipede, Donald Trump, milk, femur, the tree in my garden, exist only because one or more experiencing minds exist them.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3733
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:59 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:39 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:28 pm Peter Holmes wrote:



Nothing can make facts objective either.
Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. And this applies to the words truth, fact, knowledge, objectivity and meaning.

So your statement is non-sense - unless and until you give those words meanings different from their standard uses.
Truth, fact, knowledge, objectivity, meaning, mathematics, the fossilised huge centipede, Donald Trump, milk, femur, the tree in my garden, exist only because one or more experiencing minds exist them.
Using the verb 'exist' transitively is a new one on me: you exist the tree in your garden; we exist mathematics ... and so on. Mind you, we didn't shop all our Christmas needs once upon a time. But I don't get out much. And we're free to use words any way we like.

As for the substance. (Joke.) Do you have any evidence to support your claim that things exist only because at least one mind exists them?

(Reaches for the sherry.)
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:18 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:59 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:39 am

Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. And this applies to the words truth, fact, knowledge, objectivity and meaning.

So your statement is non-sense - unless and until you give those words meanings different from their standard uses.
Truth, fact, knowledge, objectivity, meaning, mathematics, the fossilised huge centipede, Donald Trump, milk, femur, the tree in my garden, exist only because one or more experiencing minds exist them.
Using the verb 'exist' transitively is a new one on me: you exist the tree in your garden; we exist mathematics ... and so on. Mind you, we didn't shop all our Christmas needs once upon a time. But I don't get out much. And we're free to use words any way we like.

As for the substance. (Joke.) Do you have any evidence to support your claim that things exist only because at least one mind exists them?

(Reaches for the sherry.)
I enjoy being creative with use of English. That you understood me shows the trope was not excessively eccentric.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3733
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:13 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:54 pm
promethean75 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:40 pm Nuthin.

If a moral statement is an imperative, e.g., 'IC shalt not beat up Marx!', it can't be true or false, since it expresses only a command (and commands can't be true or false). If a moral statement is indicative, e.g., 'Marx sucks!', it's only emotive and expresses facts which aren't truth-apt. It is equivalent to saying 'boo Marx!', and that (boo) also can't be true or false.
Yep - nothing can make morality objective.
Is that an objective statement, or is that just your own subjective viewpoint, which is just you expressing your own beliefs, judgments, or opinions?

If it is the latter, then it therefore could be false, wrong, and/or incorrect, correct?

But if it is the former, then what, EXACTLY, makes that one an objective statement?

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:54 pm Nothing can make facts objective either.
Can opinions be wrong?

If yes, then EVERY thing you write and say here are just your opinions, right?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:54 pm It can never be a fact that a thing is ugly/beautiful, or that an action is morally wrong/right.
Absolutely EVERY is relative, to the observer.

And, when, and IF, you ever SEE what 'objective' is relative to, EXACTLY, then you will SEE how 'morality' can be VERY objective.

Also, it is NOT action, which is morally wrong or right. It is the mis/behavior that 'you', adult human beings, do, which is morally wrong/right. Which, by the way, is an objective, and IRREFUTABLE, Fact.

When one has arrived at an IRREFUTABLE Fact, then they have also reached objectivity, itself.
Perhaps I can clear up your confusion.

1 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So facts are a given.

2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality - such as a tree in the garden, or the way we use the word tree - or a description of such a feature of reality that is true, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

3 What we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth. And, as with all the ways we use signs, there is no other court of appeal.

4 An opinion, such as the opinion that the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, remains an opinion, even if it's held by everyone. But a fact - such as that water is H2O - remains a fact, even if no one acknowledges it. And that's the difference between facts and opinions.

5 If there are no such things as the things we call facts, then there are no moral facts. So this line of argument for moral objectivity detonates itself.
promethean75
Posts: 4933
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

"But declaratives (which use the indicative mood) - 'this is the case' - aren't only emotive. We also use them to make factual assertions about features of reality - which is precisely why such assertions have truth-value."

Ah, my bad, I should have went further... but you'll have to forgive me for the brevity. The very nature of the philosophical language game is to end up at that dreadful Derridaean aporia philosophers are always up to their neck in. Endless rhizomes of words and concepts that apply to nothing. And to watch it unfold, as it always does, pangs me dearly. So much nonsense, so little time (before the big crunch or heat death).

To give a thorough explanation is something I stopped doing years ago because it requires too goddamn much posting.

Lemme add that factual statements about 'value' cannot be objectively true unless they are based in hypothetical imperatives; getting there faster is ideal, so taking the car is 'good'. This is an objective fact. But the statement 'that movie was great' or 'this ice cream is delicious' admit of no quality 'goodness' or 'greatness' beyond the descriptions of the physiological states the person is in which bring forth these valuations, e.g., the captive attention given to the sophisticated plot of the movie, and the neurotransmitter rush at the taste of the falvorful sweetness of the ice cream. These states are 'facts', and are 'true', but the statements wish to purport something more than this and are deceptive in this sense. 'Values' are not facts in the same way demonstrative and empirically verifiable states, events, affairs, processes and things are.

"Moral and aesthetic assertions don't make falsifiable claims about reality, but rather express beliefs, judgements or opinions - and are therefore subjective. It can never be a fact that a thing is ugly/beautiful, or that an action is morally wrong/right."

Well said, and we're on the same page fer sure, except for that minor detail, I think. My stance on 'morality' in general is the position of emotivism.
promethean75
Posts: 4933
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

"Moral statements express intent. Intent has causal effects on reality. Those effects are as real as gravity."

They can, but don't have to, to be considered an evaluation - a moral statement. The key feature is the evaluation and how the elements of the statement work together. A compound statement such as 'i'm gonna kick his ass because he's a loaf choker' expresses intent and moral evaluation, but the nature of the statement is complicated; because 'loaf choker' is a subjective evaluation that can't be a 'fact' (some might think he's a great guy, instead), it can't be the cause of his 'kicking ass', because things that don't exist can't be causes ('because' he's a loaf choker, etc.)

A grand example of a language game. Good shit. See how it breaks down upon examination?

Also, 'intent' can't be a cause because it exists as an epiphenomenon; deliberation, planning and ambition, which are the elements of 'intent', are forms of thinking, and thoughts are not causes. Effects, but not causes. The conceptual content of such thinking is acausal.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 4:53 pm "Moral statements express intent. Intent has causal effects on reality. Those effects are as real as gravity."

They can, but don't have to, to be considered an evaluation - a moral statement. The key feature is the evaluation and how the elements of the statement work together.

A compound statement such as 'i'm gonna kick his ass because he's a loaf choker' expresses intent and moral evaluation, but the nature of the statement is complicated; because 'loaf choker' is a subjective evaluation that can't be a 'fact' (some might think he's a great guy, instead), it can't be the cause of his 'kicking ass', because things that don't exist can't be causes ('because' he's a loaf choker, etc.)


A grand example of a language game. Good shit. See how it breaks down upon examination?

Also, 'intent' can't be a cause because it exists as an epiphenomenon; deliberation, planning and ambition, which are the elements of 'intent', are forms of thinking, and thoughts are not causes. Effects, but not causes. The conceptual content of such thinking is acausal.
No. You are all confused about this. You are analysing statements; linguistic expressions. You are completely ignoring that which caused the statement; Emotion. The etymology of which os "movement" or "to move".

You are trapped in Logocentrism. Language is just mind-to-mind communication. But I need not communicate my mental predisposition to you.

I can feel anger, frustration and I can proceed in kicking your ass without actually uttering any statements about it. Sooner or later your Pavlovian pre-disposition will kick in and you'll figure out which behaviours gets your ass beat.
promethean75
Posts: 4933
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

Instinctive and reflexive actions/behaviors are not pre-meditated and do not function purposefully. They are simply adaptive mechanisms and have no 'intent' (evolution is not teleological).

So, unless you are thinking about what you will do - kick my ass - and unless you are reflecting on that action and its consequences, it has no purpose.

But - and here's the kicker - to add to this sequence conscious awareness and intentional thought, doesn't make the cause of such action, the thought.

This is gonna turn into another endless language game since I'm gonna have to explain how freewill doesn't exist to give a foundation to what I just explained.

It's such a chore tho, dude. Please don't make me do it. I beg thee.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:25 pm Instinctive and reflexive actions/behaviors are not pre-meditated and do not function purposefully. They are simply adaptive mechanisms and have no 'intent' (evolution is not teleological).
More special pleading. Whether you are automatically or intentionally seeking food/water is moot to the point THAT you are (objectively) doing it.
promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:25 pm This is gonna turn into another endless language game since I'm gonna have to explain how freewill doesn't exist to give a foundation to what I just explained.

It's such a chore tho, dude. Please don't make me do it. I beg thee.
Then don't do it. Free will is moot and has nothing to do with any of this.

If free will exists - I kicked your ass strategically to disincentivise you from getting all Philosophical.
If free will doesn't exist - I was pre-programmed to kick your ass when you get all Philosophical.

No matter the language game you try to drag me into you are still getting your ass kicked IF you get all Philosophical.
promethean75
Posts: 4933
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

This is the beginning of the endless rhizome I refered to. Remember your first and original reply to me with the question about Alexa turning on the lights... and that the truth of the lights coming on meant that I was wrong about what I said about imperative statements. Not only am I not wrong, but your reply had nothing to do with any of what I was saying.

Now somehow in your head, it does, and I can't interfere with that. But we are not on the same page and haven't been since that initial exchange. The rhizome begins when the original argument, failing to resolve, becomes a series of subdivisive arguments out which further arguments branch, ad nauseum. That's the aporia... the philosophy forum board aporia. Welcome to the jungle.
Post Reply