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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 8:22 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm
Age wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:13 am

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?




Can opinions be wrong?

If yes, then EVERY thing you write and say here are just your opinions, 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.
What, EXACTLY, are you ASSUMING I am confused about?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 1 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So facts are a given.
1. Who, EXACTLY, is the 'we', which 'you' are referring to here?

2. "So, facts are a given", does NOT logically, soundly and validly follow from, "What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts".

3. How, EXACTLY, do those of 'you', who are in that 'we', form the opinion of what is ACTUALLY 'independent from opinion, when considering facts?

4. Who formed the opinion that "nothing can make morality objective", when considering the fact if ANY thing could make morality objective or NOT?

5. When we were considering the facts we concluded that there is some thing that can ACTUALLY make morality objective, which, by the way, could be considered 'independent from opinion'.

6. So, now, which 'we' has arrived at the correct conclusion? The 'we' that 'you' refer to, or, the 'we' that 'I' refer to?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 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.
So, in other words what you call a 'fact' and what you call 'reality' are your opinions, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 3 What we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth.
And what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth, and what we call is a truth is that there is some thing that can and ACTUALLY does make morality objective.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm And, as with all the ways we use signs, there is no other court of appeal.
From thee Truly objective perspective this is VERY, VERY True. But, considering YOUR CLAIM is just YOUR OPINION, then there is a HUGE court of which to appeal to. Which, by the way, 'you' are be JUDGED, RIGHT NOW, HERE.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 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.
So, according to YOUR "logic" here, the opinion that "nothing can make morality objective is true", remains an opinion, even if it is held by EVERY one, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT? And, what IS correct, EXACTLY?

Also, and again according to YOUR "logic" here, the fact that 'there ACTUALLY is some thing that can and does make morality objective, remains a fact, even if you or NO one else acknowledges it, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT? And, what IS correct, EXACTLY?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 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.
There are probably countless OTHER so-called "lines of arguments" for moral objectivity that so-called "detonates themselves", but I have NOT use ANY of them, so there was NO need to use this 'line of thinking', and DETRACTION, here.

By the way, you have NOT YET provided an argument that is sound and valid for YOUR BELIEF, OPINION, and CLAIM that "there is nothing that can make morality objective.

Now, I asked you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you have OBVIOUSLY chose to IGNORE COMPLETELY, for reasons that will also become just as OBVIOUS. But, until you answer those questions, and the ones I posed to you this time in this reply, Honestly, you are NOT doing "yourself" any favors here.

Either you can back up and support YOUR CLAIMS by being ABLE to answer ALL CLARIFYING and CHALLENGING questions posed to you, or you CAN NOT. So far it is only the latter you have SHOWN here.
I use the word 'we' to refer to English speakers, from whom you and I learned how to speak and understand English.

I've explained how I think we use the words truth, fact, objectivity, and so on. If you disagree with my explanations, please explain how you use these words.

My problem is that, to me, your questions show that you haven't understood or thought through the implications of what I'm saying.

So, for me, it'd be better if you set out your premises and conclusion - rather than just ask questions - so that I/we can see if your argument is valid and sound.

For example - is this this one of your premises? : 'There are no facts, but only opinions'. If so, I can easily show you why this premise detonates itself.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Oh for fuck's sake. Morality is objective and it's very easy. in this brief clip, three of Britain's finest philosophers explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmoG4JY_T58
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm
Age wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 8:22 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm
Perhaps I can clear up your confusion.
What, EXACTLY, are you ASSUMING I am confused about?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 1 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So facts are a given.
1. Who, EXACTLY, is the 'we', which 'you' are referring to here?

2. "So, facts are a given", does NOT logically, soundly and validly follow from, "What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts".

3. How, EXACTLY, do those of 'you', who are in that 'we', form the opinion of what is ACTUALLY 'independent from opinion, when considering facts?

4. Who formed the opinion that "nothing can make morality objective", when considering the fact if ANY thing could make morality objective or NOT?

5. When we were considering the facts we concluded that there is some thing that can ACTUALLY make morality objective, which, by the way, could be considered 'independent from opinion'.

6. So, now, which 'we' has arrived at the correct conclusion? The 'we' that 'you' refer to, or, the 'we' that 'I' refer to?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 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.
So, in other words what you call a 'fact' and what you call 'reality' are your opinions, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 3 What we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth.
And what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth, and what we call is a truth is that there is some thing that can and ACTUALLY does make morality objective.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm And, as with all the ways we use signs, there is no other court of appeal.
From thee Truly objective perspective this is VERY, VERY True. But, considering YOUR CLAIM is just YOUR OPINION, then there is a HUGE court of which to appeal to. Which, by the way, 'you' are be JUDGED, RIGHT NOW, HERE.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 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.
So, according to YOUR "logic" here, the opinion that "nothing can make morality objective is true", remains an opinion, even if it is held by EVERY one, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT? And, what IS correct, EXACTLY?

Also, and again according to YOUR "logic" here, the fact that 'there ACTUALLY is some thing that can and does make morality objective, remains a fact, even if you or NO one else acknowledges it, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT? And, what IS correct, EXACTLY?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 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.
There are probably countless OTHER so-called "lines of arguments" for moral objectivity that so-called "detonates themselves", but I have NOT use ANY of them, so there was NO need to use this 'line of thinking', and DETRACTION, here.

By the way, you have NOT YET provided an argument that is sound and valid for YOUR BELIEF, OPINION, and CLAIM that "there is nothing that can make morality objective.

Now, I asked you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you have OBVIOUSLY chose to IGNORE COMPLETELY, for reasons that will also become just as OBVIOUS. But, until you answer those questions, and the ones I posed to you this time in this reply, Honestly, you are NOT doing "yourself" any favors here.

Either you can back up and support YOUR CLAIMS by being ABLE to answer ALL CLARIFYING and CHALLENGING questions posed to you, or you CAN NOT. So far it is only the latter you have SHOWN here.
I use the word 'we' to refer to English speakers, from whom you and I learned how to speak and understand English.
But NOT EVERY english speaker views the same things as you do here, NOR has the same opinions as you do here, OBVIOUSLY. So, WHY do you use the 'we' word here in such a False, Wrong, and Incorrect way?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm I've explained how I think we use the words truth, fact, objectivity, and so on.
WHY do you BELIEVE you could even speak for ALL of us here.

Also, how you think we use those words is OBVIOUSLY just plain Wrong and Incorrect.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm If you disagree with my explanations, please explain how you use these words.
Have I even seen your explanations?

What you seem to have completely FAILED to NOTICE, and thus have NOT YET recognized, is that you, like just about EVERY other human being in the actual days when this was being written, only make things true or not true by the way you describe and/or define the words you use. See, there is absolutely NO thing that could make 'morality objective', to you only, and this is ONLY because of the way you personally view and define the words 'morality' and 'objective'. Just like 'you', other human beings, for example, either BELIEVE 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' not because ANY one of you has ANY ACTUAL PROOF either way, but solely because of the way you ALL individually describe and/or define the words you use, and especially the word 'God', in that example.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm My problem is that, to me, your questions show that you haven't understood or thought through the implications of what I'm saying.
The implications of what you are saying are VERY OBVIOUS, and can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN. But what is understood, from thinking through, may be VERY DIFFERENT from what you have come to understand.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm So, for me, it'd be better if you set out your premises and conclusion - rather than just ask questions - so that I/we can see if your argument is valid and sound.
But I am NOT arguing for, NOR against, ANY thing here.

I just ask 'you', posters, CLARIFYING and/or CHALLENGING questions, just to SEE if 'you' REALLY do KNOW what you are talking about. SEE, I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, which 'you', human beings, WILL and DO ALSO COME TO SEE, and KNOW.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm For example - is this this one of your premises? : 'There are no facts, but only opinions'. If so, I can easily show you why this premise detonates itself.
Here we have a GREAT EXAMPLE of an ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION.

I have asked you are series of CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, of which NOT one of them was CLARIFIED, by you. But yet you want to ask me a CLARIFYING QUESTION now. Which, by the way, is only an ATTEMPT at FURTHER DETRACTION, but which ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTS your INABILITY to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here in this thread of YOURS.

If you EVER get around to CLARIFYING the below, then we can PROCEED and MOVE FORWARD.

YOU CLAIM:
Nothing can make morality objective.

I ASKED YOU:
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?


Oh, and by the way, the answer is 'No'.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm
Age wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 8:22 am

What, EXACTLY, are you ASSUMING I am confused about?


1. Who, EXACTLY, is the 'we', which 'you' are referring to here?

2. "So, facts are a given", does NOT logically, soundly and validly follow from, "What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts".

3. How, EXACTLY, do those of 'you', who are in that 'we', form the opinion of what is ACTUALLY 'independent from opinion, when considering facts?

4. Who formed the opinion that "nothing can make morality objective", when considering the fact if ANY thing could make morality objective or NOT?

5. When we were considering the facts we concluded that there is some thing that can ACTUALLY make morality objective, which, by the way, could be considered 'independent from opinion'.

6. So, now, which 'we' has arrived at the correct conclusion? The 'we' that 'you' refer to, or, the 'we' that 'I' refer to?



So, in other words what you call a 'fact' and what you call 'reality' are your opinions, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?


And what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth, and what we call is a truth is that there is some thing that can and ACTUALLY does make morality objective.


From thee Truly objective perspective this is VERY, VERY True. But, considering YOUR CLAIM is just YOUR OPINION, then there is a HUGE court of which to appeal to. Which, by the way, 'you' are be JUDGED, RIGHT NOW, HERE.


So, according to YOUR "logic" here, the opinion that "nothing can make morality objective is true", remains an opinion, even if it is held by EVERY one, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT? And, what IS correct, EXACTLY?

Also, and again according to YOUR "logic" here, the fact that 'there ACTUALLY is some thing that can and does make morality objective, remains a fact, even if you or NO one else acknowledges it, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT? And, what IS correct, EXACTLY?



There are probably countless OTHER so-called "lines of arguments" for moral objectivity that so-called "detonates themselves", but I have NOT use ANY of them, so there was NO need to use this 'line of thinking', and DETRACTION, here.

By the way, you have NOT YET provided an argument that is sound and valid for YOUR BELIEF, OPINION, and CLAIM that "there is nothing that can make morality objective.

Now, I asked you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you have OBVIOUSLY chose to IGNORE COMPLETELY, for reasons that will also become just as OBVIOUS. But, until you answer those questions, and the ones I posed to you this time in this reply, Honestly, you are NOT doing "yourself" any favors here.

Either you can back up and support YOUR CLAIMS by being ABLE to answer ALL CLARIFYING and CHALLENGING questions posed to you, or you CAN NOT. So far it is only the latter you have SHOWN here.
I use the word 'we' to refer to English speakers, from whom you and I learned how to speak and understand English.
But NOT EVERY english speaker views the same things as you do here, NOR has the same opinions as you do here, OBVIOUSLY. So, WHY do you use the 'we' word here in such a False, Wrong, and Incorrect way?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm I've explained how I think we use the words truth, fact, objectivity, and so on.
WHY do you BELIEVE you could even speak for ALL of us here.

Also, how you think we use those words is OBVIOUSLY just plain Wrong and Incorrect.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm If you disagree with my explanations, please explain how you use these words.
Have I even seen your explanations?

What you seem to have completely FAILED to NOTICE, and thus have NOT YET recognized, is that you, like just about EVERY other human being in the actual days when this was being written, only make things true or not true by the way you describe and/or define the words you use. See, there is absolutely NO thing that could make 'morality objective', to you only, and this is ONLY because of the way you personally view and define the words 'morality' and 'objective'. Just like 'you', other human beings, for example, either BELIEVE 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' not because ANY one of you has ANY ACTUAL PROOF either way, but solely because of the way you ALL individually describe and/or define the words you use, and especially the word 'God', in that example.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm My problem is that, to me, your questions show that you haven't understood or thought through the implications of what I'm saying.
The implications of what you are saying are VERY OBVIOUS, and can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN. But what is understood, from thinking through, may be VERY DIFFERENT from what you have come to understand.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm So, for me, it'd be better if you set out your premises and conclusion - rather than just ask questions - so that I/we can see if your argument is valid and sound.
But I am NOT arguing for, NOR against, ANY thing here.

I just ask 'you', posters, CLARIFYING and/or CHALLENGING questions, just to SEE if 'you' REALLY do KNOW what you are talking about. SEE, I ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, which 'you', human beings, WILL and DO ALSO COME TO SEE, and KNOW.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:29 pm For example - is this this one of your premises? : 'There are no facts, but only opinions'. If so, I can easily show you why this premise detonates itself.
Here we have a GREAT EXAMPLE of an ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION.

I have asked you are series of CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, of which NOT one of them was CLARIFIED, by you. But yet you want to ask me a CLARIFYING QUESTION now. Which, by the way, is only an ATTEMPT at FURTHER DETRACTION, but which ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTS your INABILITY to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here in this thread of YOURS.

If you EVER get around to CLARIFYING the below, then we can PROCEED and MOVE FORWARD.

YOU CLAIM:
Nothing can make morality objective.

I ASKED YOU:
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?


Oh, and by the way, the answer is 'No'.
Nothing can make morality objective, because there are no moral facts - no moral features of reality that are or were the case.

The above is a factual assertion, with a truth-value - true or false - because it claims something about reality that may or may not be the case. In my opinion, that factual assertion is demonstrably true. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, with no truth-value.

If you - or anyone - can produce an example of a moral fact, that would show that I'm wrong. END OF STORY.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

"All of them. Take all the time you need to understand why."

I hope you know you're changing up hunerds if not thousands of years of conventional epistemology in ways that no respectable pipe smoking, spectacle wearing philosopher would accept. This is an extremely bold move, skep, and unless you come up with an entirely new system to explain why your deviation from normal epistemological procedure is necessary, you will bear the stigmatization of being a charlatan for this rest of your life. Are you prepared to take this step, young man?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:45 pm I hope you know you're changing up hunerds if not thousands of years of conventional epistemology in ways that no respectable pipe smoking, spectacle wearing philosopher would accept.
Good thing I am a scientist, and not a philosopher then.

I piss on your thousand year old conventions and stick to facts.
promethean75 wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:45 pm This is an extremely bold move, skep,and unless you come up with an entirely new system to explain why your deviation from normal epistemological procedure is necessary
In typical Philosophical fashion you are trying to burden me with convincing you of my system's necessity, when thousands of years of conventional epistemology has been unable to solve the epistemic problem of criterion; or the epistemic problem of justification. Thousands of years of epistemology has been unnable to decouple the neccessary from the sufficient.

You can't even tell me how you are going evaluate the necessity of my system, but you can't even tell me what sort of justification would suffice for you.

The conventional notion of truth is about language corresponding to reality. "Alexa, turn on the lights" corresponds to reality that will come to pass one second into the future. A reality when/where Alexa has, in fact, turned on the lights.

The only difference is perspectival. I knew that it will happen (future) vs I knew that it has happened (past). The difference is time.
promethean75 wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:45 pm you will bear the stigmatization of being a charlatan for this rest of your life. Are you prepared to take this step, young man?
Oh no! Stigmatisation from philosophers! Nothing I can't fix with a shower.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

"The conventional notion of truth is about correspondence to reality. "Alexa, turn on the lights" corresponds to reality that will come to pass one second into the future."

What if the lights come on, but not because Alexa turned them on after you axed her to?

What if, say, a surge of power occured caused by faulty wiring at the exact moment you would expect Alexa to turn on the lights?

Not only that, but there is no way for you to know, or for Alexa to tell you, that she didn't actually turn the lights on?

Correspondence theory and justifiable belief. Discuss.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:33 pm What if the lights come on, but not because Alexa turned them on after you axed her to?

What if, say, a surge of power occured caused by faulty wiring at the exact moment you would expect Alexa to turn on the lights?

Not only that, but there is no way for you to know, or for Alexa to tell you, that she didn't actually turn the lights on?

Correspondence theory and justifiable belief. Discuss.
So you've chosen contingency as your attack angle? That's just idiotic.

What if you nobody was there to observe the lights turning on?
What if the lights aren't really on but The Great Deceiver has made them appear to be on?

The phenomenon is empirical. It's testable and falsifiable.

If you think it was a power surge, or something else at play here - repeat the experiment as many times as you need to undermine any doubts.
If you think there's a better explanation for what's taking place - present a better theory and falsify mine.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm Nothing can make morality objective, because there are no moral facts - no moral features of reality that are or were the case.
Nothing can make gravity objective, because there are no gravitational facts - no gravitational features of reality that are or were the case.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:25 pm If you - or anyone - can produce an example of a moral fact, that would show that I'm wrong. END OF STORY.
If you - or anyone - can produce an example of a gravitational fact, that would show that I'm wrong. END OF STORY.

Oh but, wait!!! You already accept a wide range of observable/testable phenomena as evidence for gravity's objectivity.

If you were intellectually honest and consistent, you would have already told us which phenomena you would accept as evidence for the objectivity of morality. But you continue refusing to make your claims testable or falsifiable.

Stop wasting everyone's time. You twat.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 3:20 pmIf you were intellectually honest and consistent (which you are not), you would have already told us which observable phenomena you would accept as evidence for the objectivity of morality.

Stop wasting everyone's time. You twat.
Don't you know what someone being a c unt looks like? If you want to make morality a science, find something to measure.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:23 pm Don't you know what someone being a c unt looks like?
Of course I do. If you want to beat the devil first you have to know all of his tricks.
uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:23 pm If you want to make morality a science, find something to measure.
What? You mean like war and peace, life expectancy, child and infant mortality, extreme poverty, literacy, human rights

And hundreds others: https://ourworldindata.org/
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

"So you've chosen contingency as your attack angle?"

Nah I'm just trolling at this point. Seldom will I roll my sleeves up anymore and get into it. This is because - and you said it yourself more or less - philosophy hasn't solved a single problem in thousands of years, and dialogues as such end up becoming massive products of confusion, nonsense and disagreement between interlocutors... and this is due to the nature of the language itself.

Take this thread for example. What began, for me, as a simple demarcation of statement types coupled with the premise that imperative mood statements can't express truths or falsities, but only commands, has exploded into all manner of argumentation regarding everything from fact/value distinctions to correspondence theory to falsifiability principles to justified true belief to evil Cartesian demons tricking us and radical-empiricist berkeleyean lights coming on when nobody is around to see em and finally, objective truth.

What's happening here is, everybody is talking past each other, and when responding, we are responding to the way we understand what was posted... not the way the poster understands what he/she posted... and in this sense we are all arguing with ourselves. But this is not because we are solipsists, rather the blame is on the language, the philosophy, which is demonstrably obscure and ambiguous if it doesn't express pure truisms, tautologies or analytical truths.

Now it takes a lot of courage to admit this, especially if one has invested so much of their own esteem, pride and self-worth in expressing what one believes to be a formidable intellect and eloquent vocabulary. Indeed, most philosophy is an exercise in creative writing as an art of sorts, and so long as one doesn't expect that to do any actual work in solving anything, all is good. But I fear most philosophers really believe they are 'on to something' profound that ordinary language cannot express.

Upon receiving this wisdom, as I have, there is little else to do at a forum other than troll all the members for shits and giggles.

Here lemme show you an example of what I meant up above. This is that dreaded 'it could be argued' obstacle that prevents any real progress for philosophy and only works to further exemplify its utterly useless presence.

"If you - or anyone - can produce an example of a gravitational fact, that would show that I'm wrong. END OF STORY."

It could be argued that by 'gravity' we don't mean to identify a phenomenon or an actual thing, but rather the experience of a certain kind of repetitious event we encounter in reality; that of objects moving toward the center mass of the erf. So, because every time we have ever thrown a ball up, we watch it fall back down, we identify this process as an effect of a cause we decide to call 'gravity'. But we cannot identify some thing that is what we describe with the term 'gravity' because what we are experiencing and describing is some natural behavior of objects. That is all. Now is this behavior a 'fact'? Sure it is, because this behavior happens quite often. Is it a 'fact' that this behavior will continue to happen in the future? No it isn't, but that need not happen for it to be a 'fact' that it has happened, and, if it does happen again, that event will also be a fact, just like the last time it happened.

Now what happens next? I'll tell you; everybody jumps in just for the sake of arguing, and proceeds to explain what they personally mean by words such as 'fact' and 'event' and 'objective' and so forth. If you are paying attention you'll note that this process has no terminus, but not not because, as wittgenstein put it 'explanations must come to an end somewhere'... rather because if these discussions were doing any real work and/or solving real problems, they'd not be able to continue indefinitely as they do. They continue because they are gratuitous exercises in conceptual confusion, Derridaean aporias, and battling over the possession of words; 'no, this is what that means, not that!'

This is why, two thousand years later, philosophers are still arguing about what 'objective truth' is, for example.

Language games that intersect by the family resemblance of words, words often forced into strange and unfamiliar contexts than where they are usually found, if they aren't just outright super-empirical words conjured up in the head of some poor philosopher who's suffering his own internal affairs after having read all the nonsense generated by the philosopher before him.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

Oh and that last bit of trolling Alexa was to show that unless you were able to confirm that the surge caused the lights to come on, rather than Alexa making them, you would justifiably believe that Alexa turned them on without that belief being founded on or defended by, the correspondence theory of knowledge. Neat, eh?

Neither would your theory that Alexa turned the lights on, be falsifiable in this instance, since you would have to know that she didn't turn the lights on in order to falsify the theory that she could. Even neater, eh?

Don't be a dick, skep. U 'n me make a team, bro. Computer scientist and highschool dropout carpenter. Anti-philosopher duo. Fuckin bring it.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:26 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:23 pm Don't you know what someone being a c unt looks like?
Of course I do. If you want to beat the devil first you have to know all of his tricks.
uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:23 pm If you want to make morality a science, find something to measure.
What? You mean like...
Yeah whatever. Now make a science of it
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 5:40 pm Yeah whatever. Now make a science of it
It is a science. Probability theory...

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712

Are we going to have another back-and-forth where you demonstrate that you don't distinguish between odds and probabilities?
Post Reply