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 »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:56 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:57 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:30 pm Nothing can be proven to exist outside one's subjectivity. However, as surely as we know apparent reality as object/s through the alterations they make to our biological natures, so too it is feasible that the objects themselves are created in a similar fashion. They would then be biological readouts of one's biological reactions to the energies that surround us. Alter one's biology and one transform one's apparent reality. Nothing can be proven to be objective, read independent of conscious subjectivity.
Can 'one's subjectivity' be proven to exist? Couldn't the malicious demon fool me into thinking that I think?
I think Descartes already answered that one, google it! " I think, therefore I am."
Oh, well, that proves it. If I think it, it must be the case. I'm infallible. Bit like a god.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:08 pm Oh, well, that proves it. If I think it, it must be the case. I'm infallible. Bit like a god.
So what proves that water is water?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:08 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:56 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:57 pm

Can 'one's subjectivity' be proven to exist? Couldn't the malicious demon fool me into thinking that I think?
I think Descartes already answered that one, google it! " I think, therefore I am."
Oh, well, that proves it. If I think it, it must be the case. I'm infallible. Bit like a god.
Take up with Descartes! By the way, if you disbelieve in your own subjectivity how do you manage to post here-----lol!!! Do me a favor, don't respond to my post---much appreciate it!!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 8:49 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:08 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:56 pm

I think Descartes already answered that one, google it! " I think, therefore I am."
Oh, well, that proves it. If I think it, it must be the case. I'm infallible. Bit like a god.
Take up with Descartes! By the way, if you disbelieve in your own subjectivity how do you manage to post here-----lol!!! Do me a favor, don't respond to my post---much appreciate it!!
Sorry, no deal. If you peddle the cogito here as some kind of epistemological foundation, what do you expect? Reverential agreement? And if you keep preaching your no-subjects-no-objects claptrap, what do you expect? Respectful acceptance? Wrong venue for that. Write a book.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:53 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 8:49 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:08 pm
Oh, well, that proves it. If I think it, it must be the case. I'm infallible. Bit like a god.
Take up with Descartes! By the way, if you disbelieve in your own subjectivity how do you manage to post here-----lol!!! Do me a favor, don't respond to my post---much appreciate it!!
Sorry, no deal. If you peddle the cogito here as some kind of epistemological foundation, what do you expect? Reverential agreement? And if you keep preaching your no-subjects-no-objects claptrap, what do you expect? Respectful acceptance? Wrong venue for that. Write a book.
Ignore me asshole!!!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:56 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:53 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 8:49 pm

Take up with Descartes! By the way, if you disbelieve in your own subjectivity how do you manage to post here-----lol!!! Do me a favor, don't respond to my post---much appreciate it!!
Sorry, no deal. If you peddle the cogito here as some kind of epistemological foundation, what do you expect? Reverential agreement? And if you keep preaching your no-subjects-no-objects claptrap, what do you expect? Respectful acceptance? Wrong venue for that. Write a book.
Ignore me asshole!!!
Okay.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:48 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:43 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:21 am Premise: The connotation AND denotation of all terms are socially constructed.

(True. Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.)

Conclusion: Therefore, things are the way they are because that's how we name and describe them.

(Non sequitur, and fatuous nonsense. Our describing what we call water as what we call H2O has no bearing on the nature of water, which was, is and will be what it is regardless of how it's named or described.)
Water does not experience anything as it's not alive.The nature of water is nothing but its history . Water has no future apart from how experiencers experience water.
So what? We're talking about the existence of water. And water is not 'experience'. The end.
Water is what it is by virtue of its being experienced. Did you read George Berkeley? To be is to be perceived? Except for the fact he was a bishop he was the most sceptical of philosophers.

I can see your point of view which is commonsense. I cannot demand that you see my point of view which is counter intuitive.
CIN
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:59 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by CIN »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:57 pmCouldn't the malicious demon fool me into thinking that I think?
You mean you don't actually exist, and the demon fools the non-existent you into thinking he exists?

Meinong would be proud of you. (That is not a compliment.)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:24 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:57 pm Consider the following claims.

1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.

2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.

I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
Strawmaning yet again with very shallow views!

PH:1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.

I agree as with conventional Science [QM the exception] that the perceived [reality] do exists outside a perception.
When we see an apple on a tree in the orchard from our window, it is undeniable from that perspective, that the perceived apple exists outside our perception of the apple.
So a perception does not create the perceived in this perspective.

The problem starts with the ideology of Philosophical Realism,
  • Philosophical realism .. about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views..
    Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical Realism claim the perceived [reality] is absolutely independent of the human self, mind-independent existence, i.e. exists as a thing-in-itself unconditionally.

Now while I agree the perceived [reality] exists outside of perception, it is not absolutely independent from the human self. This is the conventional, scientific or empirical perspective.
From a more refined perspective, the perceived [reality], cannot be absolutely independent from the human self which is intricately part and parcel of reality.

Note the equivalent progress of cognition of reality in Physics;

1. Classical Newtonian physics adopt the Philosophical Realists' perspective which include the God's Eye View of reality where every thing perceived exist absolutely outside perception. While such a perspective has its utility, it has its limitation to what is reality.

2. Then we have Einstein's Relativity & the Observers' Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
  • Einstein's revelation was that observers in relative motion experience time differently: it's perfectly possible for two events to happen simultaneously from the perspective of one observer, yet happen at different times from the perspective of the other. And both observers would be right.
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... ing-genius#:
In this case, while observed reality may be relative to the observer, Einstein still maintain there is still a thing-in-itself which is not effected by the observer.
This is why Einstein insisted the moon is still there when no one is observing it.

3. At present we have Quantum Mechanics, starting with the Wave Collapse Function to where the latest view acceptable to most quantum physicists is, there is no absolute reality out there.
What is reality is conditioned and entangled with the human self.
In fact the last Nobel Prize of Physics on non-locality is based on this theory.

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/

Note Model Dependent Realism;
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#:~

It is not the case that perception [crude] that create 'the perceived' but rather there is a complex process that enable the emergence of a thing or object where common sense necessarily objectify it as outside the self as a convenience.
You ignorantly and dogmatically insist this common sense reality is the sole reality and nothing else matters.

Many Quantum Physicists will agree with [against their intuition], if no subjects are cognizing the moon, there is no moon.
Such a view had been proposed by Eastern Philosophers >2000 years ago or even the Greeks, i.e. Protagoras' "Man is the Measure of All Things'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras


PH: 2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
This is a strawman based on stupidity and desperation.

Despite the changing cognition of reality to a more realistic perspective, you are so pathetically stuck with your dogmatic ideology of Philosophical Realism which is mainly a reliance of words and their meanings, not on reality per se.
I claimed this dogmatism of yours and the likes is driven a desperate existential angst which is a psychological defense mechanism to secure the status quo of yours.

My perspective of objective moral facts hinge on the latest scientific facts of human nature.
So you agree that the perceived exists outside perception - from which it follows that the described exists outside description. (Quantum mechanical descriptions are no exception to this.)
That you failed to understand what is the progress in cognition in Physics displays your ignorance and dogmatism blinded by your ideology.

One of the last bastion of the ideology you hold at present was from Einstein, who insisted, the moon pre-existed humans; if there are no humans the moon is still there; if no humans cognize the moon, the moon is still there.

I had explained as above, the latest acceptance of Physics is,
there is no moon if no humans are cognizing the moon,
the credibility of this principle is recognized by the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

You are just blabbering.
Show evidences to justify your claim?
Moral realists and objectivists never produce one example of a moral fact - because there's no such thing. But the faith must be maintained. Hence the spurious arguments designed to demonstrate moral objectivity by some other means.

Yours involves the silly idea that the perceived and described aren't really outside perception and description, because we have to perceive and describe things in a human way.

You've been suckered by an idea that became fashionable in philosophy at least seventy years ago, but which has much older roots. Here are two forms of the idea.

Premise: To assert a fact is to express an opinion.
Conclusion: Therefore: there are no facts, but only opinions; and any opinion can assert a fact.

Premise: To assert a fact is to produce a (necessarily contextual) description.
Conclusion: Therefore: there are no facts, but only (necessarily contextual) descriptions; and any description can assert a fact.

You don't or can't afford to recognise the invalidity of these arguments, and the stupidity of the conclusions, because they demolish your argument for moral objectivity.

(We can ignore your appeal to quantum mechanics, because it does nothing to support the argument for moral objectivity.)
The above are more blabbering from you.
As usual, you provide no credible references to support your point.

The latest knowledge from Quantum Mechanics support my point,
Whatever is fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Thus QM facts are conditioned upon the QM FSK.
A credible FSK enables credible facts.
The QM FSK is credible and reliable due to its conformance to the standards and requirements of the generic scientific FSK.

Similarly a Moral FSK will enable objective moral facts.
The moral FSK I proposed will be credible and adopt the majority its inputs from the scientific FSK.

As such the similarity of my proposed moral FSK with the QM scientific FSK will enable credible and reliable objective moral facts which are physical.
In addition, these objective moral facts are verifiable, justifiable and testable.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:32 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:48 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:43 am
Water does not experience anything as it's not alive.The nature of water is nothing but its history . Water has no future apart from how experiencers experience water.
So what? We're talking about the existence of water. And water is not 'experience'. The end.
Water is what it is by virtue of its being experienced. Did you read George Berkeley? To be is to be perceived? Except for the fact he was a bishop he was the most sceptical of philosophers.

I can see your point of view which is commonsense. I cannot demand that you see my point of view which is counter intuitive.
Put it another way to PH;
I can see your point of view which is commonsense [and kindergarten level].
I cannot demand that you [so kindergartenish] see my point of view [Phd level] which is counter intuitive.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:00 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:32 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:48 pm
So what? We're talking about the existence of water. And water is not 'experience'. The end.
Water is what it is by virtue of its being experienced. Did you read George Berkeley? To be is to be perceived? Except for the fact he was a bishop he was the most sceptical of philosophers.

I can see your point of view which is commonsense. I cannot demand that you see my point of view which is counter intuitive.
Put it another way to PH;
I can see your point of view which is commonsense [and kindergarten level].
I cannot demand that you [so kindergartenish] see my point of view [Phd level] which is counter intuitive.
Berkeley's esse est percipi was supposed to demonstrate the existence of an omni-god.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Questions for VA - and any other PhD-level quantum physicists following this discussion.

1 Is quantum indeterminacy a fact - a feature of reality - or merely a product of human cognition - itself a product of quantum indeterminacy?

2 Who or what observes the observer effect? Who or what is it that stands above the quantum fray? Is it perhaps the mythical subject, or the equally mythical mind - or, perhaps, Berkeley's omni-god?

3 How can we get from quantum mechanics to the fact that X is morally right (good)/wrong (bad, evil)? What valid and sound arguments get us from the one to the other?
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:01 pm Questions for VA - and any other PhD-level quantum physicists following this discussion.

1 Is quantum indeterminacy a fact - a feature of reality - or merely a product of human cognition - itself a product of quantum indeterminacy?
What a stupid question. If it's a feature of cognition then it's necessarily a feature of reality.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:01 pm 2 Who or what observes the observer effect? Who or what is it that stands above the quantum fray? Is it perhaps the mythical subject, or the equally mythical mind - or, perhaps, Berkeley's omni-god?
Mythical subjects. Mythical objects. Mythical things.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:01 pm 3 How can we get from quantum mechanics to the fact that X is morally right (good)/wrong (bad, evil)? What valid and sound arguments get us from the one to the other?
How can we get from quantum mechanics to the fact that this color is red? What valid and sound arguments get us from the one to the other?

The level of stupid portrayed by Peter Holmes is unbelievable.
CIN
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:59 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by CIN »

Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:32 am Did you read George Berkeley? To be is to be perceived? Except for the fact he was a bishop he was the most sceptical of philosophers.
That is one hell of a big 'except'. Berkeley's ontology only works if there is a God — a God for whose existence there is zero evidence, a God who is a disembodied mind when we have no evidence that a disembodied mind is even possible. Basically a philosophy which depends on religion is a philosophy that relies on magic.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

CIN wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:32 am Did you read George Berkeley? To be is to be perceived? Except for the fact he was a bishop he was the most sceptical of philosophers.
That is one hell of a big 'except'. Berkeley's ontology only works if there is a God — a God for whose existence there is zero evidence, a God who is a disembodied mind when we have no evidence that a disembodied mind is even possible. Basically a philosophy which depends on religion is a philosophy that relies on magic.
All ontological reasoning is effectively a religion. So all philosophy amounts to magic.

It doesn't seem like you have a better plan...
Post Reply