But you do NOT YET KNOW what 'objective' IS, or COULD BE, EXACTLY.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am We can describe the colour we call red, or the animal we call a dog, in any number of different ways - using other names (nouns), such as light, frequency, mammal, and snout. But none of those names is a description. And names, like clause elements, don't have truth-value. Obviously.
In this context, the only things that can have truth-value are declarative clauses: such-and-such is the case. And we can't define or describe a thing or a property into or out of existence. So the 'that's-how-we-use-these-words' argument for objectivity is, simply, invalid.
What you are doing here is just 'TRYING TO' USE words in a way, which then defines or describes what you ALREADY BELIEVE to be true into, or out of, existence.
As can be CLEARLY SEEN above here. That is; you define the 'objective' word in such a way that 'it' could NOT exist.
So, what what way/s are 'things' if they are NOT the way/s that you say they are?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am
It amounts to 'saying it's so makes it so' or 'things are the way(s) we say they are'.
Does this CONTRADICT what you just SAID and CLAIMED?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am
We say this colour is red; therefore, this colour is red.
We say water is H2O; therefore, water is H2O.
We say abortion is/is not morally wrong; therefore, abortion is/is not morally wrong.
If no, then WHY NOT?
But, LOL, they are NOT even 'arguments', and just SAYING or CALLING 'them' 'arguments' does NOT make 'them' so.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am
In different ways, each of these arguments is invalid.
Does ANY of your sentences above MISTAKE what you say about things for the way things are? Or, do ONLY "others" make THIS MISTAKE?[quote="Peter Holmes" wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am post_id=630598 time=1679309675 user_id=11800]
Each mistakes what we say about things for the way things are.
LOLPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am
But though 'redness' and the chemical constitution of water are features of reality (facts) that just are the case, how ever we (arbitrarily) name them, moral wrongness isn't, and we can't 'say it' into existence.
LOL
LOL
'you' REALLY DO have SO MUCH MORE to LEARN and UNDERSTAND here "peter holmes".
Do you REALLY BELIEVE that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'morally' Wrong, in Life?
If you ARE BRAVE enough to answer this Honestly, then we WILL be VERY HAPPY to WITNESS this.