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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:52 pm
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 above in one perspective is true, but to be more rigorous we should not accept the above [religious and legal] as 'morality-proper'. Otherwise, as what is happening currently, that has led to confusions and hindered the progress of morality-proper.

The theists are insisting theirs are moral facts from a real God [in reality an illusion] and thus all human ought to obey them without questions.
The prevention of crimes and evil acts on a legal basis is not morality but rather that is politics subsuming elements of what is good and what is evil with threats of penalties to the extent of capital punishments.
The other so-called morality i.e. secular consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology, etc. are merely groping around without understand the roots of morality thus unable to progress with the related potential of evil.

Peter Holmes being ignorant and stuck dogmatically with the above obviously cannot accept there are moral facts which I would agree if on the above perspective.

However, to some extent the theists, politicians and others do have some intuitive sense of moral facts that are inherent within all humans.
There are moral facts when we dig into the biological and psychological roots of the above manifestations.
The only ways morality has objectivity are as biological expressions made manifest.
Potentials such a potential energy are justifiable physical facts.
In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived.
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.
The philosopher Aristotle incorporated this concept into his theory of potentiality and actuality,[1] a pair of closely connected principles which he used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima, which is about the human psyche.[2]
That which is potential can theoretically be made actual by taking the right action; for example, a boulder on the edge of a cliff has potential to fall that could be actualized by pushing it over the edge. Several languages have a potential mood, a grammatical construction that indicates that something is potential. These include Finnish,[3] Japanese,[4] and Sanskrit.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential
The above is the path we should direct our attention to search for moral facts represented within the inherent moral potential.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:06 am
Atla wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:56 am

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.
You imagine you are right? while Kant, one of the greatest philosopher of all times, is wrong?

Kant already anticipated people like you, i.e.
If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.

In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the Effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
Bxliv
I was like you in the past, then realized I had to research into the full details of Kant to give justice in interpreting Kant's work.
The point is, you need to understand [not necessary agree with] the whole of Kant's CPR before you can critique him effectively.
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 6:59 am
Atla wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:06 am
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.
You imagine you are right? while Kant, one of the greatest philosopher of all times, is wrong?

Kant already anticipated people like you, i.e.
If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.

In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the Effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
Bxliv
I was like you in the past, then realized I had to research into the full details of Kant to give justice in interpreting Kant's work.
The point is, you need to understand [not necessary agree with] the whole of Kant's CPR before you can critique him effectively.
You believe that Kant is protected for all eternity from being surpassed, because you couldn't do it?
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: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:52 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:52 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:34 pm
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 above in one perspective is true, but to be more rigorous we should not accept the above [religious and legal] as 'morality-proper'. Otherwise, as what is happening currently, that has led to confusions and hindered the progress of morality-proper.

The theists are insisting theirs are moral facts from a real God [in reality an illusion] and thus all human ought to obey them without questions.
The prevention of crimes and evil acts on a legal basis is not morality but rather that is politics subsuming elements of what is good and what is evil with threats of penalties to the extent of capital punishments.
The other so-called morality i.e. secular consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology, etc. are merely groping around without understand the roots of morality thus unable to progress with the related potential of evil.

Peter Holmes being ignorant and stuck dogmatically with the above obviously cannot accept there are moral facts which I would agree if on the above perspective.

However, to some extent the theists, politicians and others do have some intuitive sense of moral facts that are inherent within all humans.
There are moral facts when we dig into the biological and psychological roots of the above manifestations.
The only ways morality has objectivity are as biological expressions made manifest.
Potentials such a potential energy are justifiable physical facts.
In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived.
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.
The philosopher Aristotle incorporated this concept into his theory of potentiality and actuality,[1] a pair of closely connected principles which he used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima, which is about the human psyche.[2]
That which is potential can theoretically be made actual by taking the right action; for example, a boulder on the edge of a cliff has potential to fall that could be actualized by pushing it over the edge. Several languages have a potential mood, a grammatical construction that indicates that something is potential. These include Finnish,[3] Japanese,[4] and Sanskrit.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential
The above is the path we should direct our attention to search for moral facts represented within the inherent moral potential.
Argument. Humans have the potential to do X and not do Y; therefore X is morally right and Y is morally wrong.

This is a non sequitur fallacy. A non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion, even if the premise is true.

But VA wants to by-pass the fallacy: Humans have the potential to do X (which is morally right) and not do Y (which is morally wrong). VA then claims these are moral facts of, based on, or arising from, human nature.

So a purported (non-moral) fact about human nature is supposed to establish the unarguable existence of a supposed moral fact.

The way out of this mess is extremely simple: recognition that a moral assertion, such as 'X is wrong', expresses an opinion, judgement or belief about something, but doesn't make a falsifiable factual claim with a truth-value.

For some reason - and I suspect some deep insecurity that demands external discipline - moral objectivists and realists - not just VA - simply can't bear this fact about our moral predicament.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:59 am
Atla wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:00 am
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.
You imagine you are right? while Kant, one of the greatest philosopher of all times, is wrong?

Kant already anticipated people like you, i.e.
If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.

In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the Effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
Bxliv
I was like you in the past, then realized I had to research into the full details of Kant to give justice in interpreting Kant's work.
The point is, you need to understand [not necessary agree with] the whole of Kant's CPR before you can critique him effectively.
You believe that Kant is protected for all eternity from being surpassed, because you couldn't do it?
Nope, because Kant is recognized as one of the GOAT of philosophy, you should at least give him the benefit of any doubts given you have not read and understood [not necessary agree with] his works.

Note even Henry Allison [born 1937] the very famous Kant scholar with 40 years of experience even missed out a critical point which was discovered by his student.
Henry Edward Allison (born April 25, 1937) is a scholar of Immanuel Kant, widely considered to be one of eminent English-language Kant scholars of the postwar era.[1][2] He is Emeritus Professor at the University of California, San Diego[3] and Boston University.
Btw, I do not agree with Kant on everything and that which I do not agree with are not significant to my project.
I believe I have some advantage over many Kant scholars due to the point that I reinforce Kant's philosophy with Eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:31 am Argument. Humans have the potential to do X and not do Y; therefore X is morally right and Y is morally wrong.

This is a non sequitur fallacy. A non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion, even if the premise is true.

But VA wants to by-pass the fallacy: Humans have the potential to do X (which is morally right) and not do Y (which is morally wrong). VA then claims these are moral facts of, based on, or arising from, human nature.

So a purported (non-moral) fact about human nature is supposed to establish the unarguable existence of a supposed moral fact.

The way out of this mess is extremely simple: recognition that a moral assertion, such as 'X is wrong', expresses an opinion, judgement or belief about something, but doesn't make a falsifiable factual claim with a truth-value.

For some reason - and I suspect some deep insecurity that demands external discipline - moral objectivists and realists - not just VA - simply can't bear this fact about our moral predicament.
Strawmaning as usual due to your ignorance and dogmatism.

WHERE?
where did I state "Humans have the potential to do X and not do Y."

Note I have given the clue,
human as the potential [compulsion] of the oughtness to breathe, there is no question of the potential not to breathe.
this potential [that compel one to breathe] is represented by physical biological elements and the potential itself is a physical fact.

the above clue can be transposed to the moral potentials represented by physical biological elements and such a potential is a moral fact when dealt within a credible moral FSK.

Human nature?
It is not a naturalistic fallacy [Moore] when we can trace the specific facts [physical moral potential] to the specific physical neuronal network and support the moral potential.

Your resistance in recognition of the physical moral facts is definitely due to some psychological defects from the inherent cognitive dissonance.

My drive OTOH is with a concern with compassion for the future of humanity re Kant's vision and mission, i.e.
1. What can I know? - epistemology
2. What can I do? - Morality & Ethics
3. What can I hope for? - the vision of perpetual peace.

When we have recognized morality is driven by a real physical moral potential inherent in the DNA, brain and mind, in the future [not now] we will be above to develop self-improvement programs that target specifically for moral progress. I am optimistic this is possible given the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge in the neurosciences, other advance knowledge and technologies.

You're just an ignorant selfish human being selfishly clinging on to dogmatic beliefs for your own salvation from cognitive dissonance.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”

― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

So Kant saw 'the moral law' within or before him. He/we don't have to search for it, or hypothesise about it. It just is, part of 'the consciousness of ... existence'.

Game over. That's a slam-dunk. There are moral facts, so morality is objective.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:08 am “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”

― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

So Kant saw 'the moral law' within or before him. He/we don't have to search for it, or hypothesise about it. It just is, part of 'the consciousness of ... existence'.

Game over. That's a slam-dunk. There are moral facts, so morality is objective.
Kant basis of the "moral law within me" is intuitive and supposed to be 'objective' as reasoned and argued as platonic ideas and ideals.

I would not agree that Kant's moral assertions are 'sufficiently' objective because they are not based on verifiable and justifiable facts derivable scientifically and processed within a credible moral FSK.

At present we have the trend of advancing neurosciences which had already revealed clues to the moral fact in terms of mirror neurons which is merely a part [not the full] of the moral facts.

If Kant has such knowledge of the neurosciences related to morality, I am sure he would have gotten them into his moral theory.
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: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:23 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:08 am “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”

― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

So Kant saw 'the moral law' within or before him. He/we don't have to search for it, or hypothesise about it. It just is, part of 'the consciousness of ... existence'.

Game over. That's a slam-dunk. There are moral facts, so morality is objective.
Kant basis of the "moral law within me" is intuitive and supposed to be 'objective' as reasoned and argued as platonic ideas and ideals.

I would not agree that Kant's moral assertions are 'sufficiently' objective because they are not based on verifiable and justifiable facts derivable scientifically and processed within a credible moral FSK.

At present we have the trend of advancing neurosciences which had already revealed clues to the moral fact in terms of mirror neurons which is merely a part [not the full] of the moral facts.

If Kant has such knowledge of the neurosciences related to morality, I am sure he would have gotten them into his moral theory.
No evidence and unsound arguments.

It's the irritating first little pig, with a straw house-of-cards, built on sand.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:52 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:52 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:34 pm
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 above in one perspective is true, but to be more rigorous we should not accept the above [religious and legal] as 'morality-proper'. Otherwise, as what is happening currently, that has led to confusions and hindered the progress of morality-proper.

The theists are insisting theirs are moral facts from a real God [in reality an illusion] and thus all human ought to obey them without questions.
The prevention of crimes and evil acts on a legal basis is not morality but rather that is politics subsuming elements of what is good and what is evil with threats of penalties to the extent of capital punishments.
The other so-called morality i.e. secular consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology, etc. are merely groping around without understand the roots of morality thus unable to progress with the related potential of evil.

Peter Holmes being ignorant and stuck dogmatically with the above obviously cannot accept there are moral facts which I would agree if on the above perspective.

However, to some extent the theists, politicians and others do have some intuitive sense of moral facts that are inherent within all humans.
There are moral facts when we dig into the biological and psychological roots of the above manifestations.
The only ways morality has objectivity are as biological expressions made manifest.
Potentials such a potential energy are justifiable physical facts.
In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived.
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.
The philosopher Aristotle incorporated this concept into his theory of potentiality and actuality,[1] a pair of closely connected principles which he used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima, which is about the human psyche.[2]
That which is potential can theoretically be made actual by taking the right action; for example, a boulder on the edge of a cliff has potential to fall that could be actualized by pushing it over the edge. Several languages have a potential mood, a grammatical construction that indicates that something is potential. These include Finnish,[3] Japanese,[4] and Sanskrit.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential
The above is the path we should direct our attention to search for moral facts represented within the inherent moral potential.
Veritas,

Actually, your statements refine a simple fact and that is that these manifestations are products of the nature of the human organisms. As to the inclusion of religious and legal institutions they are productions of the same moral sentiments as biological expressions. They all reflect back on the psyches that created them and go towards maintaining society. The rational person knows that these institutions were not handed down by a god or gods they are expressions of human nature as surely as the spiders wed or the beaver's dam are expressions of their natures. The laws and norms of the society make the moral sentiments concrete and supportive of the generality of common law and religion.
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 7:48 am
Atla wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:59 am
You imagine you are right? while Kant, one of the greatest philosopher of all times, is wrong?

Kant already anticipated people like you, i.e.



I was like you in the past, then realized I had to research into the full details of Kant to give justice in interpreting Kant's work.
The point is, you need to understand [not necessary agree with] the whole of Kant's CPR before you can critique him effectively.
You believe that Kant is protected for all eternity from being surpassed, because you couldn't do it?
Nope, because Kant is recognized as one of the GOAT of philosophy, you should at least give him the benefit of any doubts given you have not read and understood [not necessary agree with] his works.

Note even Henry Allison [born 1937] the very famous Kant scholar with 40 years of experience even missed out a critical point which was discovered by his student.
Henry Edward Allison (born April 25, 1937) is a scholar of Immanuel Kant, widely considered to be one of eminent English-language Kant scholars of the postwar era.[1][2] He is Emeritus Professor at the University of California, San Diego[3] and Boston University.
Btw, I do not agree with Kant on everything and that which I do not agree with are not significant to my project.
I believe I have some advantage over many Kant scholars due to the point that I reinforce Kant's philosophy with Eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism.
What kind of idiot are you to think that I don't understand the gist of his work to a necessary level, which was fairly cutting edge at his time? I worked out those things even before I looked into his works, we had 200+ years of progress since him. Why the hell would I need to read all his work.

Kant is over your head and going beyond Kant is even more over your head. That's why you didn't understand anything I wrote.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:49 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:48 am
Atla wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:04 am
You believe that Kant is protected for all eternity from being surpassed, because you couldn't do it?
Nope, because Kant is recognized as one of the GOAT of philosophy, you should at least give him the benefit of any doubts given you have not read and understood [not necessary agree with] his works.

Note even Henry Allison [born 1937] the very famous Kant scholar with 40 years of experience even missed out a critical point which was discovered by his student.
Henry Edward Allison (born April 25, 1937) is a scholar of Immanuel Kant, widely considered to be one of eminent English-language Kant scholars of the postwar era.[1][2] He is Emeritus Professor at the University of California, San Diego[3] and Boston University.
Btw, I do not agree with Kant on everything and that which I do not agree with are not significant to my project.
I believe I have some advantage over many Kant scholars due to the point that I reinforce Kant's philosophy with Eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism.
What kind of idiot are you to think that I don't understand the gist of his work to a necessary level, which was fairly cutting edge at his time? I worked out those things even before I looked into his works, we had 200+ years of progress since him. Why the hell would I need to read all his work.

Kant is over your head and going beyond Kant is even more over your head. That's why you didn't understand anything I wrote.
You are the ignorant stupid idiot ultracrepidarian.

Atla: we had 200+ years of progress since him. Why the hell would I need to read all his work.

If Kant is outdated how this?
  • Through nineteenth-century intermediaries, the model of the mind developed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has had an enormous influence on contemporary cognitive research. Indeed, Kant could be viewed as the intellectual godfather of cognitive science.
    Link:
Note 'GODFATHER' not just a typical influencer.

I stated I have spent 3 years full time researching Kant, that at least indicate I have sufficient credibility to represent Kant's philosophy compared to you merely scratching it superficially.

That Kant is still popular at present and referred to in many fields of modern knowledge indicate his philosophy is prevailing over his critiques and detractors whose stupidity and ignorant you are clutching onto to dispute Kant.

My interests and research on Kant is still ongoing and definitely will look into any challenge that Kant's philosophies [related to my project] has holes in them.
Instead of making silly noises, just present your case against Kant with evidence and sound arguments.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:23 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:08 am “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”

― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

So Kant saw 'the moral law' within or before him. He/we don't have to search for it, or hypothesise about it. It just is, part of 'the consciousness of ... existence'.

Game over. That's a slam-dunk. There are moral facts, so morality is objective.
Kant basis of the "moral law within me" is intuitive and supposed to be 'objective' as reasoned and argued as platonic ideas and ideals.

I would not agree that Kant's moral assertions are 'sufficiently' objective because they are not based on verifiable and justifiable facts derivable scientifically and processed within a credible moral FSK.

At present we have the trend of advancing neurosciences which had already revealed clues to the moral fact in terms of mirror neurons which is merely a part [not the full] of the moral facts.

If Kant has such knowledge of the neurosciences related to morality, I am sure he would have gotten them into his moral theory.
No evidence and unsound arguments.

It's the irritating first little pig, with a straw house-of-cards, built on sand.
Your above is cowardly and merely making noises.

You have ignored all the questions that I had raised.

I had already exposed and redirect your groundless 'farts as facts' to the very possible verifiable and justifiable empirical physical elements in terms of physical neurons in the brain as moral facts within a credible moral FSK.
This is a sufficient counter to your claim that there can be no objective moral facts to make morality objective re OP.
Do you have a dispute for this basis which different from your groundless 'farts as facts'?

As for the more complete and complex details, I am holding them back, as I don't see the need to feed you like a baby.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:08 am Veritas,

Actually, your statements refine a simple fact and that is that these manifestations are products of the nature of the human organisms. As to the inclusion of religious and legal institutions they are productions of the same moral sentiments as biological expressions. They all reflect back on the psyches that created them and go towards maintaining society. The rational person knows that these institutions were not handed down by a god or gods they are expressions of human nature as surely as the spiders wed or the beaver's dam are expressions of their natures. The laws and norms of the society make the moral sentiments concrete and supportive of the generality of common law and religion.
Noted your point.

However in the spirit of philosophy-proper, I would prefer not to leave any stone unturned, thus my quest into the micro details and processes of the root causes of the 'WHYs' and 'HOWs' involved in whatever human actions and reactions [motivators and demotivators].

I am optimistic, in the FUTURE [definitely not now or the next few generations] when humanity will progress to be able to track all human actions [and hidden potentials] to the specific cluster of neurons and their connectivity plus their connection to the whole human system and the universe.
Are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
and other related advancing knowledge.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:47 am
Atla wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:49 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:48 am
Nope, because Kant is recognized as one of the GOAT of philosophy, you should at least give him the benefit of any doubts given you have not read and understood [not necessary agree with] his works.

Note even Henry Allison [born 1937] the very famous Kant scholar with 40 years of experience even missed out a critical point which was discovered by his student.


Btw, I do not agree with Kant on everything and that which I do not agree with are not significant to my project.
I believe I have some advantage over many Kant scholars due to the point that I reinforce Kant's philosophy with Eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism.
What kind of idiot are you to think that I don't understand the gist of his work to a necessary level, which was fairly cutting edge at his time? I worked out those things even before I looked into his works, we had 200+ years of progress since him. Why the hell would I need to read all his work.

Kant is over your head and going beyond Kant is even more over your head. That's why you didn't understand anything I wrote.
You are the ignorant stupid idiot ultracrepidarian.

Atla: we had 200+ years of progress since him. Why the hell would I need to read all his work.

If Kant is outdated how this?
  • Through nineteenth-century intermediaries, the model of the mind developed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has had an enormous influence on contemporary cognitive research. Indeed, Kant could be viewed as the intellectual godfather of cognitive science.
    Link:
Note 'GODFATHER' not just a typical influencer.

I stated I have spent 3 years full time researching Kant, that at least indicate I have sufficient credibility to represent Kant's philosophy compared to you merely scratching it superficially.

That Kant is still popular at present and referred to in many fields of modern knowledge indicate his philosophy is prevailing over his critiques and detractors whose stupidity and ignorant you are clutching onto to dispute Kant.

My interests and research on Kant is still ongoing and definitely will look into any challenge that Kant's philosophies [related to my project] has holes in them.
Instead of making silly noises, just present your case against Kant with evidence and sound arguments.
You sad fuck

I meant that Kant was mostly correct and I live in a culture that has basically accepted his views, and starting from there, since then we moved beyond him. His general message was correct but then he got many things way wrong.

You have NO idea what you are talking about. Even talking to philosophy forum randoms about Kant is over your head
Post Reply