What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Not only am I not wrong, but your reply had nothing to do with any of what I was saying.

Not only are you wrong, you seem too dumb to understand that words and arguments don't matter as much as actions.

Insisting that my words have "nohing to do with what you are saying" is jsut a sterile attempt at controlling the narrative.Whatever the narrative - you are getting your ass kicked.

And you are welcome to proceed with your pointless philosophical analysys of whether your ass-kicking is an imperative or a descriptive use of language pertaining to the future tense.

[promethean75]

"alexa, turn on the lights" is just a command, not a categorical or hypothetical imperative statement. Ergo, your reply was irrelevant to the discussion at that point.

Kay I'm gonna go do something else.

Take care now, bye-bye then.

[Skepdick]

"alexa, turn on the lights" is just a command, not a categorical or imperative statement.

Of course it's an imperative statement! EVERYTHING a computer understands and acts upon is imperative. Commands ARE imperatives.

Here. Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_programming

Or you could've just looked it up in the dictionary...

imperative /ɪmˈpɛrətɪv/ adjective: giving an authoritative command; peremptory.

Ergo, your reply was irrelevant to the discussion at that point.

Your relevance filter is broken.

A command/imperative precisely understood and followed says true things about the future!

Kay I'm gonna go do something else.

Take care now, bye-bye then.

The usual "Philosophical octopus" maneuvre - shit in the water and run away.

[promethean75]

I thought we were doing 'philosophy', now you're telling me we're doing computer science.

Try this: https://www.britannica.com/topic/hypoth ... imperative

'IC shalt not beat up Marx' was actually confusing and I should have clarified the context. But, that lack of clarification isn't the reason you're off and have been since you got with Alexa back there.

As it stands, the statement is just a command... but I wanted to make it an imperative by adding the 'shalt', so that I could introduce an 'ought' clause in the context... which makes it not just a command, but an imperative as well. Prolly shoulda explained that earlier.

Now stop kicking my ass, please. I'm a troll, not a philosopher. Go pick on someone equally confused.

[Skepdick]

I thought we were doing 'philosophy', now you're telling me we're doing computer science.

I thought we were doing linguistics.

'IC shalt not beat up Marx' was actually confusing and I should have clarified the context. But, that lack of clarification isn't the reason you're off and have been since you got with Alexa back there.

'IC shalt not beat up Marx' is an imperative towards IC.

IC could obey or disobey the imperative.

IF IC obeys the imperative - it says a true thing about the future.
If IC disobeys the imperative - it says a false thing about the future.

Why is this so difficult for you?

As it stands, the statement is just a command... but I wanted to make it an imperative by adding the 'shalt', so that I could introduce an 'ought' clause in the context... which makes it not just a command, but an imperative as well. Prolly shoulda explained that earlier.

Now stop kicking my ass, please. I'm no philosopher. Go pick on someone equally confused.

I am not a philosopher either. I am a computer scientist.

[promethean75]

Jee-sus dude. Whether or not IC ends up kicking marx's ass has nothing to do with the fact that an imperative statement can't be true or false by virtue of the kind of statement it is.

Now the statement 'IC will kick marx's ass' CAN be true or false by virtue of the kind of statement it is.

Tell me you understand this. I insist.

[Sculptor]

IC could not kick his way out of a paper bag.
A soggy paper bag made of tissue

[Skepdick]

Jee-sus dude. Whether or not IC ends up kicking marx's ass has nothing to do with the fact that an imperative statement can't be true or false by virtue of the kind of statement it is.

That is a metaphysical assumption - a prescriptive/normative statement about the way you believe language ought to work

It entirely depends on what you mean by "true" and "false" !!!

Tell me you understand this. I insist.

Ditto.

[promethean75]

"A soggy paper bag made of tissue"

Can't you just call it a tissue bag, then? Why do you have to make things so difficult, huh? HUH?!

Oh I know why. One might assume that the bag, which was made of paper, had tissues IN it, rather than being made out of tissue.

But wait... couldn't one just as easily assume the bag had paper in it if one said 'a paper bag', and that it was actually made of plastic?

This is fuckin crazy is what this is.

[Sculptor]

"A soggy paper bag made of tissue"

Can't you just call it a tissue bag, then? Why do you have to make things so difficult, huh? HUH?!

Oh I know why. One might assume that the bag, which was made of paper, had tissues IN it, rather than being made out of tissue.

But wait... couldn't one just as easily assume the bag had paper in it if one said 'a paper bag', and that it was actually made of plastic?

This is fuckin crazy is what this is.

I don't really give a fuck what the bag is made of. All I know is that IC is still inside trying to get out.

[promethean75]

Which of these following imperative mood statements can be true or false:

A) stand up you imbecile!

B) don't touch that, please.

C) get ready to drive.

D) leave the package at the door.

Take your time.

[promethean75]

"All I know is that IC is still inside trying to get out."

That's cuz Karl's got him all shook up over in the other thread.

[Skepdick]

Which of these following imperative mood statements can be true or false:

A) stand up you imbecile!

B) don't touch that, please.

C) get ready to drive.

D) leave the package at the door.

Take your time.

All of them.

Take all the time you need to understand why.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Perhaps I can clear up your confusion.

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

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

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

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

5 If there are no such things as the things we call facts, then there are no moral facts. So this line of argument for moral objectivity detonates itself.

Your above is an entangled mess of words and statements.

Re 4, the fact that 'water is H2O' is based on an opinion, i.e. a polished opinion or a polished conjecture.
That 'water is H20' can only be a scientific fact i.e. conditioned upon the scientific framework and the scientific method.
But all scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures' [Popper] thus 'polished opinions' i.e. polished via the processes of the scientific framework.

'Water is H20' cannot remain a fact without the scientific community acknowledging and sustaining it. Thus 'water is H20' is not an absolute unconditional fact but rather a fact that is conditioned upon the scientific community of the relevant scientists.

Facts are not opinions, BUT
facts are polished-opinions when polished and refined via a specific Framework and System of Knowledge of which the scientific FSK is the most credible thus the Standard.

Thus moral facts are not opinions, BUT
moral facts are polished-moral-opinions when polished and refined via specific Framework and System of Knowledge, such as the scientific framework coupled with a specific Moral Framework and System.

Just as scientific facts [polished opinions] are objective, so moral facts [polished opinions] in this similar vein are also objective.

[Age]

Yep - nothing can make morality objective.

Is that an objective statement, or is that just your own subjective viewpoint, which is just you expressing your own beliefs, judgments, or opinions?

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

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

Nothing can make facts objective either.

Can opinions be wrong?

If yes, then EVERY thing you write and say here are just your opinions, right?

It can never be a fact that a thing is ugly/beautiful, or that an action is morally wrong/right.

Absolutely EVERY is relative, to the observer.

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

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

When one has arrived at an IRREFUTABLE Fact, then they have also reached objectivity, itself.

Perhaps I can clear up your confusion.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.