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

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:54 pm Oh, yes, I just realized a (poor) assumption you may be making. Yes, it is true, I don't believe in objective morals. My lack of belief was not caused by you or a fallacy in your argument or by any of your arguments. I stopped believing in them a long time ago. I did mention that Someone's argument (or my own mulling or a philosophical epiphany) may change my mind at some point. But your arguments did not lead me to this position. The fact that it was fallacious did not lead me to the conclusion that there are no objective morals. The fact that your argument was fallacious does not entail that your conclusiion is false, nor have I said it.

I do leave open the possibility someone will mount an argument that is convincing and sound.

That doesn't make your inablity, so far, to do that causal of my belief, nor does it make your conclusion false.

Concurrent with that, I don't believe in objective morals. At the same time and going back in time that has been the case. No causal connection.
Blah blah blah.

All of philosophy is conducted in a state of mental muddle about the meaning of words.

Do you believe in objective gravity? Morality is as objective as that. It has measurable consequences!

In so far as the consequences are measurable morality is objective because measurability and objectivity coincide in an empirical epistemology.

Beyond that everything else is lip service.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Moral objectivists have absolutely nothing to justify their claim that there are moral facts - that moral assertions have factual truth-value.

Hence the spurious arguments we've seen here, such as the argument that arguments don't matter, and that anyway factual truth-value isn't what we say it is.

It's pathetic.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:29 pm Moral objectivists have absolutely nothing to justify their claim that there are moral facts - that moral assertions have factual truth-value.

Hence the spurious arguments we've seen here, such as the argument that arguments don't matter, and that anyway factual truth-value isn't what we say it is.

It's pathetic.
I gave you my justification.

Because roses are blue and violets are bitter.
But if you aren't happy with that I'll add to it that today is Friday and my wine is delicious.
I can keep going but I think this shall suffice for now.

Therefore murder is wrong.

The argument is spurious, but the conclusion is correct. So the argument doesn't matter. Q.E.D

Much like Ignaz Semmelweis had no good argument for why washing hands saves lives. The conclusion was correct - the argument came about few decades later when germ theory came about. And he sure faced a lot of ostracism and persecution for being right without having an argument.

What's pathetic is that even you can't present an argument, yet somehow you agree with the conclusion.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:29 pm Moral objectivists have absolutely nothing to justify their claim that there are moral facts - that moral assertions have factual truth-value.

Hence the spurious arguments we've seen here, such as the argument that arguments don't matter, and that anyway factual truth-value isn't what we say it is.

It's pathetic.
Moral assertions relate to whatever be the world view or Dasein, of the asserter. Since all asserters have no choice but to hold the world view they hold then all assertions are relatively factual i.e necessarily true. However if asserters apply the overarching universality principle they must abandon most of their moral principles and may espouse new principles.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:17 pm Since all asserters have no choice but to hold the world view they hold then all assertions are relatively factual i.e necessarily true.
We have a new Worst Sentence on the Internet.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

double
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:34 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:17 pm Since all asserters have no choice but to hold the world view they hold then all assertions are relatively factual i.e necessarily true.
We have a new Worst Sentence on the Internet.
Well, you've asserted that now so it's also true.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:17 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:29 pm Moral objectivists have absolutely nothing to justify their claim that there are moral facts - that moral assertions have factual truth-value.

Hence the spurious arguments we've seen here, such as the argument that arguments don't matter, and that anyway factual truth-value isn't what we say it is.

It's pathetic.
Moral assertions relate to whatever be the world view or Dasein, of the asserter. Since all asserters have no choice but to hold the world view they hold then all assertions are relatively factual i.e necessarily true. However if asserters apply the overarching universality principle they must abandon most of their moral principles and may espouse new principles.
Sorry, but this is false, and perniciously so. Even if people have no choice but to believe what they do, that doesn't make their assertions 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. That's rubbish. The fact that people have opinions doesn't make those opinions facts - or 'relatively factual'. If it did, then the assertion that there are pixies in the garden is 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. Please.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:40 pm Sorry, but this is false, and perniciously so. Even if people have no choice but to believe what they do, that doesn't make their assertions 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. That's rubbish. The fact that people have opinions doesn't make those opinions facts - or 'relatively factual'. If it did, then the assertion that there are pixies in the garden is 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. Please.
What does this have to do with anything? That which you call "facts" and "opinions" coexist ontologically.

My opinion that you are a moron exists in exactly the same way as the flowers in my garden exist. To insist otherwise is to equivocate existence.

Any distinction you draw between my opinion (which exists) and the flowers (which exist) is arbitrary and subject to motivated reasoning.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:40 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:17 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:29 pm Moral objectivists have absolutely nothing to justify their claim that there are moral facts - that moral assertions have factual truth-value.

Hence the spurious arguments we've seen here, such as the argument that arguments don't matter, and that anyway factual truth-value isn't what we say it is.

It's pathetic.
Moral assertions relate to whatever be the world view or Dasein, of the asserter. Since all asserters have no choice but to hold the world view they hold then all assertions are relatively factual i.e necessarily true. However if asserters apply the overarching universality principle they must abandon most of their moral principles and may espouse new principles.
Sorry, but this is false, and perniciously so. Even if people have no choice but to believe what they do, that doesn't make their assertions 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. That's rubbish. The fact that people have opinions doesn't make those opinions facts - or 'relatively factual'. If it did, then the assertion that there are pixies in the garden is 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. Please.
The matter of an assertion is factual relative to the asserter, and this applies to both moral assertions and empirical assertions. To put it another way, it's a fact that the asserter asserts p . As soon as the asserter applies the universalisability principle his moral claim p is weaker and is not a fact. Then p may or may not be statistically significant.
The general concept or principle of moral universalizability is that moral principles, maxims, norms, facts, predicates, rules, etc., are universally true; that is, if they are true as applied to some particular case (an action, person, etc.) then they are true of all other cases of this sort. Some philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, Richard Hare, and Alan Gewirth, have argued that moral universalizability is the foundation of all moral facts. Others have argued that moral universalizability is a necessary, but not a sufficient, test of morality. A few philosophers have also argued that morality is not constrained by universalizability at all.
Googled
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:02 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:40 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:17 pm

Moral assertions relate to whatever be the world view or Dasein, of the asserter. Since all asserters have no choice but to hold the world view they hold then all assertions are relatively factual i.e necessarily true. However if asserters apply the overarching universality principle they must abandon most of their moral principles and may espouse new principles.
Sorry, but this is false, and perniciously so. Even if people have no choice but to believe what they do, that doesn't make their assertions 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. That's rubbish. The fact that people have opinions doesn't make those opinions facts - or 'relatively factual'. If it did, then the assertion that there are pixies in the garden is 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. Please.
The matter of an assertion is factual relative to the asserter, and this applies to both moral assertions and empirical assertions. To put it another way, it's a fact that the asserter asserts p . As soon as the asserter applies the universalisability principle his moral claim p is weaker and is not a fact. Then p may or may not be statistically significant.
The general concept or principle of moral universalizability is that moral principles, maxims, norms, facts, predicates, rules, etc., are universally true; that is, if they are true as applied to some particular case (an action, person, etc.) then they are true of all other cases of this sort. Some philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, Richard Hare, and Alan Gewirth, have argued that moral universalizability is the foundation of all moral facts. Others have argued that moral universalizability is a necessary, but not a sufficient, test of morality. A few philosophers have also argued that morality is not constrained by universalizability at all.
Googled
To make whatever that crap is work you have to make...
  • Knowing mean less than anyone can imagine it meaning. With any two people in the universe being correct at the same time when they know that the other is mistaken (unless you can complete the impossible task of finding two persons who hold exactly similar moral beliefs on all matters)
  • Fact mean ... whatever worthless shit it has to mean to enable the last item. Fact appears to be inseperable from 'currently thinking', becuase every time you change your mind, the new think thing is fact and the old one is ... what?
  • Objective mean ... the opposite of what it actually means when anyone says it. You have rendered one's private internal thinkings objective and the word no longer needs to exist because it has nothing to refer to.
Damned if I can discern why you randomly googled universalizability there. Not that it matters, universalizability doesn't fix anything..
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:25 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:02 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:40 pm
Sorry, but this is false, and perniciously so. Even if people have no choice but to believe what they do, that doesn't make their assertions 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. That's rubbish. The fact that people have opinions doesn't make those opinions facts - or 'relatively factual'. If it did, then the assertion that there are pixies in the garden is 'relatively factual and necessarily so'. Please.
The matter of an assertion is factual relative to the asserter, and this applies to both moral assertions and empirical assertions. To put it another way, it's a fact that the asserter asserts p . As soon as the asserter applies the universalisability principle his moral claim p is weaker and is not a fact. Then p may or may not be statistically significant.
The general concept or principle of moral universalizability is that moral principles, maxims, norms, facts, predicates, rules, etc., are universally true; that is, if they are true as applied to some particular case (an action, person, etc.) then they are true of all other cases of this sort. Some philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, Richard Hare, and Alan Gewirth, have argued that moral universalizability is the foundation of all moral facts. Others have argued that moral universalizability is a necessary, but not a sufficient, test of morality. A few philosophers have also argued that morality is not constrained by universalizability at all.
Googled
To make whatever that crap is work you have to make...
  • Knowing mean less than anyone can imagine it meaning. With any two people in the universe being correct at the same time when they know that the other is mistaken (unless you can complete the impossible task of finding two persons who hold exactly similar moral beliefs on all matters)
  • Fact mean ... whatever worthless shit it has to mean to enable the last item. Fact appears to be inseperable from 'currently thinking', becuase every time you change your mind, the new think thing is fact and the old one is ... what?
  • Objective mean ... the opposite of what it actually means when anyone says it. You have rendered one's private internal thinkings objective and the word no longer needs to exist because it has nothing to refer to.
Damned if I can discern why you randomly googled universalizability there. Not that it matters, universalizability doesn't fix anything..
Agreed. And one reason why it doesn't fix anything is that, if an assertion expresses an opinion with no factual truth-value, 'universalising' it - applying it across time and space - doesn't stop it being an opinion with no factual truth-value. The google passage begins with begging the question by assuming that a moral assertion has a truth-value in the first place.

On the other hand, we do indeed tend to apply our moral opinions - or think they apply - universally. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, we tend to think it always and will be morally wrong everywhere. To think otherwise would be morally inconsistent. And that's one reason for the mistaken belief that morality is objective - that there are moral facts.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:45 pm On the other hand, we do indeed tend to apply our moral opinions - or think they apply - universally. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, we tend to think it always and will be morally wrong everywhere. To think otherwise would be morally inconsistent. And that's one reason for the mistaken belief that morality is objective - that there are moral facts.
Absolutely. But follow the logic of any of the moral realists we have to hand here and they are all bandwagoneers like Belinda deep down. They say that slavery is wrong and that's a fact because if X number of persons believe a thing then that makes it a real and objective thing not a belief that is shared ..... and the upshot is that the heretical sorts who originally said slavery is wrong centuries ago were morally evil.

The decision about what is right and wrong for all of time and space that they offer is made at a time and in a place and is nothing but what was presently fashionable then and there. But that's ok because objective truths that are true across all of time and in all places don'thave to be true anywhere or anywhen, because ... just because alright?

Well I suppose Henry is an exception. But in his other discussion he cannot currently say that lying is wrong because he managed to pick a singular principle that cannot explain why lying is wrong, however he can't say that lying is morally neutral because he doesn't want to look stupid. So problems all round.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

(
Henry) cannot currently say that lying is wrong because he managed to pick a singular principle that cannot explain why lying is wrong
Nope. Leave it to an amoralist to fuck it up.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Oh I'm so sorry for my unforgiveable act of telling the truth, this inexplicable honesty I am doing is just so shameful.

What I did there was say a thing that wasn't a lie without just cause, but in my defence I didn't harm any property by it, so I haven't committed a crime of telling the truth.
Post Reply