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: 3730
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA agrees with the following formulation of her/his argument.

P1 A fact exists only within a 'framework and system of knowledge'. (False, so the argument is unsound.)
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'. (Assumes the conclusion, and so begs the question.)
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective. (Unsupported by the premises.)

VA has not demonstrated the existence of moral facts that can, therefore, be known. All we have is a fictitious 'morality framework and system of knowledge', into which can be fed scientific facts, and out of which moral facts emerge like shit. And how this happens is alimentary.

The actual moment when a scientific (physical) fact transubstantiates into a moral conclusion is a sacred mystery, not to be tarnished by rational scrutiny, or insulted by the skeptical demand for evidence. Shit just happens.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 am
tillingborn wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 1:46 amIt's potayto/potahto.
Is that THE way "we" use words?
We? No idea, I just thought it would be a laugh to see if you rose to the bait.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 am
tillingborn wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 1:46 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:37 amIf we accept your premise (how do we know it's true?)
You already have
Yes, I know I already have. Which is why I have already dismissed Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's notion of objectivity.
Which is why I said if we accept it. Then we can reject Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's notion of objectivity.
I haven't really studied Peter Holmes's notion of objectivity, but from the little I have gleaned, it looks like a fairly standard correspondence theory. You know - there is a world independent of language and it is possible to construct bits of language that accurately describe features of that world.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 amYou understand the scope of "I" vs"we", yes?
Presumably it's you and some unspecified others that may or may not include me, and excludes Peter Holmes.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 am
tillingborn wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 1:46 am Which is precisely the problem of underdetermination.
It's like you didn't hear me say "There are no privileged descriptions." the first 100 times.
It's potato/potaoh I suppose, happy to use your language, but it's not that there are no privileged positions, we just don't know which, if any string of language we assemble actually describes what we might think it describes. You can argue that any description may serve some function, which is true, and that therefore all descriptions are equally valid, which is a point of view you have described and might even have endorsed for the two minutes after you wrote this:
Skepdick wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 amGiven that there are no provileged descriptions - e.g given that all descriptions are of equivalent utility. Then the terms objective and subjective are of equivalent utility also.

If truth is useful then something that's subjectively true is as useful as something that's objectively true.
Clearly the people who believe the world is flat do so for a reason.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 am
tillingborn wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:33 pmWhat reason do you have to doubt the effectiveness of his use of any term?
You mean other than the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about? And since I am the most damn charitable person on this forum I can't assume that he's stupid/ignorant/irrational.
Yep, two minutes:
Skepdick wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 amIf truth is useful then something that's subjectively true is as useful as something that's objectively true.
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: Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:14 am Same old confusion. We use the word fact in two completely different ways, as the following dictionary definition demonstrates:

Fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

Now, words can mean only what we use them to mean. And a thing that is known to exist, or to have occurred, is a thing that exists, or has occurred.

After all,
a thing can't be known to exist or have occurred if it doesn't exist, or didn't occur
- unless, of course, we deny that the word knowledge and its cognates mean what we use them to mean.
That is Circular!
To bank merely on a dictionary in a philosophy forum is kindergartenish & 'cheap'.
Your 'what is fact' as feature of reality, that is the case is the illusory noumenon, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.

Existence is not a predicate.
Existence is "is" which is merely a copula to join a thing with its predicate.
This is what theists insist, i.e. God Exists! but supply no predicates.

As such,
a thing [subject or object] exists [is] as X [predicate].
e.g.
this thing exists as an apple.

What is apple [thing] must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The FSK can be common sense, conventional sense, science-biology [most realistic].
All FSKs are established and maintained by human subjects on a intersubjective basis, thus objective.

Thus, a fact; a thing that is known to exist which must be conditioned upon a specific FSK and it cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

So,
P1 A fact emerges from a 'framework and system of knowledge' [objective].
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'. [Justified elsewhere]
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:14 pm I haven't really studied Peter Holmes's notion of objectivity, but from the little I have gleaned, it looks like a fairly standard correspondence theory. You know - there is a world independent of language and it is possible to construct bits of language that accurately describe features of that world.
Aside from the fact that correspondence is incoherent until you tell me how you've determined whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color, Peter Holmes himself. claims he rejects correspondence.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 9:40 am Correspondence or representationalist theories of truth are mistakes.
tillingborn wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:14 pm It's potato/potaoh I suppose, happy to use your language, but it's not that there are no privileged positions, we just don't know which, if any string of language we assemble actually describes what we might think it describes.
Which is precisely the issue of whether whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color.

Which is precisely why I said that there are no privileged descriptions. Not positions.
tillingborn wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:14 pm Clearly the people who believe the world is flat do so for a reason.
Clearly there are situations in which it's useful to believe that.
And there are situations in which it's not useful to believe that.

There are also situations in which it's useful to believe that yet people don't; in which case they are mistaken not to believe it.
And there are situations in which it's not useful to believe that yet people do; in which case they are mistaken to believe it.

But, of course - if you are heavily biased towards the context-invariant variety of 'objective truth' promulgated by philosophy in general, one might understand why you keep terminating thought at utility, when it's merely the starting point.
tillingborn wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:33 pmYep, two minutes:
Skepdick wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:17 amIf truth is useful then something that's subjectively true is as useful as something that's objectively true.
Seems your watch is broken. As is your thinking equipment.

If the adjectives "subjective" and "objective" are of equivalent utility when (further) qualifying the adjective 'true' then it's even more useful to discard them and let the qualifier 'true' do all the useful work.

Unless you think that using one or the other adjective is more useful for some particular purpose, in which case it would be incredibly useful to inform your interlocutors what that purpose is.

What is the purpose of using more words to say the same thing when less words would suffice? Oh, I know!

The primary purpose of stacking adjectives in philosophy is to leave an escape hatch open for when your words fail.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amAside from the fact that correspondence is incoherent until you tell me how you've determined whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color, Peter Holmes himself. claims he rejects correspondence.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 9:40 am Correspondence or representationalist theories of truth are mistakes.
Oh good, neither Peter Holmes nor myself advocate correspondence, so you can save your silly 'what colour is this' schtick for people who do.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 am
tillingborn wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:14 pmIt's potato/potaoh I suppose, happy to use your language, but it's not that there are no privileged positions, we just don't know which, if any string of language we assemble actually describes what we might think it describes.
Which is precisely the issue of whether whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color.
It's not an issue between people who are not advocating correspondence.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amWhich is precisely why I said that there are no privileged descriptions. Not positions.
Potato/potaoh.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amBut, of course - if you are heavily biased towards the context-invariant variety of 'objective truth' promulgated by philosophy in general
Depends what you mean by 'philosophy in general'. There certainly have been philosophers, who for convenience I will put under the umbrella term rationalists, who have attempted to discover some context invariant objective truth. The most famous example being Descartes whose method of doubt brought him to 'I think, therefore I am'. Then there are others who take the Socratic method to heart. Plato's major works include many that pit someone who believes there are privileged descriptions against Socrates who invariably dismantles whatever not so privileged description is being touted. Among contemporary philosophers, most rationalists will concede that their best hope is inference to the best explanation, the exceptions are often religious philosophers for whom the belief in an objective god serves some function. "Context-invariant variety of 'objective truth' promulgated by philosophy in general" is not an objective truth anywhere but the context you invent according to which that's exactly what it means.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amone might understand why you keep terminating thought at utility, when it's merely the starting point.
I have thoughts that serve no useful function all the time. If I express a thought, it is usually for a reason, and usually in terms I hope whoever is listening might understand, including you. And then you keep making up stuff about how I "keep terminating thought at utility".
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amAside from the fact that correspondence is incoherent until you tell me how you've determined whether "red "or "blue" better corresponds to this color, Peter Holmes himself. claims he rejects correspondence.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 9:40 am Correspondence or representationalist theories of truth are mistakes.
Oh good, neither Peter Holmes nor myself advocate correspondence, so you can save your silly 'what colour is this' schtick for people who do.
Oh good! Since you don't advocate for correspondence I wonder what leads you to assume my "schtick" has anything to do with correspondence?

I am simply asking an open ended question: What makes it true that this color is red?

You are free to answer with a truth-theory that isn't the correspondence theory. Or if you want to agree to my theory - just the same: truth is the property of all true things.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am It's not an issue between people who are not advocating correspondence.
Semantics really isn't going to help you avoid inserting this cactus into your rectum.

What makes it true that this color is red?
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am Depends what you mean by 'philosophy in general'. There certainly have been philosophers, who for convenience I will put under the umbrella term rationalists, who have attempted to discover some context invariant objective truth.
To avoid getting lost in abstract generalities lets narrow the scope down a little, shall we? Lets talk about you.

You seem to have settled on some context invariant "utility".
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am The most famous example being Descartes whose method of doubt brought him to 'I think, therefore I am'.
And he was an idiot for doing so. I think therefore I am hinges his existence on the assumption that his assertion "I think" is correct.

But what makes the particular description "I think" "correct"? Does it mean that if Descartes wasn't thinking (maybe he was computing? Or reasoning? Maybe something else entirely?) then he wasn't?
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am Then there are others who take the Socratic method to heart. Plato's major works include many that pit someone who believes there are privileged descriptions against Socrates who invariably dismantles whatever not so privileged description is being touted. Among contemporary philosophers, most rationalists will concede that their best hope is inference to the best explanation, the exceptions are often religious philosophers for whom the belief in an objective god serves some function. "Context-invariant variety of 'objective truth' promulgated by philosophy in general" is not an objective truth anywhere but the context you invent according to which that's exactly what it means.
Uhuh.

And what makes any of those theories "correct"?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amone might understand why you keep terminating thought at utility, when it's merely the starting point.
I have thoughts that serve no useful function all the time.
[/quote]
Great. Do you want to tell us all about your classification rule?

The one which helps you classify some thoughts as "useful" and other thoughts as "not useful"
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 am If I express a thought, it is usually for a reason, and usually in terms I hope whoever is listening might understand, including you.
Yet you never seem to be able to articulate that reason. Even when prompted to switch modes of communication from abstract generalities to concrete particulars.

I wonder why.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 am And then you keep making up stuff about how I "keep terminating thought at utility".
Am I making it up?

You still haven't made your utility function explicit.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amI am simply asking an open ended question: What makes it true that this color is red?
And I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amYou are free to answer with a truth-theory that isn't the correspondence theory. Or if you want to agree to my theory - just the same: truth is the property of all true things.
So it's true because it's true. Fine by me.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amWhat makes it true that this color is red?
It's true because it's true.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amYou seem to have settled on some context invariant "utility".
It may seem like that to you, but to me it wouldn't be utility if it were context invariant.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 am
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:14 am The most famous example being Descartes whose method of doubt brought him to 'I think, therefore I am'.
And he was an idiot for doing so. I think therefore I am hinges his existence on the assumption that his assertion "I think" is correct.

But what makes the particular description "I think" "correct"? Does it mean that if Descartes wasn't thinking (maybe he was computing? Or reasoning? Maybe something else entirely?) then he wasn't?
Descartes just bundled all experience into the word think. The context was that there was some sort of consciousness, part of which was an experience of Descartesness, which Descartes took to be himself. Now, you can argue that all that the experience of Descartesness could conclude is that there was an experience of Descartesness, which does not necessarily correspond to any supplementary Descartes.

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amDo you want to tell us all about your classification rule?

The one which helps you classify some thoughts as "useful" and other thoughts as "not useful"
Certainly: whatever I find useful, whenever I find it useful, for whatever purpose I find it useful.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amI am simply asking an open ended question: What makes it true that this color is red?
And I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
Ah, even better!

So you don't think this color is red? What do you think it is?
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am So it's true because it's true. Fine by me.
So.. do you think it's true that murder is wrong?

tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am It may seem like that to you, but to me it wouldn't be utility if it were context invariant.
That's a pretty weird conception to me. In the context of time what makes something useful now and not useful in the very next moment?
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Descartes just bundled all experience into the word think.
And you are just doing the same sort of bundling into the word "experience".
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am The context was that there was some sort of consciousness, part of which was an experience of Descartesness, which Descartes took to be himself. Now, you can argue that all that the experience of Descartesness could conclude is that there was an experience of Descartesness, which does not necessarily correspond to any supplementary Descartes.
Yeah. I am not sure what the difference is between "Experiencing", "Being conscious", "being aware". Because there are no privileged descriptions...so they all seem the same to me.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Certainly: whatever I find useful, whenever I find it useful, for whatever purpose I find it useful.
So you you can't tell us how you distinguish between useful and non-useful things without falling into circularity?

That's useless to us.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:36 am
P1 A fact emerges from a 'framework and system of knowledge' [objective].
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'. [Justified elsewhere]
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.
P1 is false, so the argument is unsound. The end. But -
P2 is unjustified, and anyway begs the question. And -
C is unsupported by the premises.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:26 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:36 am
P1 A fact emerges from a 'framework and system of knowledge' [objective].
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'. [Justified elsewhere]
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.
P1 is false.
No it isn't.

What makes it a fact that your body; or that the world is "physical"?
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 amSo you don't think this color is red? What do you think it is?
It's red because it's red.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 am
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am So it's true because it's true. Fine by me.
So.. do you think it's true that murder is wrong?
It's wrong because it's wrong.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 am
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am It may seem like that to you, but to me it wouldn't be utility if it were context invariant.
That's a pretty weird conception to me. In the context of time what makes something useful now and not useful in the very next moment?
I don't have the same requirements all of the time. To me it would be pretty weird if you do.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 am
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Descartes just bundled all experience into the word think.
And you are just doing the same sort of bundling into the word "experience".
Yep.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 amYeah. I am not sure what the difference is between "Experiencing", "Being conscious", "being aware". Because there are no privileged descriptions...so they all seem the same to me.
So you too are happy to bundle them into the same bundle.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 am So you you can't tell us how you distinguish between useful and non-useful things without falling into circularity?

That's useless to us.
Poor you. What usefulness are you missing out on?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 amSo you don't think this color is red? What do you think it is?
It's red because it's red.
So this color is red but it's not true that it's red?

You sound very fucking confused.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm It's wrong because it's wrong.
So murder is wrong but it's not true that it's wrong?

You sound very fucking confused.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm I don't have the same requirements all of the time. To me it would be pretty weird if you do.
It sounds like you didn't understand the question. I didn't ask you what requirements you had "all" the time.

I asked you about the change from usefulness to non-usefulness from one moment to the next.

What could possibly cause such a change?

tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm So you too are happy to bundle them into the same bundle.
I am not. I am asking if there's a difference.

If there is a difference - they they go in different bundles.
If there is no difference - they go into the same bundle.

Is there a difference?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 am Poor you. What usefulness are you missing out on?
Knowing your classification rule for classifying things as "useful" and "not useful".
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:17 pm
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 amSo you don't think this color is red? What do you think it is?
It's red because it's red.
So this color is red but it's not true that it's red?

You sound very fucking confused.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amtruth is the property of all true things.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:17 pm
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm It's wrong because it's wrong.
So murder is wrong but it's not true that it's wrong?

You sound very fucking confused.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amtruth is the property of all true things.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:17 pm
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm I don't have the same requirements all of the time. To me it would be pretty weird if you do.
It sounds like you didn't understand the question. I didn't ask you what requirements you had "all" the time.

I asked you about the change from usefulness to non-usefulness from one moment to the next.

What could possibly cause such a change?
How useful to have a parachute. I have landed safely.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 am
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm So you too are happy to bundle them into the same bundle.
I am not. I am asking if there's a difference.

If there is a difference - they they go in different bundles.
If there is no difference - they go into the same bundle.

Is there a difference?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 amthey all seem the same to me.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 am Poor you. What usefulness are you missing out on?
You sound very confused. It was me that wrote that.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 am Knowing your classification rule for classifying things as "useful" and "not useful".
Ah well. What do you imagine I might gain from telling you?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:35 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:17 pm
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:07 pm It's red because it's red.
So this color is red but it's not true that it's red?

You sound very fucking confused.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amtruth is the property of all true things.
Yes those are my words.

Here are your words.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am And I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
So it follows from your words that you don't think it's true that this color is red.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:35 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amtruth is the property of all true things.
Yes indeed. Those are my words.

Here are your words.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am And I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
So it follows from your words that you don't think it's true that murder is wrong.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am How useful to have a parachute. I have landed safely.
There we go! A fucking use-case!. Finally.

So when does it stop being useful saying that murder is objectively wrong? When do we "land safety" metaphorically speaking?
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 amthey all seem the same to me.
You forgot this part:
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 am I am asking if there's a difference.
For the stupid kid in the conversation (you). Things seeming the same and me looking for a difference between then are not mutually exclusive.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Ah well. What do you imagine I might gain from telling you?
I imagine letting other people know what you want helps tremendously with other people helping you get it.

I also imagine it helps aligning priorities.

You know - all sorts of social/cooperative stuff. Totally unlike adversarial philosophy.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:52 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 amtruth is the property of all true things.
Yes those are my words.

Here are your words.
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am And I will answer it openly once you have demonstrated that it is in fact true.
So it follows from your words that you don't think it's true that this color is red.
You seem very confused. Whatever logic you have used to arrive at that conclusion, I do not think it will be useful to me.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:52 pm
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am How useful to have a parachute. I have landed safely.
There we go! A fucking use-case!. Finally.

So when does it stop being useful saying that murder is objectively wrong? When do we "land safety" metaphorically speaking?
Who said murder is objectively wrong? And anyway:
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:06 amIf the adjectives "subjective" and "objective" are of equivalent utility when (further) qualifying the adjective 'true' then it's even more useful to discard them and let the qualifier 'true' do all the useful work.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:52 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:30 amthey all seem the same to me.
You forgot this part:
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:33 am I am asking if there's a difference.
For the stupid kid in the conversation (you). Things seeming the same and me looking for a difference between then are not mutually exclusive.
So you ask the stupid kid in the conversation to find the difference for you. Are you sure I'm the stupid kid?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:52 pm
tillingborn wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:21 am Ah well. What do you imagine I might gain from telling you?
I imagine letting other people know what you want helps tremendously with other people helping you get it.
What do you have that you think I might want?
Post Reply