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

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:26 am Seems to me the bit up-thread is clear.

What's unclear for you?
The part where you didn't say where that fact is located or what is it a property of.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

I think that, as always, the unacknowledged leap is from 'this is the case' to 'this ought to be the case'.

Henry's proposed fact ('this is the case') is that a woman owns herself. He then leaps to 'therefore, a woman ought to own herself - so anything that robs her of self-ownership is wrong'.

Inability to see the disconnection between the fact (or factual assertion) and the moral conclusion is right at the heart of moral realism and objectivism. And that's why they usually boil down to hand-waving intuition and frustration - 'why can't you see this is morally wrong?' - and often the resort to ad hominems and abuse - as VA and the dick-troll demonstrate. It's like baby frustration.
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 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:04 am
henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:26 am Seems to me the bit up-thread is clear.

What's unclear for you?
The part where you didn't say where that fact is located or what is it a property of.
Yeah, it's all there in the piece, guy.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: not bein' coy...

Post by henry quirk »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:26 pm So, do you agree, Pete, this...

You seem to be saying that moral facts are what make morality objective

...doesn't exactly jibe with my position?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: not bein' coy...

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:43 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:26 pm So, do you agree, Pete, this...

You seem to be saying that moral facts are what make morality objective

...doesn't exactly jibe with my position?
Why doesn't it? You think the wrongness of slavery is an example of a moral fact. Or have I misunderstood?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: not bein' coy...

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:05 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:43 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:26 pm So, do you agree, Pete, this...

You seem to be saying that moral facts are what make morality objective

...doesn't exactly jibe with my position?
Why doesn't it? You think the wrongness of slavery is an example of a moral fact. Or have I misunderstood?
never mind
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: not bein' coy...

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:18 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:05 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:43 am
Why doesn't it? You think the wrongness of slavery is an example of a moral fact. Or have I misunderstood?
never mind
Okay. I'll leave the question standing. Maybe someone else can answer it.

What is the connection between 'X is the case' and 'X ought to be the case'?

How can the first claim entail, induce or just imply the second claim - without begging the question?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: not bein' coy...

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:16 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:18 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:05 pm
Why doesn't it? You think the wrongness of slavery is an example of a moral fact. Or have I misunderstood?
never mind
Okay. I'll leave the question standing. Maybe someone else can answer it.

What is the connection between 'X is the case' and 'X ought to be the case'?

How can the first claim entail, induce or just imply the second claim - without begging the question?
You already know how that's gonna play out...

VA will pipe in and there will another 20 pages of insult and talkin' past each other; Skep will pipe in for yet another 20 pages of insult and not listenin'.

And, me: if I stick my head in the door it'll be for sumthin' other than ridin' the merry go 'round.

I swear, for a guy who's certain moral fact is fiction you sure devote a lot of time fartin' around with it.

We all got hobbies, I guess.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: not bein' coy...

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:39 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:16 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:18 pm

never mind
Okay. I'll leave the question standing. Maybe someone else can answer it.

What is the connection between 'X is the case' and 'X ought to be the case'?

How can the first claim entail, induce or just imply the second claim - without begging the question?
You already know how that's gonna play out...

VA will pipe in and there will another 20 pages of insult and talkin' past each other; Skep will pipe in for yet another 20 pages of insult and not listenin'.

And, me: if I stick my head in the door it'll be for sumthin' other than ridin' the merry go 'round.

I swear, for a guy who's certain moral fact is fiction you sure devote a lot of time fartin' around with it.
Agreed. I need to get a life. And write the novel.

But I think the damage done by people convinced there are moral facts - that, big surprise, happen to be what they believe anyway - that's why showing that morality isn't objective is so important. It has practical, moral consequences.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

That slavery is wrong is, on balance, an historically minority view.

As we speak there are more slaves today than at any point in during the time that it was universally legal.

I'd be pleased to hear how it would be possible to approach this topic in terms of objectivity.
Let's hear a step by step argument.
And please do not just say some nonsense like " ...if you think salvery is okay you must be a moron".
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:08 pm That slavery is wrong is, on balance, an historically minority view.

As we speak there are more slaves today than at any point in during the time that it was universally legal.

I'd be pleased to hear how it would be possible to approach this topic in terms of objectivity.
Let's hear a step by step argument.
And please do not just say some nonsense like " ...if you think salvery is okay you must be a moron".
Veritas will tell you that he already explained to you that "slavery is wrong" is a moral fact per a verified/verifiable and justified/justifiable empirically and philosophically credible moral FSK. He'll direct you to threads where he repeats this 50 times, because that will convince you.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:35 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:08 pm That slavery is wrong is, on balance, an historically minority view.

As we speak there are more slaves today than at any point in during the time that it was universally legal.

I'd be pleased to hear how it would be possible to approach this topic in terms of objectivity.
Let's hear a step by step argument.
And please do not just say some nonsense like " ...if you think salvery is okay you must be a moron".
Veritas will tell you that he already explained to you that "slavery is wrong" is a moral fact per a verified/verifiable and justified/justifiable empirically and philosophically credible moral FSK. He'll direct you to threads where he repeats this 50 times, because that will convince you.
Trouble is that real arguments are a dialogues not a monologues.
Unless he is willing to entertain objections to points along the way, he shall convince no one.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:35 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:08 pm That slavery is wrong is, on balance, an historically minority view.

As we speak there are more slaves today than at any point in during the time that it was universally legal.

I'd be pleased to hear how it would be possible to approach this topic in terms of objectivity.
Let's hear a step by step argument.
And please do not just say some nonsense like " ...if you think salvery is okay you must be a moron".
Veritas will tell you that he already explained to you that "slavery is wrong" is a moral fact per a verified/verifiable and justified/justifiable empirically and philosophically credible moral FSK. He'll direct you to threads where he repeats this 50 times, because that will convince you.
And this has been going on for ages. And when a discussion gets uncomfortable, or a new sparkly idea comes up, that means another OP.

I think this may be the kernel of VA's and the dick-troll's argument: facts are social constructs; therefore, we can and do construct moral facts.

And that's why the ways we use the word fact has loomed so large in these discussions. Facts as 'features of reality that are or were the case' obviously aren't social constructs. But facts as 'descriptions of features of reality' obviously are social, linguistic constructs.

Facts-as-features-of-reality are primary, because the truth of facts-as-descriptions depends on them. But if we forget facts-as features-of-reality, it can seem that there are no such things, but only the social constructs. And that's the corner VA is in; it explains the denial of 'facts-in-themselves' or 'things-in-themselves'.

The irony is that VA insists this argument over moral facts isn't about language (facts-as-descriptions), but rather about real things (facts-as-features-of-reality), while denying that there are such things. Hence the contradiction: there are no facts, and there are moral facts.

It's a tangled web.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:28 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:35 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:08 pm That slavery is wrong is, on balance, an historically minority view.

As we speak there are more slaves today than at any point in during the time that it was universally legal.

I'd be pleased to hear how it would be possible to approach this topic in terms of objectivity.
Let's hear a step by step argument.
And please do not just say some nonsense like " ...if you think salvery is okay you must be a moron".
Veritas will tell you that he already explained to you that "slavery is wrong" is a moral fact per a verified/verifiable and justified/justifiable empirically and philosophically credible moral FSK. He'll direct you to threads where he repeats this 50 times, because that will convince you.
And this has been going on for ages. And when a discussion gets uncomfortable, or a new sparkly idea comes up, that means another OP.

I think this may be the kernel of VA's and the dick-troll's argument: facts are social constructs; therefore, we can and do construct moral facts.

And that's why the ways we use the word fact has loomed so large in these discussions. Facts as 'features of reality that are or were the case' obviously aren't social constructs. But facts as 'descriptions of features of reality' obviously are social, linguistic constructs.

Facts-as-features-of-reality are primary, because the truth of facts-as-descriptions depends on them. But if we forget facts-as features-of-reality, it can seem that there are no such things, but only the social constructs. And that's the corner VA is in; it explains the denial of 'facts-in-themselves' or 'things-in-themselves'.

The irony is that VA insists this argument over moral facts isn't about language (facts-as-descriptions), but rather about real things (facts-as-features-of-reality), while denying that there are such things. Hence the contradiction: there are no facts, and there are moral facts.

It's a tangled web.
Yeah, I actually got VA to claim that there is nothing that is the case if people do not exist.
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 »

But I think the damage done by people convinced there are moral facts - *that, big surprise, happen to be what they believe anyway - **that's why showing that morality isn't objective is so important. It has practical, moral consequences.

*But that's not universally true. I've described my own move from subjectivism to objectivism. Bein' a subjectivist was easier, cleaner (do as thy will is whole of the law); objectivism (moral realism) is harder, requires me to pay attention (there is that which is always impermissible between and among men).

I'd be a liar if I said my old ways didn't still have an appeal...to live without principle can make for a spicy life. Instead, I choose to recognize a certain reality about man (and *ahem* the reality of the Creator) and restrain myself.

Point is: no, not every moral realist is a moral realist cuz he's naturally disposed to be.

**I wonder how many moral realists have been moved by any arguments presented in-forum? How many non-realists, I wonder, have moved becuz of arguments presented in-forum?
Post Reply