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: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:41 am Naming and describing are different linguistic operations.
No, they aren't. Not when we are dealing with connotation.

Does the word "red" name; or describe the qualitative experience of this color?

If it's just a description, then could you name the color for us?
If it's just a name, then could you describe it?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

I wonder if what might make morality objective is an attitude of disinterest. 'Disinterest' in the sense of justice blindfolded, or the veil of ignorance.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:23 am I wonder if what might make morality objective is an attitude of disinterest. 'Disinterest' in the sense of justice blindfolded, or the veil of ignorance.
The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Saying that moral rightness and wrongness are physical properties is like saying that justice and injustice are physical properties. And the burden of proof (test) is with the claimant - unmet so far, to my knowledge.

But if, instead, the claim is that these are abstract or non-physical properties, the burden of proof (test) is also with the claimant - unmet so far, to my knowledge.

What and where is an abstract or non-physical thing or property, and in what way does it exist?

Counter question: 'What and where are, say, tallness and shortness?' Response: 'Why think that tallness and shortness are non-physical properties?
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 am The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
The "how" of selection is really easy. Trivial in fact - we do it on regular basis with dumb computers.

Just as soon as you tell us what you mean by "correct" I'll tell you how to select all "correct" desires from any given list of desires.

In a declarative query language it's as easy as this:

Code: Select all

SELECT *
FROM desires 
WHERE correct(desire)
All you have to do is provide the test procedure for "correctness". Surely you know how to do that? Surely you know what the term "correct" means - you are using it.

Let us know if you bump into any expressivity issues.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:23 am I wonder if what might make morality objective is an attitude of disinterest. 'Disinterest' in the sense of justice blindfolded, or the veil of ignorance.
The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
Yes, but maybe the correct thing to desire is got from chance not reasoning selection.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:23 am I wonder if what might make morality objective is an attitude of disinterest. 'Disinterest' in the sense of justice blindfolded, or the veil of ignorance.
The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
Yes, but maybe the correct thing to desire is got from chance not reasoning selection.
That's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?

If there is a situation where one circumstance can be described as fair by a capitalist and unfair by a socialist then most of us are probably going to pick the second side. Consider free school lunches for instance, you gotta be a heartless dirtbag not to want all kids to have a nice lunch at school. Yet it's a weirdly controversial subject that is not resoved by calling Walker or Henry a dirtbag.

No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.

The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Naming and describing are different linguistic operations, which is why the assertion 'we name or call this colour red' isn't a description of a colour - and why it has no non-trivial truth-value. (It would be false only if we don't name or call this colour red - if we don't use this linguistic rule.)

But the factual assertion 'this house is red' is a description with a truth-value. If the house is the colour that we name or call blue, then the assertion is false. Descriptions can have truth-value, but names don't.

That names or any other words may have connotations is irrelevant. For example, that we may use a name metaphorically in a description - such as 'a blue mood' - doesn't mean that the name is no longer a name.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:27 pm Naming and describing are different linguistic operations, which is why the assertion 'we name or call this colour red' isn't a description of a colour - and why is has no non-trivial truth-value. (It would be false only if we don't name or call this colour red - if we don't use this linguistic rule.)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What or where are "linguistic rules"?

Lets go with youc assertion. If the English term "red" is not a description of the color red, then ahead and provide a description of the color red.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:27 pm That names or any other words may have connotations is irrelevant.
Yeah, right!

The exact same phrase used ironically has the exact opposite meaning. Because that's how irony works.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 am
The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
Yes, but maybe the correct thing to desire is got from chance not reasoning selection.
That's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?

If there is a situation where one circumstance can be described as fair by a capitalist and unfair by a socialist then most of us are probably going to pick the second side. Consider free school lunches for instance, you gotta be a heartless dirtbag not to want all kids to have a nice lunch at school. Yet it's a weirdly controversial subject that is not resoved by calling Walker or Henry a dirtbag.

No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.

The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
Chance is not mystical woo, chance is another name for 'we don't know and cannot know'. A main gambit in the guessing game is scepticism. With scepticism we are less likely to fall into the arms of fanatics and conmen.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.
And yet that doesn't happen in practice. We actually reach decisions on things rather than all issues remaining indeterminate. Forever.

How come?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
So how did you arrive at skepticism? Why aren't you indeterminate about it?

If you want to peddle indeterminism you should be honest about not being able to determine your own position.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:58 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 am
Yes, but maybe the correct thing to desire is got from chance not reasoning selection.
That's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?

If there is a situation where one circumstance can be described as fair by a capitalist and unfair by a socialist then most of us are probably going to pick the second side. Consider free school lunches for instance, you gotta be a heartless dirtbag not to want all kids to have a nice lunch at school. Yet it's a weirdly controversial subject that is not resoved by calling Walker or Henry a dirtbag.

No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.

The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
Chance is not mystical woo, chance is another name for 'we don't know and cannot know'. A main gambit in the guessing game is scepticism. With scepticism we are less likely to fall into the arms of fanatics and conmen.
The fuck are you on about Belinda?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:42 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:58 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am
That's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?

If there is a situation where one circumstance can be described as fair by a capitalist and unfair by a socialist then most of us are probably going to pick the second side. Consider free school lunches for instance, you gotta be a heartless dirtbag not to want all kids to have a nice lunch at school. Yet it's a weirdly controversial subject that is not resoved by calling Walker or Henry a dirtbag.

No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.

The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
Chance is not mystical woo, chance is another name for 'we don't know and cannot know'. A main gambit in the guessing game is scepticism. With scepticism we are less likely to fall into the arms of fanatics and conmen.
The fuck are you on about Belinda?
I am trying to explain that being a good person is a mixture of chance and choice.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:18 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:42 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:58 pm
Chance is not mystical woo, chance is another name for 'we don't know and cannot know'. A main gambit in the guessing game is scepticism. With scepticism we are less likely to fall into the arms of fanatics and conmen.
The fuck are you on about Belinda?
I am trying to explain that being a good person is a mixture of chance and choice.
How did you get there from this?????
I wonder if what might make morality objective is an attitude of disinterest. 'Disinterest' in the sense of justice blindfolded, or the veil of ignorance.

You never make any sense.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Agent Smith »

"Why? why? why?" thought Maria, "why is he here?" It was too late, Jack had seen her already and was makin' his way towards her, zig-zagging through the crowd of people who were attending the gala. "How nice to see you here Maria. How've you been? This is a pleasant surprise indeed" gushed Jack. Maria, despite her deepening anxiety, still managed a "Hi Jack, long time no see! I'm good and I can see you're doin' great! Should I be congratulating you? I haven't been followin' your work. Been busy!" "Oh! Nothin' to report ma'am, but I've made some progress on bovine metabolism if that's what you wanna know" Jack replied, noticeably disappointed with himself.
Post Reply