What could make morality objective?
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
An instinct to behave in a certain way is not an intrinsically moral instinct. The expression moral instinct is a mash-up of separate claims: there's a behavioural instinct; and the instinct or the behaviour can be thought of as morally significant - morally right or wrong.
Compare 'a moral instinct' with 'a moral action'. If 'moral' in both expressions means 'morally right/good', then the moral judgement is explicit. But we also use the word 'moral' neutrally. to mean 'about or relevant to morality' - as in 'a moral issue' - so 'moral' doesn't always mean 'morally right/good'.
As with the word 'ought', VA's argument equivocates on the word 'moral'.
Compare 'a moral instinct' with 'a moral action'. If 'moral' in both expressions means 'morally right/good', then the moral judgement is explicit. But we also use the word 'moral' neutrally. to mean 'about or relevant to morality' - as in 'a moral issue' - so 'moral' doesn't always mean 'morally right/good'.
As with the word 'ought', VA's argument equivocates on the word 'moral'.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Your objective truth is a subjective evaluation faulty or not, to the individual experience is truth to the group it is agreement. The state of the bridge will always be a subjective evaluation. Granted the physicality of the bridge is what it is, but even this can only be a subjective estimation accurate or not. This is why I say that biology is the measure and meaning of all things, our subjective intelligence is our survival mode we trust it beyond authority.Veritas Aequitas wrote:
"All knowledge is subjective" is a truism, thus moot and a non-starter.
What is critical in your example is objective truth.
There is no reliability whether it is your subjective assessment or the locals' assessment [subjective] is true or not? Since there is no reliability in this case, one will take the no-risk position, i.e. don't drive across the bridge.
What is most reliable is the objective truth regarding the strength of the bridge.
In this case, the objective truth is to get an independent civil engineer to assess the maximum load of that particular bridge.
The engineer independent assessment will depend on his professional expertise in using various objective scientific knowledge.
Therefore, independent objective knowledge trumps subjective knowledge anytime. [/quote]
There is no independent objective knowledge, all knowledge all meanings can only belong to a conscious subject, the physical world is not conscious, objects are not conscious. All knowledge all meaning is relative only to a conscious subject, subjective in this case is evaluation of the relation between the strength of the bridge and the truck that is to cross it; with its subjective content. There is nothing in the world that has knowledge in and of itself but only in relation to a conscious subject.
As is quite well known, the above claims 150, 500, 1000 million miles are identified as subjective claims by different subjects based on their person judgments or from unreliable sources. The scientific know,ledge is the Sun is Appx 93 million miles from Earth.
Surely you would NOT classify this scientific claim as a subjective claim like the above.
As such to differentiate the reliability and credibility of the scientific knowledge, it is generally identified as 'OBJECTIVE' knowledge as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
This is a common practice, why do you want to resist it without any sound basis at all? [/quote]
Well collective subjective knowledge does tend to be more reliable than individual subject knowledge what you are talking about is collective knowledge that has been instituted for the convenience of a conscious subject to reference said collective knowledge but it is still subjective knowledge. Again, objects do have knowledge, the physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject.
In the case above there is no subjective experience to come into play, there is just trust in authority, in hearsay. Here you are assuming others know better than you. It is very thin ice from a subjective perspective and depends upon the level of trust in the experiences of the past with this particular authority.
[/quote]
Hearsay??
Reliance and trust of objective scientific knowledge is hearsay?
It is not merely an assumption but based on past experiences within human history and personally that objective scientific knowledge trumps personal subjective knowledge. Objective knowledge is not a 100% certainty, but its reliability is based on past proven experiences thus in general it is more trustworthy.
In general [there are exceptions], one of the features of Objectivity is testability, repeatability, if you don't trust it, you can repeat the experiments and you will get the same results.
This is still trust in authority well founded as it may be. It is the collective subjective of like biologizes concerning an experience the subject has not had in order to have subjective knowledge of the case of point. TRUST! [/quote]Scientific knowledge is still subjective knowledge, it is collective subjective knowledge of humanity; you keep confusing that matter by inferring there can be knowledge independent of a conscious subject which is absurd.This scientific objectivity is ultimately reinforced by intersubjective agreement [intersubjectivity] within the relevant peers.
j Without this condition of intersubjectivity, no thesis will be recognized as an objective scientific theory, truth or knowledge.
Because it is accepted by peers, it is independent of the individual scientist judgment or belief, thus objective via intersubjectivity.
E.g. the theory of relativity is objective, not because Einstein said so, but because Science [Physics FSK] said so.
Either way it is you trust your own subjective knowledge or you trust the objective knowledge via intersubjectivity.
The difference is;
1. Subjective knowledge = tainted with personal bias and beliefs
2. Objective knowledge = independent of personal bias and beliefs.
Because the subject alone is very fallible, objective knowledge within a credible FSK eliminates as much personal biases and beliefs as possible.
It is trust in the collective subject evaluation as it is instituted. I don't think we really disagree here, but personal subjectivity will always trump the collective if there is a great deal at stake for the individual. Trust will only carry one so far, our personal subjectivity is the individual's survival mode and the measure and meaning of all things. The topic above though is misleading, for the question asks HOW morality becomes objectified and the only possible answer is morality in whatever structure or forms it might take is biological extension, an expression of humanities subjective nature, the subject manifests his sentiments in outward creations.Harping on the term subjective and subjectivity will not generate confidence levels for others to rely upon it to generate utilities.
This is why the term 'objectivity' [via intersubjectivity] is critical to identify the knowledge is reliable as derived from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
As I had stated, whatever is an objective fact must be conditioned upon a credible FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK being the most credible at present.
Then we have a credible moral FSK which rely on its input from the scientific FSK, objective moral fact are derived from the moral FSK with reasonable degree of objectivity.
[/quote]
If a person is sick and facing the treat of mortality, surely the objective knowledge from the medical community in general would trump the personal subjective opinions of the individual? Don't you think so?
It is the same with every field of objective knowledge which will always trump personal subjective opinions and beliefs.
One good example is the subjective personal belief in the existence of a God, where it is claimed creationism trumps objective [intersubjectivity] Physics.
You're a theist? insisting on the subjective belief that God created the world in 7 days?
Re morality, Hume argued that morality is extended from sentiments.
But what are sentiments grounded or emerged from in humans.
Point is whatever the moral sentiments they must emerged from the physical biological brain [there is no other place].
It is only objective knowledge [intersubjectivity] from the various sciences that can verify and justify the existence of the physical neurons, algorithm, processes, DNA, atoms, and quarks in the brain that support and generate those sentiments that lead to the issues of morality.
These PHYSICAL elements are the objective moral facts grounded on INTERSUBJECTIVITY, not on subjective personal beliefs and judgments.
My point;
Whatever is objective [thus reliable] facts is grounded on intersubjectivity within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
Objective moral facts emerged from the moral FSK.
[/quote]
What you've been talking about is the collective subjective knowledge of humanity, so that the individual does not have to invent the wheel again and again. You need to register that all knowledge, all meaning is relative to biology relative to a conscious subject; the physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. You have made this much more difficult than it need be. Objects are biological reactions; they are how the energy of the physical world alters our constitution, our bodies. Even if you take for granted that objects are independent of biology, we still come to know them by the alterations they make to our body and this provides us with what is termed apparent reality, apparent because it's totally relative to our biology.
-
- Posts: 12634
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
As I had stated, this is a truism.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:13 am There is no independent objective knowledge, all knowledge all meanings can only belong to a conscious subject, the physical world is not conscious, objects are not conscious. All knowledge all meaning is relative only to a conscious subject, subjective in this case is evaluation of the relation between the strength of the bridge and the truck that is to cross it; with its subjective content. There is nothing in the world that has knowledge in and of itself but only in relation to a conscious subject.
I have no issues agreeing with the point itself.
It is not me who has been talking about "collective subjective knowledge" but all scientific knowledge other credible knowledge are "collective subjective knowledge".Well collective subjective knowledge does tend to be more reliable than individual subject knowledge what you are talking about is collective knowledge that has been instituted for the convenience of a conscious subject to reference said collective knowledge but it is still subjective knowledge. Again, objects do have knowledge, the physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject.As is quite well known, the above claims 150, 500, 1000 million miles are identified as subjective claims by different subjects based on their person judgments or from unreliable sources. The scientific knowledge is the Sun is Appx 93 million miles from Earth.
Surely you would NOT classify this scientific claim as a subjective claim like the above.
As such to differentiate the reliability and credibility of the scientific knowledge, it is generally identified as 'OBJECTIVE' knowledge as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
This is a common practice, why do you want to resist it without any sound basis at all?
In the case above there is no subjective experience to come into play, there is just trust in authority, in hearsay. Here you are assuming others know better than you. It is very thin ice from a subjective perspective and depends upon the level of trust in the experiences of the past with this particular authority.
What you've been talking about is the collective subjective knowledge of humanity, so that the individual does not have to invent the wheel again and again. You need to register that all knowledge, all meaning is relative to biology relative to a conscious subject; the physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. You have made this much more difficult than it need be. Objects are biological reactions; they are how the energy of the physical world alters our constitution, our bodies. Even if you take for granted that objects are independent of biology, we still come to know them by the alterations they make to our body and this provides us with what is termed apparent reality, apparent because it's totally relative to our biology.
"Collective subjective knowledge" is obviously based on intersubjective agreement or consensus which is termed 'Objective'.
What is 'Objective' i.e. "collective subjective knowledge" is independent of the individual subjective opinions and beliefs.
Note this meaning of 'objectivity' within Philosophy;
"independent from individual subjectivity" is precisely "collective subjective knowledge".In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Would you insist the above Wiki definition of 'Objectivity' [philosophy] is wrong or rather stupid in contrast to your definition.
Btw, do you have a problem with 'theory of mind' i.e. reading the minds of others? or applying the Principle of Charity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
I have already repeated a '1000' times I do agree with the above in the ultimate perspective, [wonder why you cannot get that?],You need to register that all knowledge, all meaning is relative to biology relative to a conscious subject; the physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject.
but in another conventional perspective, e.g. scientific and the likes, 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' [or collective subjective knowledge].
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Consider the following claims.
1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.
2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.
2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
Re: What could make morality objective?
These claims are true because we may be mistaken about the existence of everything except the existence of experience.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:57 pm Consider the following claims.
1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.
2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Okay, so here's a formulation of your argument:Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:57 pmThese claims are true because we may be mistaken about the existence of everything except the existence of experience.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:57 pm Consider the following claims.
1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.
2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
This is a non sequitur. But - please rephrase it if my formulation is incorrect.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Non sequitur or not: both statements are true.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:36 pmOkay, so here's a formulation of your argument:Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:57 pmThese claims are true because we may be mistaken about the existence of everything except the existence of experience.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:57 pm Consider the following claims.
1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.
2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
This is a non sequitur. But - please rephrase it if my formulation is incorrect.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Peter Holmes: Outside of language reality is not linguistic.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:36 pm Okay, so here's a formulation of your argument:
Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
This is a non sequitur. But - please rephrase it if my formulation is incorrect.
Also Peter Holmes: Please give me linguistic arugments with premises and conclusions structured in a man-made linguistic fashion we call "logical deduction". Also please obey these made up linguistic rules while convincing me that social norms are objectively factual
What a troll!
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
So, our perceiving the chemical constitution of water, and describing it as H2O, is what creates the chemical constitution of water as H2O?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:56 pmNon sequitur or not: both statements are true.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:36 pmOkay, so here's a formulation of your argument:
Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
This is a non sequitur. But - please rephrase it if my formulation is incorrect.
Do you really think water is what it is because that's the way we perceive and describe it?
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Gosh first strawman of the week??Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:33 pmSo, our perceiving the chemical constitution of water, and describing it as H2O, is what creates the chemical constitution of water as H2O?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:56 pmNon sequitur or not: both statements are true.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:36 pm
Okay, so here's a formulation of your argument:
Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
This is a non sequitur. But - please rephrase it if my formulation is incorrect.
You might want to learn to read.
Jog on moron
Re: What could make morality objective?
Pretty much! The connotation AND denotation of all terms are socially constructed.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:33 pm So, our perceiving the chemical constitution of water, and describing it as H2O, is what creates the chemical constitution of water as H2O?
Do you really think water is what it is because that's the way we perceive and describe it?
If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. --Max Planck
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
No need to be unpleasant. Sorry if I misunderstood. Glad to know you don't think water is the way it is because that's the way we perceive and describe it.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:34 pmGosh first strawman of the week??Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:33 pmSo, our perceiving the chemical constitution of water, and describing it as H2O, is what creates the chemical constitution of water as H2O?
You might want to learn to read.
Jog on moron
Re: What could make morality objective?
Experience IS reality. There is no other reality except experience. No experience can possibly be not the case. Think of any experience and it cannot be not the case.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:36 pmOkay, so here's a formulation of your argument:Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:57 pmThese claims are true because we may be mistaken about the existence of everything except the existence of experience.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:57 pm Consider the following claims.
1 The perceived (reality) doesn't exist outside a perception. So a perception creates the perceived.
2 The described (reality) doesn't exist outside a description. So a description creates the described.
I think these claims are not only false, but also bizarre. But they inform some arguments for moral objectivity - and not just VA's. So does anyone think they're true? And if so, why?
Premise: We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
This is a non sequitur. But - please rephrase it if my formulation is incorrect.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
The experience of apparent reality is how the energies of the physical world, read the cosmos; alter your biological nature/body. Just as Spinoza pointed out that this is the way we experience the world as object/s. The body is the first idea of the conscious mind, so it stands to reason that this is the way object/s manifest for experiencing biology. Apparent reality is a biological readout, a reaction to the energy conditions that surround us, all of which are in interplay. The alterations made to one's biology is perceptions/experience/knowledge/feelings; the conscious mind then attributes to the physical world the meanings of its biological experiences to the physical world as an object source, hard is hard because that is the way it effects your biology/body. In this way, the energy conditions of the world are transformed through your biology/body as objects, of what was simply energies, which are now objectified as object/s.
Re: What could make morality objective?
You are only making a fool of yourself.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:31 pmNo need to be unpleasant. Sorry if I misunderstood. Glad to know you don't think water is the way it is because that's the way we perceive and describe it.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:34 pmGosh first strawman of the week??Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:33 pm
So, our perceiving the chemical constitution of water, and describing it as H2O, is what creates the chemical constitution of water as H2O?
You might want to learn to read.
Jog on moron
We are talking about these two statement.
1 We can be mistaken about what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
2. Our perceptions and descriptions create what we perceive/experience and describe as reality.
If you were less of a cont and more of a scholar you might have taken the trouble to READ these statements.
It's not about Reality, or your version of it.
It's about how we chose to describe it.
Water is not H2O. H2O is three ASCII characters.
I cannot believe that a person who claims to have an interest in philosophy can be quite so dull witted.