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: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:33 pm The word "red" is just a label that refers to something, and could be changed arbitrarily, but H20 is a description. The two are not comparable. What Peter Holmes said seems legitimate to me. I'm just saying, but I don't intend to argue about it.
Obviously it's a label. The question in is WHERE is the referent?

Where is this color?

Is the expression "red" refering to a property of this sentence, or a property of our experience of this sentence?

The fact that it's an expression should give you a hint...
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:23 pm
Nah, I just make fun of people who seem to take philosophy seriously.
There's certainly nothing wrong with doing that, but there doesn't seem to be anything funny about the way you go about it. That's only an opinion, of course, and perhaps my failure to see the funny aspect of it is due to my having a sense of humour.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:41 pm There's certainly nothing wrong with doing that, but there doesn't seem to be anything funny about the way you go about it. That's only an opinion, of course, and perhaps my failure to see the funny aspect of it is due to my having a sense of humour.
You don't think using philosophy's own methods against it and watching it backfire is hilarious?

If I am going to be playing language games then I might as well use an always-winning strategy from game theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy- ... tructivity

If the whole thing is a game of gotcha and burden-tennins it seems weebit lame to play the game, no?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:42 pm
You don't think using philosophy's own methods against it and watching it backfire is hilarious?
I probably don't know enough about philosophy, and its methods, to be able to fully appreciate the humour.
If the whole thing is a game of gotcha and burden-tennins it seems weebit lame to play the game, no?
I have no idea what that means, but I know better than to ask you to explain. :|
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:49 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:42 pm
You don't think using philosophy's own methods against it and watching it backfire is hilarious?
I probably don't know enough about philosophy, and its methods, to be able to fully appreciate the humour.
If the whole thing is a game of gotcha and burden-tennins it seems weebit lame to play the game, no?
I have no idea what that means, but I know better than to ask you to explain. :|
I suspect you already know what it means.

That's why you haven't defined "define" (to my satisfaction) yet.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:52 pm
Harbal wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:49 pm
I have no idea what that means, but I know better than to ask you to explain. :|
I suspect you already know what it means.

That's why you haven't defined "define" (to my satisfaction) yet.
No, I'm pretty honest. If I say I don't know what something means, it is highly likely to be the truth.

As for defining "define", you must remain unsatisfied, I'm afraid. :(
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:59 pm No, I'm pretty honest. If I say I don't know what something means, it is highly likely to be the truth.

As for defining "define", you must remain unsatisfied, I'm afraid. :(
In which case I don't know what "define" means either.

PIty - you can't seem to show me what that label refers to...
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 3:01 pm
In which case I don't know what "define" means either.

And you can't seem to show me.
I won't be showing you what it means, and I can't think of a way of just seeming to show you, so you are right about that.
PIty - you can't seem to show me what that label refers to...
I know. :cry:
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Harbal wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:33 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:15 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:03 pm 2 The whole point of objectivity is independence from subjectivity, individual or collective. But your argument is this: It's the collective consensus opinion of [chemists] that water is H2O; therefore, (it's a fact that) water is H2O. And that's a non sequitur fallacy, because if their collective opinion were that water is not H2O, water would still be H2O. So their collective consensus opinion is irrelevant.
What a dumb fucking cunt!

So if the collective opinions of humans was that this color is blue, this color would still be red?

The word "red" is just a label that refers to something, and could be changed arbitrarily, but H20 is a description. The two are not comparable. What Peter Holmes said seems legitimate to me. I'm just saying, but I don't intend to argue about it.
Dick-for-brains is an offensive, moronic troll who's still excited by the discovery that signifiers are arbitrary, and that signs don't magically contain signifieds. Having googled, the fuckwit thinks that symbol-grounding is a problem. There's no hope.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 3:40 pm Dick-for-brains is an offensive, moronic troll who's still excited by the discovery that signifiers are arbitrary, and that signs don't magically contain signifieds. Having googled, the fuckwit thinks that symbol-grounding is a problem. There's no hope.
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes still doesn't get the point (and so he keeps strawmanning what I'm saying) that this is not about the signifiers, but about the location of the signified.

He thinks he's talking about properties of objects (like the dumb, naive realist he is) when he's actually talking about the properties/qualities of his experiences. The fucking idiot doesn't understand that we humans have no direct access to anything except through the lens of our perception.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes doesn't realize that "red" is not a property of this sentence. It's a property of his experience of this sentence.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is literally confused about what "it" is that he's talking about!

You know what also happens in his head? Quantities! The signifier 2 represents the semantic content. If the signifiers are "arbitrary" then what we call H2O could've been signified by H7O instead, no?

Language does NOT an cannot express anything about an "external" reality. This is the Logocentrist lie.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 3:47 pmLanguage does NOT an cannot express anything about an "external" reality.
Of course it can. We just can't know when it does.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

"Language does NOT an cannot express anything about an "external" reality. This is the Logocentrist lie."

i knew a legocentrist once when i wuz in grade school. The kid refused to use lincoln logs or any other substitute for building.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:31 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:49 am Water is/is not H2O.
It's a fact that water is/is not H2O.
It's true that water is/is not H2O.
It's an objectively true fact that water is/not objectively H2O.

The bit that matters is 'water is H2O' - and all the rest is rhetorical emphasis, just as it is in moral assertions.
The difference is that 'water is H2O' has a factual truth-value, whereas 'abortion is morally wrong' DOES NOT, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.
You are very ignorant and trying to be deceptive with the above.

As I had stated,
that 'water is/is-not H20' cannot be confirmed by your father or mother.
that 'water is H20' can only be confirmed by the authority of the Science-Chemistry FSK.
the Science-Chemistry FSK is objective since it is maintained and sustained by a collective of subjects [scientists], i.e. intersubjective and not based on ONE subject.
It is an objective scientific-Chemistry fact that Water is H20.
that 'water is H2O' only has truth-value within the Science-Chemistry FSK, not the science-biology nor the legal-FSK nor other FSKs.

Similarly,
that 'moral facts are objective' cannot be confirmed by your father or mother.
that 'moral facts are objective' can only be confirmed by the authority of the Moral FSK.
the moral FSK is objective since it is maintained and sustained by a collective of subjects [scientists], i.e. intersubjective and not based on ONE subject.
It is an objective moral fact that 'no human ought to kill humans' as justified via the science-biology FSK and imputed into a moral FSK.
that 'no human ought to kill humans' only has truth-value within the moral FSK, not the science-chemistry FSK, science-physics FSK nor the legal-FSK nor other FSKs.
This is fallacious hogwash from start to finish - and here's why.

1 The fact that water is H2O is independent from its confirmation by 'the authority' of chemists. If it weren't, then they couldn't confirm it. You mistake the description for the described. The 'authority' or credibility of a kind of description comes from its ability to describe something that actually exists.
Seem you are the one who need to wash off those hog shit from your brain.

You are BEGGING THE QUESTION in the above i.e. assuming your fact exists as real before proving it is even possible. Note this;
PH's What is Fact is Illusory.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You have not proven your 'fact' actually exists as real?
All you have is blabbering 'a fact is a feature of reality which is just-is'.

Strawman again.
I do not conflate 'the description' with 'the described'.
The 'millionth' time, there is a realization process before real things are known and subsequently described with descriptions.

I repeat;
that 'water is/is-not H20' cannot be confirmed by your father or mother.
that 'water is H20' can only be confirmed by the authority of the Science-Chemistry FSK.
the Science-Chemistry FSK is objective since it is maintained and sustained by a collective of subjects [scientists], i.e. intersubjective and not based on ONE subject.
It is an objective scientific-Chemistry fact that Water is H20.
that 'water is H2O' only has truth-value within the Science-Chemistry FSK, not the science-biology nor the legal-FSK nor other FSKs.
1 The fact that water is H2O is independent from its confirmation by 'the authority' of chemists. If it weren't, then they couldn't confirm it.
Ignorant again!
There is no certainty in Science.
Whatever science confirms is conditioned to the scientific FSK; science has been wrong many times and had changed their conclusions.

So there is no 'water is H20' that is an independent fact from the science-chemistry FSK.
That you believe otherwise is based on your unsubstantiated thoughts driven by an inevitable existential crisis to conjure up an illusory noumena [an independent what is H20] from the FSK-based phenomena that 'water is H20'.

What is really real, i.e. 'water as H20' ice, snow, vapor, etc. is the emerging realization of the wholeness of the entanglement of your experiences, plus rational deliberation, the process of the scientific-chemistry FSK and the trust you placed on the scientific FSK.
2 The whole point of objectivity is independence from subjectivity, individual or collective. But your argument is this: It's the collective consensus opinion of [chemists] that water is H2O; therefore, (it's a fact that) water is H2O. And that's a non sequitur fallacy, because if their collective opinion were that water is not H2O, water would still be H2O. So their collective consensus opinion is irrelevant.
Wrong again!
Note this thread;
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Just like your illusory fact, you are adopting the delusional sense of 'objectivity'.
Prove to me your sense of 'objective reality' is realistic and tenable?

My main point is, that 'water is H20' or whatever the fact is, that fact cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions due to the imperative collective consensus of subjects within the respective FSKs.

In addition the 'FSK-based-Objectivity' comes in degrees depending on the credibility and reliability of each FSK of which the scientific FSK is the standard at present.
3 There is no 'morality FSK' in any way analogous to chemistry. You've just made that up. It doesn't exist. So, of course, there are no moral facts that a morality FSK can or does confirm - just as there are no astrological or phrenological facts that an astrology or phrenology FSK can or does confirm.
Don't insult your own intelligence with the above.
Again you are ignorant of such common knowledge of Framework and System.
A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole.[1] A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning. Systems are the subjects of study of systems theory and other systems sciences.
Systems have several common properties and characteristics, including structure, function(s), behavior and interconnectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
Note this and make sure it sink into your deep skull [not likely];

Image

A FSK is closed-system with its specific Framework and boundaries.

Just like the scientific FSK, a Morality-FSK is just any FSK that satisfy the above features, just like the scientific FSK.

As I had stated, the Morality-FSK critical inputs are scientific facts from the scientific FSK, which lend credibility and reliability to the moral-FSK.

In the above sense of FSK as defined, there is an astrology FSK or phrenology FSK, but as contrasted with the objectivity, credibility and reliability of the scientific FSK, these FSKs are way off the standard.
4 The neurological facts described by neuroscientists don't exist simply because there is neuroscience. They just are the case. And those facts - for example neurological causes for types of behaviour - are completely morally neutral, like all scientific facts.
Note my response to your 1-3 above refute your above claim.
There are no neurological facts without the science-neuroscience FSK.
When the neurological facts from the neuroscience-FSK are inputted into the moral-FSK they enable objective moral facts.

Example, when scientific forensic facts [e.g. DNA evidence critical to convict a murderer] are inputted into a legal FSK, they enable legal facts to emerge from the legal FSK.

To drive home the point;
SAY-example, it is a legal fact, Peter Holmes was a convicted rapist-murder sentenced to life imprisonment; the critical evidence is the DNA [forensic scientific facts] of Peter Holmes sperm found in the victim's vagina and his DNA was on the knife that killed the victim. You cannot deny such is a legal-fact within the legal FSK of UK laws processed within the Old Bailey.
As Iwannaplato has repeatedly pointed out, the decision to enhance or encourage some neurologically-caused behaviour rather than others is subjective. You think we ought to enhance or encourage not-killing-humans - and that's your moral opinion. But it's NOT a moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans. The expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.
I had stated the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' is inferred [to be verified and justified scientifically via the scientific FSK] and inputted into the moral FSK to enable the emergence of it as a moral fact.

If it is merely MY decision we ought to enhance or encourage not-killing-humans , then it is subjective moral opinion.
I am not claiming the decisions taken are the moral facts.

What I am claiming is,
the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human as a matter of fact represented by physical neurons, neural correlates, neural algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks as scientific facts are also objective moral facts as conditioned upon the moral FSK.
In the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human if first a matter of fact, i.e. science-biological fact, then it is a moral fact when inputted into the moral FSK.

Morality-proper in alignment with human nature is the elimination of evil acts [& thoughts] to enable its related goods.
When we accept the above as the main constitutional element of morality proper, enabling the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human as a matter of fact to unfold is merely conforming to what is natural, like the natural ought-ness to breathe.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 3:40 pm Dick-for-brains is an offensive, moronic troll who's still excited by the discovery that signifiers are arbitrary, and that signs don't magically contain signifieds. Having googled, the fuckwit thinks that symbol-grounding is a problem. There's no hope.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 3:47 pm Language does NOT an cannot express anything about an "external" reality. This is the Logocentrist lie.
I hope this "Logocentrism lie" will sink into PH thick skull [but I am not optimistic it will];
"Logocentrism" is a term coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Klages in the early 1900s.[1] It refers to the tradition of Western science and philosophy that regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality. It holds the logos as epistemologically superior and that there is an original, irreducible object which the logos represent. According to logocentrism, the logos is the ideal representation of the Platonic ideal.
ibid
This above is further developed into the 'Ordinary Language Philosophy' "-ISM" where PH claimed 'meaning is use'.
'Ordinary Language Philosophy' as as 'ism' is now defunct, The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
yet PH is still clinging onto this ideology dogmatically with his illusory 'what is fact' as understood by 'ordinary English speakers'.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:17 am
Someday, perhaps, VA will learn that finding a philosopher or even a school of philosophers who disagree with someone VA disagrees with is not proof the other person is wrong, nor does it spell the death knell of something.

He has used Grice before and clearly does not even read the links he gives people....

viewtopic.php?p=581308#p581308
viewtopic.php?p=581439#p581439
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply