It's not just we that disagree, we just seem to be on different wavelengths. Your questions seem irrelevant to my argument, and my responses seem irrelevant to you. The discussion is becoming tedious with no prospect of a satisfying outcome for either of us. My apologies for the more flippant remarks that I've made.
What could make morality objective?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Re: What could make morality objective?
My questions are on-point striking at the foundation (or lack thereof) of your argument.
You cannot justify any of your distinctions. That doesn't throw your argument in the trashcan - it junks all analytic philosophy.
I am not trying to satisfy me - I am trying to satisfy you, given your own claims about the rules you claim you practice.
You insist to be following a set of rules for distinguishing between "subjectivity" and "objectivity", but you can't even falsify the rule-following claim for yourself.
You can't even tell if you've mistaken the objective for subjective; or the subjective for objective (Type I and Type II errors) because you have no empirically-testable criteria for "wrongness".
Shame.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
The problem is that objective and subjective are not diametric opposites like black and white rather more shades of grey
At one end of the spectrum is the absolutely objective while at the other end of the spectrum is the absolutely subjective
They are the easy parts but the further away from them one gets the less clear it is as to what is objective and subjective
As human beings we like to put things into nice neat boxes when understanding how the observable Universe operates
But reality does not operate according to the principle of nice neat hermetically sealed boxes devised by human beings
But instead is one continuous stream of existence that is messy and complicated and sometimes even incomprehensible
The map is important because it is the best that we have but the map is not the territory merely an approximation of it and nothing else
Our knowledge will never be perfect so the best we can hope for is to be as least imperfect as possible - hence mathematics and science
At one end of the spectrum is the absolutely objective while at the other end of the spectrum is the absolutely subjective
They are the easy parts but the further away from them one gets the less clear it is as to what is objective and subjective
As human beings we like to put things into nice neat boxes when understanding how the observable Universe operates
But reality does not operate according to the principle of nice neat hermetically sealed boxes devised by human beings
But instead is one continuous stream of existence that is messy and complicated and sometimes even incomprehensible
The map is important because it is the best that we have but the map is not the territory merely an approximation of it and nothing else
Our knowledge will never be perfect so the best we can hope for is to be as least imperfect as possible - hence mathematics and science
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
But you are on a philosophy forum discussing philosophy with other membersSkepdick wrote:
I dont read philosophy books
So you must at least be interested in it as a subject or else why are you here
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Descriptions for them both that are as rigorous as possible in order to minimise any future / potential errorsSkepdick wrote:
How would you know if you are following the rules for subjectivity and objectivity incorrectly if you dont have a concept for incorrectness ?
What legitimises the correctness of the subjective / objective distinction ?
This is the principle on which the scientific method is based and is why it is the best methodology we have
Of course language is descriptive rather than prescriptive but one should always strive for maximum clarity
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
As already mentioned they are not diametric opposites and so the rules will be fuzzy - hence the confusionSkepdick wrote:
You insist to be following a set of rules for distinguishing between subjectivity and objectivity
For this very reason the rules that do exist should therefore be regarded as inductive rather than deductive
Re: What could make morality objective?
I'm not ignoring you, IC, it's just that, firstly, circumstances prevented me from replying, and then different circumstances made my replying unwise. I will reply tomorrow, when circumstances will, I hope, be more favourable. If this explanation sounds a bit bizarre, blame it on the second lot of circumstances.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:03 pm
I think that's partly true. But I also think there are some ways of resolving that.
Re: What could make morality objective?
I am discussing things. Epistemology mostly.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 8:30 pm But you are on a philosophy forum discussing philosophy with other members
So you must at least be interested in it as a subject or else why are you here
Whether it is philosophy or science I am discussing is a matter of opinion.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy and so when you are discussing it then you are by default doing philosophySkepdick wrote:
Whether it is philosophy or science I am discussing is a matter of opinion
Science deals with the observable and philosophy deals with the abstract and so that is where the distinction lies
Re: What could make morality objective?
That's what philosophers think. The generalised laws of probability theory/quantum computation are the foundation of epistemology.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 9:29 pm Epistemology is a branch of philosophy and so when you are discussing it then you are by default doing philosophy
I didn't learn any of those methods from philosophy, I learned them through application - empirically.
And computer science deals with grounding abstract logical/mathematical models onto the empirical tarmac.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 9:29 pm Science deals with the observable and philosophy deals with the abstract and so that is where the distinction lies
Realization
Re: What could make morality objective?
Skepdick, what you made was a claim about the decreasing number of 'murders'. Somewhere in the fog you forgot to mention what types of killing you count as murder - the killing that provokes the subjective emotional response that you confuse with objectivity.
Once you take away all the 'I'm a mathematico-Bayesian computer scientist' bollocks, your argument, as you have presented it, is that murder rates could go up, they could stay the same or they could go down. Since there are three possibilities, the odds of any one of them being the case are 1 in 3. Slightly against the odds, murder rates are going down. This demands an explanation, an objective one at that, and that is that morality is objective - if it wasn't we'd all still be swinging from the trees.
You have been so busy making an arse of yourself again that you have lost sight of the fact that I am not trying to defend a claim that morality is objective. Do your own donkey work, but for fuck sake do it better than the woeful drivel you usually serve up.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Naw, I get it, H. Take your time. No worries.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 9:12 pmI'm not ignoring you, IC, it's just that, firstly, circumstances prevented me from replying, and then different circumstances made my replying unwise. I will reply tomorrow, when circumstances will, I hope, be more favourable. If this explanation sounds a bit bizarre, blame it on the second lot of circumstances.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:03 pm
I think that's partly true. But I also think there are some ways of resolving that.
Re: What could make morality objective?
So you are still hung up on definitions and stupid linguistic/semantic distinctions, huh? The emotional response is your programming. It existed long before we invented the word "murder". The emotional response to unjustifiable killing is the objective causal factor for why we have legal systems; and why we bothered to define "murder".
But if you still insist it's a relevant distinction, go do your homework and find out the number of intentional killings which aren't murders and compare them. You are trying to attach equivalent significance to events which are orders of magnitude apart in prevalence. I imagine because this ambiguity/obscurantism strengthens a skeptical argument.
In the mean time, whatever types of killing are included in the data being reported as "murder and violence" - that is what I am including.
I didn't do the classification - I am only doing the data analysis.
https://ourworldindata.org/homicides#ho ... -over-time
Once you take away all the "mathematical bollocks" you are reducing my argument to a number, completely ignoring the semantic of probability theory. Statistics are meaningless without confidence intervals.uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 10:18 pm Once you take away all the 'I'm a mathematico-Bayesian computer scientist' bollocks, your argument, as you have presented it, is that murder rates could go up, they could stay the same or they could go down. Since there are three possibilities, the odds of any one of them being the case are 1 in 3.
1 in 3 on a week-long observation is not the same as 1 in 3 over 500 years of observation.
So it's only apt that TimeSeeker should remind you about the significance of time when weighing evidence.
I don't think anybody who quantitatively comprehends the statistical significance of a 500+ year trend would use the word "slightly" in this context.
Comparatively - physicists make up their minds on much, much weaker evidence.
I'll happily notch your evidentiary tone-deafness to your indifference to the "mathematico-Bayesian computer scientist' bollocks" called p-values.
You think I am defending the claim? Heh!
I am defending the objectivity of morality about as much as Earth needs its roundness defended.
I am only here to demonstrate that Philosophers are as dumb as flat Earthers when it comes to recognising evidence.
- 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?
Exactly.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 am Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.
He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.
It's real, like the beating of his heart.
A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.
Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.
Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.
While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.
I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.
Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).
Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.
So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).
Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?
Yes.
To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.