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
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:30 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:12 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 9:10 am
At least two people are arguing that there is no particular relationship between fact and truth. They might be doing so only by accident because they are clumsy and stupid, but still they are doing it.
The claim express here is the relationship between fact and reality (really exists) and NOT between fact and truth which is wholly different.
So the claim of "clumsy and stupid" might be better directed at yourself.
They are arguing that 'fact' relates entirely to which .... <FSK in one case> / <logic in the other> you select to express it and has nothing in particular to do with truth, reality, or anything else that normal people relate to facts. These fripperies about facts being true, and having some sort of outcome are deemed irrelevant if it is inconvenient for them at the time, or assumed whenever they are currently expecting to get away with it. Pete's complaint was legitimate, you started on him because you are a fatuous dotard.
You have not presented any sort of argument. So fuck off.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:37 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:16 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 9:13 am
Erm. VA is arguing it. For example, two posts back.
Are you saying that judgement as to whether something is morally right or wrong is analogous to judgement as to whether an apple is red or green? Genuine question - not sure what your point is.
No that fact that you misread what I said means you are incapable of seeing the point.
Read it again.
The qualities of the apple ; just how red, and just how green. is about judgement. A fact might say that the object is an apple with red and green colouration, but the degree of each is subject to the observers' interpretations.
I'm able to understand your point, if you express it clearly. And this is incoherent. So, please explain. Are you saying that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is 'subject to the observers' interpretations'? Is that the point of your comparison with the apple?

Point is: given the way we use the words 'red' and 'green', the degree to which an apple is red and/or green is precisely not a matter of the observers' interpretation. It's objectively measurable. So where's the analogy with moral rightness and wrongness? In what way are they properties like redness and greenness? Cos I don't think they are at all.
Duh! "Measurable or not". Such activities produce numbers not values. ( if you are smart enough to know the difference).
Try this.
10 people try some lemon juice 3 say that it is too sharp, 4 say it is average and the other 3 say it is less sharp than normal. The reason they say this is due to their lived and personal experience.
Such as subjective views.
Ah you say, but I can measure the sharpness exactly with a machine.
Objectively the machine says it has a sharpness of 345.454 which is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Now tell me where is the "truth" here?
What use is the objective number?

Now.
Tell me ONE Objectively true moral!
If morality can be objective, you must have at least ONE example?
If not why not.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:57 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:30 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:12 am
The claim express here is the relationship between fact and reality (really exists) and NOT between fact and truth which is wholly different.
So the claim of "clumsy and stupid" might be better directed at yourself.
They are arguing that 'fact' relates entirely to which .... <FSK in one case> / <logic in the other> you select to express it and has nothing in particular to do with truth, reality, or anything else that normal people relate to facts. These fripperies about facts being true, and having some sort of outcome are deemed irrelevant if it is inconvenient for them at the time, or assumed whenever they are currently expecting to get away with it. Pete's complaint was legitimate, you started on him because you are a fatuous dotard.
You have not presented any sort of argument. So fuck off.
You just challenged the most prominent moral-antirealist on this forum to "Tell me ONE Objectively true moral!" within the thread he started calleed "What could make morality objective?" and throughout several hundred pages of which he has argued consistently that it impossible to have objective moral truth.

The case that you are a dotard presents itself on a daily basis.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:14 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:57 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:30 am
They are arguing that 'fact' relates entirely to which .... <FSK in one case> / <logic in the other> you select to express it and has nothing in particular to do with truth, reality, or anything else that normal people relate to facts. These fripperies about facts being true, and having some sort of outcome are deemed irrelevant if it is inconvenient for them at the time, or assumed whenever they are currently expecting to get away with it. Pete's complaint was legitimate, you started on him because you are a fatuous dotard.
You have not presented any sort of argument. So fuck off.
You just challenged the most prominent moral-antirealist on this forum to "Tell me ONE Objectively true moral!" within the thread he started calleed "What could make morality objective?" and throughout several hundred pages of which he has argued consistently that it impossible to have objective moral truth.

The case that you are a dotard presents itself on a daily basis.
Please refer to the post I made above.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 11:11 am Above is kindergarten stuff,
see my response in this new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34888&p=573377#p573377
My claim that what we call a fact is 'something that really exists or has occurred' is not groundless. That is a standard dictionary definition - an explanation of how we use the word fact. You're free to use words any way you like. But there's no reason for the rest of us to use words the way you want us to.
You have lost it when you insist on sticking to "dictionary definitions" when we are doing a serious philosophical discussion here.

Note my argument here;
Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34902

Where I dig deep into the above in the very credible SEP; What is your counter to the above on the claim that your basis of what is fact from the dictionary is groundless from the philosophical perspective.
Calling what I say 'kindergarten stuff' doesn't address my refutation of your argument. So it looks like you can't do it. Hence the yaboo name-calling.
It is obvious your throwing and insistent with reference to dictionary definitions is relatively 'kindergarten stuff' as compared to references from SEP and other philosophical materials.
To repeat, your claim that a fact - 'something that really exists or has occurred' - can't exist outside a descriptive context is patently false. It's cart-before-the-horsery.
Strawmanning again based on your dogmatically shallow and narrow thinking.

Based on common and conventional sense, things exist independent of the descriptive context, but this is dogmatically shallow and narrow thinking.
You should note humans has been advancing by their ability to grasp rationally what is beyond common and conventional sense. Note the advances in Physics from classical to Einsteinian, to QM with the shifting in paradigm with each phase of advances where the observers are inevitably entangled with what is reality.

My claim is whatever is reality is always conditioned upon a specific FSK [constructed and maintained by men] thus inevitably, reality is entangled with reality.

To insist reality [fact, truths, the real] is absolutely independent of the human condition is a non-starter.

Point is you are so ignorant of the serious philosophical issues, e.g. it is a scandal philosophy with the insistence there are things absolutely independent of the human conditions [description, etc.];
Kant wrote:However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof. B54


Above is a direct challenge to your claim, things can exist independently of the descriptive.

Note:
Kant considered it to be scandalous that philosophy still had not found a rational proof of the existence of the external world during his time. Arguably, the scandal continues today because scepticism remains a widely debated and extremely divisive issue among contemporary thinkers.
Luigi Caranti
G E Moore [one of your philosophical Godfather] took the challenge but failed miserably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

Why you are stuck in a rut with dogmatic views is because you are so ignorant of the range of disputed views to your claims. You should at least understand [not necessary agree with] these issue to avoid simply brushing away the issues.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:44 am You have lost it when you insist on sticking to "dictionary definitions" when we are doing a serious philosophical discussion here.

Facts
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
The summary from your link is
Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values (cf. Rundle 1993) and are to be distinguished from things, in particular from complex objects, complexes and wholes, and from relations. They are the objects of certain mental states and acts, they make truth-bearers true and correspond to truths, they are part of the furniture of the world. Not only do philosophers oppose facts to theories and to values, they sometimes distinguish between facts which are brute and those which are not (Anscombe 1958). We present and discuss some philosophical and formal accounts of facts.
So in a debate of subjective morality (values, theories, your "FSK"s) vs objective morality (absolute moral facts), facts refer to the latter.

So you are trying to convince people that there are absolute moral facts, independent of any "FSK". You are trying to prove the opposite of what you are trying to prove. You've been at it for years. (heh-heh)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 8:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:44 am You have lost it when you insist on sticking to "dictionary definitions" when we are doing a serious philosophical discussion here.

Facts
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
The summary from your link is
Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values (cf. Rundle 1993) and are to be distinguished from things, in particular from complex objects, complexes and wholes, and from relations. They are the objects of certain mental states and acts, they make truth-bearers true and correspond to truths, they are part of the furniture of the world. Not only do philosophers oppose facts to theories and to values, they sometimes distinguish between facts which are brute and those which are not (Anscombe 1958). We present and discuss some philosophical and formal accounts of facts.
So in a debate of subjective morality (values, theories, your "FSK"s) vs objective morality (absolute moral facts), facts refer to the latter.

So you are trying to convince people that there are absolute moral facts, independent of any "FSK". You are trying to prove the opposite of what you are trying to prove. You've been at it for years. (heh-heh)
Strawmaning as usual. You are insulting your own intelligence with the above in ignoring the full context of the post.
I wrote above;
To insist reality [fact, truths, the real] is absolutely independent of the human condition is a non-starter.

In the above I was directing Peter to this OP
Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34902
where I indicated why his Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs are Groundless.
If one were to read the articles linked therein one will note there are multiple views but there are no absolute Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs.

I have stated a "million times" there are moral facts and they are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK which is entangled with the human conditions.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:09 am Strawmaning as usual. You are insulting your own intelligence with the above in ignoring the full context of the post.
I wrote above;
To insist reality [fact, truths, the real] is absolutely independent of the human condition is a non-starter.

In the above I was directing Peter to this OP
Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34902
where I indicated why his Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs are Groundless.
If one were to read the articles linked therein one will note there are multiple views but there are no absolute Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs.

I have stated a "million times" there are moral facts and they are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK which is entangled with the human conditions.
No, all this time you insisted on the non-starter: that there are absolutely independent objective facts (from any human thinking, opinion, "FSK" etc.). That's what objective facts mean.

You had the entire topic backwards all along, but you never listen when people tell you that you are totally misusing English words, so there you are. :)
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:44 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 11:11 am Above is kindergarten stuff,
see my response in this new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34888&p=573377#p573377
My claim that what we call a fact is 'something that really exists or has occurred' is not groundless. That is a standard dictionary definition - an explanation of how we use the word fact. You're free to use words any way you like. But there's no reason for the rest of us to use words the way you want us to.
You have lost it when you insist on sticking to "dictionary definitions" when we are doing a serious philosophical discussion here.

Note my argument here;
Prepositions, Facts, States of Affairs - all Groundless
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34902

Where I dig deep into the above in the very credible SEP; What is your counter to the above on the claim that your basis of what is fact from the dictionary is groundless from the philosophical perspective.
Calling what I say 'kindergarten stuff' doesn't address my refutation of your argument. So it looks like you can't do it. Hence the yaboo name-calling.
It is obvious your throwing and insistent with reference to dictionary definitions is relatively 'kindergarten stuff' as compared to references from SEP and other philosophical materials.
To repeat, your claim that a fact - 'something that really exists or has occurred' - can't exist outside a descriptive context is patently false. It's cart-before-the-horsery.
Strawmanning again based on your dogmatically shallow and narrow thinking.

Based on common and conventional sense, things exist independent of the descriptive context, but this is dogmatically shallow and narrow thinking.
You should note humans has been advancing by their ability to grasp rationally what is beyond common and conventional sense. Note the advances in Physics from classical to Einsteinian, to QM with the shifting in paradigm with each phase of advances where the observers are inevitably entangled with what is reality.

My claim is whatever is reality is always conditioned upon a specific FSK [constructed and maintained by men] thus inevitably, reality is entangled with reality.

To insist reality [fact, truths, the real] is absolutely independent of the human condition is a non-starter.

Point is you are so ignorant of the serious philosophical issues, e.g. it is a scandal philosophy with the insistence there are things absolutely independent of the human conditions [description, etc.];
Kant wrote:However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof. B54


Above is a direct challenge to your claim, things can exist independently of the descriptive.

Note:
Kant considered it to be scandalous that philosophy still had not found a rational proof of the existence of the external world during his time. Arguably, the scandal continues today because scepticism remains a widely debated and extremely divisive issue among contemporary thinkers.
Luigi Caranti
G E Moore [one of your philosophical Godfather] took the challenge but failed miserably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

Why you are stuck in a rut with dogmatic views is because you are so ignorant of the range of disputed views to your claims. You should at least understand [not necessary agree with] these issue to avoid simply brushing away the issues.
Kant was wrong. If we doubt the existence of the 'external world' - and therefore our knowledge of it - we have no reason not to doubt our 'internal world'. But since the Cartesian, dualist model is incorrect, all conclusions flowing from it, including empiricist skepticism and the need Kant felt to transcend it, by means of the supposed Copernican revolution, are otiose. Kant never got off the hamster wheel.

(Btw, the word is propositions. Prepositions are a closed grammatical word class.)
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

thus inevitably, reality is entangled with reality
This deserves an award for clarity, by the way.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Atla wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 1:21 pm
thus inevitably, reality is entangled with reality
This deserves an award for clarity, by the way.
Ah, but could we disentangle reality from reality? And should we? Important questions.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 1:34 pm
Atla wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 1:21 pm
thus inevitably, reality is entangled with reality
This deserves an award for clarity, by the way.
Ah, but could we disentangle reality from reality? And should we? Important questions.
Just thinking about it gives me an existential crisis. I can't handle it alone, I'm off to find God.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:37 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:16 am
No that fact that you misread what I said means you are incapable of seeing the point.
Read it again.
The qualities of the apple ; just how red, and just how green. is about judgement. A fact might say that the object is an apple with red and green colouration, but the degree of each is subject to the observers' interpretations.
I'm able to understand your point, if you express it clearly. And this is incoherent. So, please explain. Are you saying that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is 'subject to the observers' interpretations'? Is that the point of your comparison with the apple?

Point is: given the way we use the words 'red' and 'green', the degree to which an apple is red and/or green is precisely not a matter of the observers' interpretation. It's objectively measurable. So where's the analogy with moral rightness and wrongness? In what way are they properties like redness and greenness? Cos I don't think they are at all.
Duh! "Measurable or not". Such activities produce numbers not values. ( if you are smart enough to know the difference).
Try this.
10 people try some lemon juice 3 say that it is too sharp, 4 say it is average and the other 3 say it is less sharp than normal. The reason they say this is due to their lived and personal experience.
Such as subjective views.
Ah you say, but I can measure the sharpness exactly with a machine.
Objectively the machine says it has a sharpness of 345.454 which is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Now tell me where is the "truth" here?
What use is the objective number?

Now.
Tell me ONE Objectively true moral!
If morality can be objective, you must have at least ONE example?
If not why not.
Let's ignore the last request. I assume you've mixed me up with someone else.

But - to the sharpness of lemon juice. The experience and judgement of its sharpness is nothing like the judgement of moral rightness and wrongness. That's a false analogy.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 6:53 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:37 am

I'm able to understand your point, if you express it clearly. And this is incoherent. So, please explain. Are you saying that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is 'subject to the observers' interpretations'? Is that the point of your comparison with the apple?

Point is: given the way we use the words 'red' and 'green', the degree to which an apple is red and/or green is precisely not a matter of the observers' interpretation. It's objectively measurable. So where's the analogy with moral rightness and wrongness? In what way are they properties like redness and greenness? Cos I don't think they are at all.
Duh! "Measurable or not". Such activities produce numbers not values. ( if you are smart enough to know the difference).
Try this.
10 people try some lemon juice 3 say that it is too sharp, 4 say it is average and the other 3 say it is less sharp than normal. The reason they say this is due to their lived and personal experience.
Such as subjective views.
Ah you say, but I can measure the sharpness exactly with a machine.
Objectively the machine says it has a sharpness of 345.454 which is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Now tell me where is the "truth" here?
What use is the objective number?

Now.
Tell me ONE Objectively true moral!
If morality can be objective, you must have at least ONE example?
If not why not.
Let's ignore the last request. I assume you've mixed me up with someone else.

But - to the sharpness of lemon juice. The experience and judgement of its sharpness is nothing like the judgement of moral rightness and wrongness. That's a false analogy.
It is a perfect example of the difference between subjective and objective.
Subjective is usually more meaningful
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 1:21 pm
thus inevitably, reality is entangled with reality
This deserves an award for clarity, by the way.
You deceptively ignored the context, read the full sentence;
  • My claim is whatever is reality is always conditioned upon a specific FSK [constructed and maintained by men] thus inevitably, reality is entangled with reality.
The above was an error [so obvious], it is meant to be,
  • My claim is whatever is reality is always conditioned upon a specific FSK [constructed and maintained by men] thus inevitably, reality is entangled with the human conditions [men].
I have repeated the above principle a "million times".
Are you familiar with the Principle of Charity in the event of such obvious statement or error.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon May 23, 2022 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply