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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 11:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:44 am 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.)
As I had stated you are ignorant of the philosophical issues at stake.
If Kant was wrong then why did G E Moore took up the challenge? I don't read of many who thought Kant was wrong. You think you are more smarter than Moore in this case?

You are wrong again with 'internal world'.
According to Descartes we have no reason to doubt specifically the internal "I AM" not an "internal world."

Btw, you still have not provided justification to ground your 'what is fact' other than say "it is so" or "that is the case" but no 'why and how it is the case.'
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:51 am
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.
Does the principle of charity apply to someone who tries to prove realism by proving anti-realism?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:59 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 11:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:44 am 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.)
As I had stated you are ignorant of the philosophical issues at stake.
If Kant was wrong then why did G E Moore took up the challenge? I don't read of many who thought Kant was wrong. You think you are more smarter than Moore in this case?

You are wrong again with 'internal world'.
According to Descartes we have no reason to doubt specifically the internal "I AM" not an "internal world."

Btw, you still have not provided justification to ground your 'what is fact' other than say "it is so" or "that is the case" but no 'why and how it is the case.'
Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, belief that it exists is irrational. So (the rational position is that) there's no 'external world' the existence of which needs to be proven. Or: the 'I am' of the cogito is just a part of the world, so to doubt the world must be to doubt the cogito. But doubt can exist only against a background of certainty - the point of Wittgenstein's gentle teasing of Moore.

Abandon dualism - because it's rational to do so - and all the supposed problems it entails evaporate - in my opinion.

Meanwhile. There is no foundation - no 'grounding' - for what we say - beneath our linguistic practices. All we can say is 'this is how we use this word'. And we use the word 'fact' to refer to features of reality (things and events) that are or were the case - that exist or existed.

We can and do describe those features of reality in many different ways. But their existence has nothing to do with the ways we describe them. They don't exist simply because we describe them. That account of what constitutes a fact is incoherent.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:59 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 11:30 am 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.)
As I had stated you are ignorant of the philosophical issues at stake.
If Kant was wrong then why did G E Moore took up the challenge? I don't read of many who thought Kant was wrong. You think you are more smarter than Moore in this case?

You are wrong again with 'internal world'.
According to Descartes we have no reason to doubt specifically the internal "I AM" not an "internal world."

Btw, you still have not provided justification to ground your 'what is fact' other than say "it is so" or "that is the case" but no 'why and how it is the case.'
Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, belief that it exists is irrational.
So (the rational position is that) there's no 'external world' the existence of which needs to be proven.
Or: the 'I am' of the cogito is just a part of the world, so to doubt the world must be to doubt the cogito. But doubt can exist only against a background of certainty - the point of Wittgenstein's gentle teasing of Moore.

Abandon dualism - because it's rational to do so - and all the supposed problems it entails evaporate - in my opinion.
I believe 'dualism' is essential for survival but one should not be dogmatic about it.

If you abandon dualism, then you agree with monism?

Meanwhile. There is no foundation - no 'grounding' - for what we say - beneath our linguistic practices.
All we can say is 'this is how we use this word'.
And we use the word 'fact' to refer to features of reality (things and events) that are or were the case - that exist or existed.
You seem to be ignorant you are in fact grounding on some sort of foundation, i.e. the linguistic foundation of linguistic practices, thus the linguistic FSK that is agreed upon by those who use the same language.
Your "All we can say is 'this is how we use this word'" is thus merely noises, flimsy and illusory.

But then you are also grounding your "feature of reality" upon philosophical realism, thus the philosophical realism FSK.

Whatever is your 'fact' it is grounded upon your linguistic FSK and the philosophical realism FSK.

Thus my point, all facts are grounded upon its specific FSK, i.e. in your case, your fact is grounded upon your linguistic FSK and the philosophical realism FSK.
Your fact cannot be by itself, it has to be grounded to your linguistic FSK and the philosophical realism FSK.

But the point is the philosophical realism FSK is unrealistic. So your 'what is fact' based on your unrealistic philosophical realism is not realistic.
We can and do describe those features of reality in many different ways. But their existence has nothing to do with the ways we describe them.
They don't exist simply because we describe them. That account of what constitutes a fact is incoherent.
In this case, what you have is,
  • 1. the reality which has features [the supposed referent] and its existence
    2. the description of the features of reality-R
The point here the "reality" [1] [the supposed referent] you referred to here is unrealistic in the ultimate sense.

What you are claiming is, that reality [R] is independent of the descriptions of R. This is precisely what is Philosophical Realism, with the point,
WIKI wrote:a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Thus your "what is fact" grounded on the linguistic and philosophical realism FSK which not realistic in the ultimate sense.

OTOH, my "what is fact" is grounded on the scientific and philosophical anti-realism FSK which is realistic in the ultimate sense.

You see the difference between my and your view of what is fact?
note this thread;
Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34917

Since my view of 'what is fact' is realistic, you don't have any solid grounds to insist your 'what is fact' [unrealistic] has greater factual value over my 'what is fact'.
So what I have claimed as moral facts grounded on a specific moral FSK is true and realistic.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 3:11 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:59 am
As I had stated you are ignorant of the philosophical issues at stake.
If Kant was wrong then why did G E Moore took up the challenge? I don't read of many who thought Kant was wrong. You think you are more smarter than Moore in this case?

You are wrong again with 'internal world'.
According to Descartes we have no reason to doubt specifically the internal "I AM" not an "internal world."

Btw, you still have not provided justification to ground your 'what is fact' other than say "it is so" or "that is the case" but no 'why and how it is the case.'
Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, belief that it exists is irrational.
So (the rational position is that) there's no 'external world' the existence of which needs to be proven.
Or: the 'I am' of the cogito is just a part of the world, so to doubt the world must be to doubt the cogito. But doubt can exist only against a background of certainty - the point of Wittgenstein's gentle teasing of Moore.

Abandon dualism - because it's rational to do so - and all the supposed problems it entails evaporate - in my opinion.
I believe 'dualism' is essential for survival but one should not be dogmatic about it.

If you abandon dualism, then you agree with monism?

Meanwhile. There is no foundation - no 'grounding' - for what we say - beneath our linguistic practices.
All we can say is 'this is how we use this word'.
And we use the word 'fact' to refer to features of reality (things and events) that are or were the case - that exist or existed.
You seem to be ignorant you are in fact grounding on some sort of foundation, i.e. the linguistic foundation of linguistic practices, thus the linguistic FSK that is agreed upon by those who use the same language.
Your "All we can say is 'this is how we use this word'" is thus merely noises, flimsy and illusory.

But then you are also grounding your "feature of reality" upon philosophical realism, thus the philosophical realism FSK.

Whatever is your 'fact' it is grounded upon your linguistic FSK and the philosophical realism FSK.

Thus my point, all facts are grounded upon its specific FSK, i.e. in your case, your fact is grounded upon your linguistic FSK and the philosophical realism FSK.
Your fact cannot be by itself, it has to be grounded to your linguistic FSK and the philosophical realism FSK.

But the point is the philosophical realism FSK is unrealistic. So your 'what is fact' based on your unrealistic philosophical realism is not realistic.
We can and do describe those features of reality in many different ways. But their existence has nothing to do with the ways we describe them.
They don't exist simply because we describe them. That account of what constitutes a fact is incoherent.
In this case, what you have is,
  • 1. the reality which has features [the supposed referent] and its existence
    2. the description of the features of reality-R
The point here the "reality" [1] [the supposed referent] you referred to here is unrealistic in the ultimate sense.

What you are claiming is, that reality [R] is independent of the descriptions of R. This is precisely what is Philosophical Realism, with the point,
WIKI wrote:a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Thus your "what is fact" grounded on the linguistic and philosophical realism FSK which not realistic in the ultimate sense.

OTOH, my "what is fact" is grounded on the scientific and philosophical anti-realism FSK which is realistic in the ultimate sense.

You see the difference between my and your view of what is fact?
note this thread;
Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34917

Since my view of 'what is fact' is realistic, you don't have any solid grounds to insist your 'what is fact' [unrealistic] has greater factual value over my 'what is fact'.
So what I have claimed as moral facts grounded on a specific moral FSK is true and realistic.
1 Why is philosophical anti-realism 'realistic in the ultimate sense'? By what criterion? What does 'realistic' mean in that expression? The word 'realistic' means 'like or conforming to reality'. To what reality does anti-realism conform?

2 Are what people have claimed as astrological facts, grounded on a specific astrological FSK, true and realistic? Spoiler: the answer is no. Therefore, 'grounding on a specific FSK' can't be a sufficient condition for what constitutes a fact. The reliability of an FSK doesn't and can't come merely from the existence of the FSK. Something else is necessary, viz, evidence from the reality that anti-realists deny.

3 Anti-realism gets us nowhere nearer moral facts - moral objectivity - than realism does.

4 And, btw, the expression 'morality FSK' is question-beggingly incoherent. Existence comes first - so that's what has to be established before talk of knowing about it can be coherent. For example, that's why talk about knowledge of supernatural things, such as gods, is tendentious - and, pari passu, talk about knowledge of moral rightness and wrongness.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:57 am
We can and do describe those features of reality in many different ways. But their existence has nothing to do with the ways we describe them.
They don't exist simply because we describe them. That account of what constitutes a fact is incoherent.
In this case, what you have is,
  • 1. the reality which has features [the supposed referent] and its existence
    2. the description of the features of reality-R
The point here the "reality" [1] [the supposed referent] you referred to here is unrealistic in the ultimate sense.

What you are claiming is, that reality [R] is independent of the descriptions of R. This is precisely what is Philosophical Realism, with the point,
WIKI wrote:a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Thus your "what is fact" grounded on the linguistic and philosophical realism FSK which not realistic in the ultimate sense.

OTOH, my "what is fact" is grounded on the scientific and philosophical anti-realism FSK which is realistic in the ultimate sense.

You see the difference between my and your view of what is fact?
note this thread;
Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34917

Since my view of 'what is fact' is realistic, you don't have any solid grounds to insist your 'what is fact' [unrealistic] has greater factual value over my 'what is fact'.
So what I have claimed as moral facts grounded on a specific moral FSK is true and realistic.
1 Why is philosophical anti-realism 'realistic in the ultimate sense'?
By what criterion?
What does 'realistic' mean in that expression?
The word 'realistic' means 'like or conforming to reality'. To what reality does anti-realism conform?
You didn't get the point?
Here again, I stated, [the philosophical anti-realist] as a more realistic view;

OTOH, my "what is fact" is grounded on the scientific FSK and philosophical anti-realism FSK which is realistic in the ultimate sense.

Even when scientific facts are the most credible and realistic, they are at best mere 'polished conjecture' which must be further and ultimately supported by sound philosophical anti-realism [re Kantian] reasonings.
Btw, in this case 'what is fact' is entangled with reality and humans but the description of it is independent on the linguistic perspective.

In your case, it is ultimately unrealistic because;
what-is-reality and that feature-of-reality are independent of the human conditions [philosophical realist -ontological FSK,
at the same time,
the descriptive [linguistic FSK] of the fact of that feature reality is also independent of beliefs and opinion.
This imply your "reality" and "the features of that reality" are totally disconnected [independent] with humans.

As such, your view of reality may work with common sense, conventional sense, e.g. Newtonian Physics, it is not realistic in a higher level of philosophical consideration, e.g. QM.
At the extreme such disconnection with the human conditions will lead to the extent of genocide and extermination of the human species in the case of the independent Islamic God.

I say again, your desperation to stick to the dogmatic view is purely driven by an unmodulated inherent psychological weakness which exists in the majority of humans.
2 Are what people have claimed as astrological facts, grounded on a specific astrological FSK, true and realistic? Spoiler: the answer is no. Therefore, 'grounding on a specific FSK' can't be a sufficient condition for what constitutes a fact. The reliability of an FSK doesn't and can't come merely from the existence of the FSK. Something else is necessary, viz, evidence from the reality that anti-realists deny.
By definition of what is fact conditioned upon a specific FSK, with the scientific FSK as the standard of true and realistic at say 90/100, then astrological facts has 1/100 degree of credibility, i.e. taken to be non-sensical.

Btw, your claim of "what is fact" is confined ONLY to the linguistic FSK and philosophical realism FSK but do not extend to the evidence-based FSK.
You stated earlier, evidence of the external world is irrational.

Strawmaning again, where did I state anti-realists [Kantian] deny evidence from reality. Rather what is primary with anti-realists [Kantian] is empirical evidence from reality but has to be supported by sound philosophical reasonings [e.g. to avoid dogmatic scientism, etc.].
3 Anti-realism gets us nowhere nearer moral facts - moral objectivity - than realism does.
Anti-realism [Kantian] rely on facts, i.e. if moral facts then from the moral FSK.
As with anti-realist facts, what is critical is whether they have net-positive utilities for mankind, which scientific facts [even as double-sided sword] has done so.

As I had claimed the inherent moral potential within all humans is a moral fact within a moral FSK. The physical neural correlates of compassion and empathy are represented by mirror neurons as one element [amongst many] of the set in the human brain.

Here is one clue, there are more to it..
Since >2500 years ago, the Buddhists [and others] had intuitively worked on such moral facts, i.e. develop the compassion and empathy competence of humans which results in moral progress for those who are successful in their endeavors.
At present there are loads of scientific researches into the workings of the brain of Buddhists to justify their moral competence.
This at present is not conclusive but the results point to the possibility of justifying the moral facts of moral potentials represented by physical neural correlates which can be improved upon.

Even Christianity being so dogmatic has the intuitive impulse to work on the moral potential within Christians with its overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. 'love all even your enemies' 'thou shall not kill, period!' 'give the other cheek' etc. albeit has to rely on the threat of Hellfire.

Meanwhile your stance is NO, NO, NO, NO ... to all possibilities of moral facts and that such facts can lead to moral progress because you are are stuck in a dogmatic resistant state due to negative psychological impulses. You and your generations will be groping till the next 1000s of years without any guide towards continuous improvements of moral progress.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Questions for anti-realists.

1 What do you think your words mean, and to whom do you think you're talking?

2 What exactly is it that anti-realists are 'anti'?

(Anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.)
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Thoughts on the supposed illegitimacy of classical normativity.

1 A logic, classical or otherwise, deals with language, not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences.

2 If a non-classical logic rejects classical true/false polarity, it must also reject the middle - excluded in classical logic - between the poles. And it must reject the 0-1 probability polarity.

3 So a (necessarily) classical truth-claim using such a non-classical logic is self-defeating.

4 And, needless to say, a non-classical argument for moral facts - true moral assertions - is also self-defeating.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:30 am Thoughts on the supposed illegitimacy of classical normativity.

1 A logic, classical or otherwise, deals with language, not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences.
At the foundation of the natural sciences (physics) there lies Mathematics. Mathematics is a language.

Therefore that which you call "reality" rests upon the language of Mathematics.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:30 am 2 If a non-classical logic rejects classical true/false polarity, it must also reject the middle - excluded in classical logic - between the poles. And it must reject the 0-1 probability polarity.
The 0-1 polarity is not the same thing as the true/false polarity.

True/false is discrete. Two-valued.
0-1 is continuous. infinitely-valued.

Any mathematician would tell you that there's no such thing as context-free truth. There's only true in a model.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:30 am 3 So a (necessarily) classical truth-claim using such a non-classical logic is self-defeating.

4 And, needless to say, a non-classical argument for moral facts - true moral assertions - is also self-defeating.
Self-defeat is an incoherent/meaningless notion.

This sentence defeats itself. What does that even mean?!?
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by DPMartin »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 2:35 pm
At the foundation of the natural sciences (physics) there lies Mathematics. Mathematics is a language.

Therefore that which you call "reality" rests upon the language of Mathematics.

words are language; 1's and 0's are used to represent words or symbols for words for instructions in a processor. man uses 1-0 to switch off and on, nothing more.
language of Mathematics isn't really a language, its measurement of reality, reality isn't based on Mathematics. if it were, you could create something from nothing using math. math is a tool to work with your environment, nothing more.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

DPMartin wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:22 pm words are language; 1's and 0's are used to represent words or symbols for words for instructions in a processor. man uses 1-0 to switch off and on, nothing more.
Your model of computation is based on boolean logic.

Why that one in particular?
DPMartin wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:22 pm language of Mathematics isn't really a language, its measurement of reality, reality isn't based on Mathematics. if it were, you could create something from nothing using math. math is a tool to work with your environment, nothing more.
Mathematics is just grammar. Structure.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by DPMartin »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:37 pm
DPMartin wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:22 pm words are language; 1's and 0's are used to represent words or symbols for words for instructions in a processor. man uses 1-0 to switch off and on, nothing more.
Your model of computation is based on boolean logic.
no that's what you're talking about boolean logic true false
1-0 is bits
DPMartin wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:22 pm language of Mathematics isn't really a language, its measurement of reality, reality isn't based on Mathematics. if it were, you could create something from nothing using math. math is a tool to work with your environment, nothing more.
Mathematics is just grammar. Structure.
no it's measurement, no matter how simple or complicated, it's measurement.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

DPMartin wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:19 pm no that's what you're talking about boolean logic true false
1-0 is bits
That doesn't sound like what I am talking about.

It sounds like your misunderstanding of what I am talking about.
DPMartin wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 6:19 pm no it's measurement, no matter how simple or complicated, it's measurement.
It is? What does x=x measure ?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:14 am Questions for anti-realists.

1 What do you think your words mean, and to whom do you think you're talking?

2 What exactly is it that anti-realists are 'anti'?

(Anti-realists don't have a leg to stand on.)
That is the problem with your ignorance of such basic fundamentals of philosophy. Point you need to understand [not necessary agree] what is "realism" as basic.
There are some nuances to 'realism,' but I will deal here on what 'realism' is in general;

I have already posted 'what is philosophical realism' "000s" of times.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Note this from SEP;
There are two general aspects to realism, illustrated by looking at realism about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties.
First, there is a claim about existence. Tables, rocks, the moon, and so on, all exist, as do the following facts: the table’s being square, the rock’s being made of granite, and the moon’s being spherical and yellow.
The second aspect of realism about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties concerns independence. The fact that the moon exists and is spherical is independent of anything anyone happens to say or think about the matter.

Likewise, although there is a clear sense in which the table’s being square is dependent on us (it was designed and constructed by human beings after all), this is not the type of dependence that the realist wishes to deny. The realist wishes to claim that apart from the mundane sort of empirical dependence of objects and their properties familiar to us from everyday life, there is no further (philosophically interesting) sense in which everyday objects and their properties can be said to be dependent on anyone’s linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, or whatever.

In general, where the distinctive objects of a subject-matter are a, b, c, … , and the distinctive properties are F-ness, G-ness, H-ness and so on, realism about that subject matter will typically take the form of a claim like the following:
  • Generic Realism:
    a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone’s beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
What you have posted reflect 'realism' as defined above. If not, then what is position?

2 What exactly is it that anti-realists are 'anti'?
Here is what is Anti-Realism [oppose to whatever 'realism' is adopted];
Non-realism can take many forms, depending on whether or not it is the existence or independence dimension of realism that is questioned or rejected.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
1 What do you think your words mean, and to whom do you think you're talking?
As stated above, anti-realism takes many form depending on context of the related 'realism'.

In my case, mine is anti-realism [opposing realism as defined above] of the Kantian type which leverage [stand on the leg] of the empirical [scientific FSK and other credible FSKs] as supported by sound philosophical reasonings.
What words means is in accordance to what is in a typical dictionary or in a specialized dictionary where relevant.
In general one is talking to another empirical person or self.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 9:30 am Thoughts on the supposed illegitimacy of classical normativity.

1 A logic, classical or otherwise, deals with language, not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences.

2 If a non-classical logic rejects classical true/false polarity, it must also reject the middle - excluded in classical logic - between the poles. And it must reject the 0-1 probability polarity.

3 So a (necessarily) classical truth-claim using such a non-classical logic is self-defeating.

4 And, needless to say, a non-classical argument for moral facts - true moral assertions - is also self-defeating.
You are too entrenched with the current popular views on morality where moral ought[s] are generated upon crude logic and reasoning and imposed on others, e.g.
the most prominent example is probably consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
Because God commanded so, if not, Hell awaits..
Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires.
On the other hand, I am arguing moral facts exist objectively & empirically as physical referents comprising neural correlates a moral potential which can be verified and justified within the scientific FSK and therefrom the moral FSK.

Such moral facts are independent of personal opinions, beliefs, linguistics, knowledge in one perspective but because they are grounded on FSK which are constructed and sustained by men, they are ultimately not absolute independent but rather entangled with the human conditions.

The other view of the realists that facts [moral or otherwise] exist absolutely independently alone and by itself in the ultimate realistic sense is a non-starter.
Post Reply