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

Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am We can describe the colour we call red, or the animal we call a dog, in any number of different ways - using other names (nouns), such as light, frequency, mammal, and snout. But none of those names is a description. And names, like clause elements, don't have truth-value. Obviously.

In this context, the only things that can have truth-value are declarative clauses: such-and-such is the case. And we can't define or describe a thing or a property into or out of existence. So the 'that's-how-we-use-these-words' argument for objectivity is, simply, invalid.
But you do NOT YET KNOW what 'objective' IS, or COULD BE, EXACTLY.

What you are doing here is just 'TRYING TO' USE words in a way, which then defines or describes what you ALREADY BELIEVE to be true into, or out of, existence.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN above here. That is; you define the 'objective' word in such a way that 'it' could NOT exist.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am
It amounts to 'saying it's so makes it so' or 'things are the way(s) we say they are'.
So, what what way/s are 'things' if they are NOT the way/s that you say they are?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am
We say this colour is red; therefore, this colour is red.
We say water is H2O; therefore, water is H2O.
We say abortion is/is not morally wrong; therefore, abortion is/is not morally wrong.
Does this CONTRADICT what you just SAID and CLAIMED?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am
In different ways, each of these arguments is invalid.
But, LOL, they are NOT even 'arguments', and just SAYING or CALLING 'them' 'arguments' does NOT make 'them' so.
[quote="Peter Holmes" wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am post_id=630598 time=1679309675 user_id=11800]
Each mistakes what we say about things for the way things are.
Does ANY of your sentences above MISTAKE what you say about things for the way things are? Or, do ONLY "others" make THIS MISTAKE?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am
But though 'redness' and the chemical constitution of water are features of reality (facts) that just are the case, how ever we (arbitrarily) name them, moral wrongness isn't, and we can't 'say it' into existence.
LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' REALLY DO have SO MUCH MORE to LEARN and UNDERSTAND here "peter holmes".

Do you REALLY BELIEVE that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'morally' Wrong, in Life?

If you ARE BRAVE enough to answer this Honestly, then we WILL be VERY HAPPY to WITNESS this.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am In this context, the only things that can have truth-value are declarative clauses: such-and-such is the case.
Yeah :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I declare that it's true that this color is "blue".
AND, when you HAVE AGREEMENT, then you ARRIVE AT subjective 'truth', OR, objective 'Truth', DEPENDING.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am Each mistakes what we say about things for the way things are.
It's hilarious watching Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes make the exact mistake he keeps warning us about.

Says water is H2O.
Pretends water was always H2O even before we said so about it.
Mistakes water for being what we say it is.

So desperate to be a realist he'll even promote his own words/concepts to ontological status.
As I have been CONTINUALLY POINTING OUT and SAYING, those WITH BELIEFS will say just about ANY thing, (no matter how STUPID or ILLOGICAL those words are to "others"), in order to just 'TRY TO' back up and support THEIR BELIEF. This is just how 'confirmation bias' WORKS.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:34 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:59 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 am
The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
Is 'selection', itself, what ACTUALLY occurs and happens WITH 'desire'?

I would suggest that just about ALL 'desire' that comes about in childhood arrives BEFORE 'selection' could ever take place.

BUT, HOW to 'select' the correct thing to 'desire' is best done just 'FULLY consciously'. Which, by the way, is a Truly SIMPLE and EASY 'thing' to do, that is; once one LEARNS HOW TO, AND LEARNS what IS ACTUALLY GOOD and Right, and what IS NOT, in Life.
If you are capable of having multiple desires, then you might at some point have encountered an issue where attainment of one desideratum renders the another unattainable.
Okay, but SO WHAT?

This REALLY has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I SAID above here.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:34 am An example would be a desire one might have to own a cake, while another desire is to eat the cake.
Seems like a Truly ABSURD example, of which I wonder if it has EVER OCCURRED throughout human history?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:34 am In such circumstance one selects the favoured desire and lets the incompatible desire pass.
This would occur, SURELY, WITHOUT the NEED for you to INFORM ANY one here.

I would hope that EVERY one here would ALREADY KNOW this Fact.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:34 am This is a matter of selection.
ALSO VERY OBVIOUS.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:34 am Sadly I am not addressing the SIMPLE and EASY way to select the RIGHT tHINg tO WAnt and Desire and WIsH fOR because it seems that is impossible to describe.
BUT, LOL, it is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to DESCRIBE.

Finding those who are Truly INTERESTED in LEARNING, or BECOMING-WISER, or FINDING those who do NOT BELIEVE that 'this' is IMPOSSIBLE just takes MUCH LONGER.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:34 am Although we do our have our greatest ever mind on the case.
What IS this 'mind' 'thing', EXACTLY, which 'you', adult human beings, go on about continuously here?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:39 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:53 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:18 am
I am trying to explain that being a good person is a mixture of chance and choice.
How did you get there from this?????
I wonder if what might make morality objective is an attitude of disinterest. 'Disinterest' in the sense of justice blindfolded, or the veil of ignorance.

You never make any sense.
The connection between the former and the latter is that in order to be good or efficient people we exercise notions of probability. Thus the veil of ignorance probably aids justice, and reasoned guesses probably aid justice.
For the decisions we must make, chance and reasoned choice are constants, however reason and knowledge weigh against the element of chance.
There is NO such 'thing' as so-called 'good people'. There are, however, 'people' who do 'good' AND 'bad', or 'wrong', things'. Which, by the way, is ALL of 'you', adult people, here.

Also, LEARNING, and thus COMING-TO-KNOW the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between what IS 'good', 'bad', and/or 'wrong' here HELPS TREMENDOUSLY in tending towards ONLY DOING what IS GOOD and Right, in Life.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Elsewhere, VA repeats the following claim.

'My position is 'Moral is Objective' because there are justified objective moral facts conditioned upon a moral FSK which adopt scientific facts at its major inputs.' [sic]

Just to point out. Again.

1 What we call objectivity is reliance on facts. So the expression objective fact is redundant - or even incoherent, because there's no such thing as a subjective fact.

2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - a thing that just exists or existed. It has nothing to do with knowledge, and (outside language), nothing to do with language - and therefore nothing to do with truth. A factual assertion has a truth-value, but a fact doesn't.

3 The claim that facts are 'conditioned upon [?] a framework and system of knowledge' is false. 'Being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact', any more than is 'being described'.

4 It's possible - if ridiculous - to deny that such things as facts exist. But to say that facts don't exist, but that moral facts do exist, is to assert a contradiction.

5 If a so-called moral fact exists, it must be a moral feature of reality (?) that is or was the case, regardless of being known or described. And the burden of proof for the existence of such a thing is with the claimant - and unmet so far, to my knowledge.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm 2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case
The usual incoherent nonsense being peddled by Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

In order to determine whether something is a fact one needs to determine whether something is the case. But that's just kicking the can down the road. How is this determination performed?

Here is a sentence.

How do I determinine that the color of the above sentence is "red"?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm 4 It's possible - if ridiculous - to deny that such things as facts exist. But to say that facts don't exist, but that moral facts do exist, is to assert a contradiction.
As usual, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.

Goats exist and we know where they exist.
Water exists and we know where it exists.
Trees exist and we know where they exist.
Planets exist and we know where they exist.
Stars exist and we know where they exist.

We can locate all of those objects in space!

Where do the facts about goats, water, trees, planets and stars exist? Go ahead and locate them for us in space.

You know how existence claims work, right? Show us a fact already! Stop talking about it and show it to us like you'd show us a goat, water, a tree, a planet or a star.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm 2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - a thing that just exists or existed.
P1. If it exists it's a fact.
P2. Goats exists.
C. Goats are facts.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm A factual assertion has a truth-value, but a fact doesn't.
Huh? OK, so if a fact has no truth value, but factual assertions have truth-value then where do truth-values come from and what bestows a truth-value upon a factual assertion?

This would become so much easier if you quit talking in the abstract and present us with a fact that we can examine and talk about already.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm Elsewhere, VA repeats the following claim.

'My position is 'Moral is Objective' because there are justified objective moral facts conditioned upon a moral FSK which adopt scientific facts at its major inputs.' [sic]

Just to point out. Again.

1 What we call objectivity is reliance on facts. So the expression objective fact is redundant - or even incoherent, because there's no such thing as a subjective fact.

2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - a thing that just exists or existed. It has nothing to do with knowledge, and (outside language), nothing to do with language - and therefore nothing to do with truth. A factual assertion has a truth-value, but a fact doesn't.

3 The claim that facts are 'conditioned upon [?] a framework and system of knowledge' is false. 'Being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact', any more than is 'being described'.

4 It's possible - if ridiculous - to deny that such things as facts exist. But to say that facts don't exist, but that moral facts do exist, is to assert a contradiction.

5 If a so-called moral fact exists, it must be a moral feature of reality (?) that is or was the case, regardless of being known or described. And the burden of proof for the existence of such a thing is with the claimant - and unmet so far, to my knowledge.
To LEARN, SEE, and KNOW that "veritas aequitas" position here is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, all one has to do is just ask that one to PROVIDE a list of the, supposed, alleged, and so-called, 'justified objective moral facts. Which, if 'they' REALLY were, then NO one could REFUTE 'them'.

As for a so-called 'moral feature' of 'reality' and the existence of such, then one just have to be Truly OPEN and Wanting to LEARN, SEE, and KNOW of the existence of such a 'thing'.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:30 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm 2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case
The usual incoherent nonsense being peddled by Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

In order to determine whether something is a fact one needs to determine whether something is the case. But that's just kicking the can down the road. How is this determination performed?

Here is a sentence.

How do I determinine that the color of the above sentence is "red"?
VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

Through AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, as I KEEP INFORMING.

These people, 'back then', REALLY could NOT comprehend and understand just how SIMPLE and EASY Life REALLY IS, and WAS.

Most of those adults actually BELIEVED Life was HARD, and COMPLEX. Which is Truly LAUGHABLE considering what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:30 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm 4 It's possible - if ridiculous - to deny that such things as facts exist. But to say that facts don't exist, but that moral facts do exist, is to assert a contradiction.
As usual, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.

Goats exist and we know where they exist.
Water exists and we know where it exists.
Trees exist and we know where they exist.
Planets exist and we know where they exist.
Stars exist and we know where they exist.

We can locate all of those objects in space!

Where do the facts about goats, water, trees, planets and stars exist? Go ahead and locate them for us in space.
But THE ANSWER to this question here is, SURELY, completely and obviously ALREADY KNOWN, right?
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:30 pm You know how existence claims work, right? Show us a fact already! Stop talking about it and show it to us like you'd show us a goat, water, a tree, a planet or a star.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:56 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm 2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - a thing that just exists or existed.
P1. If it exists it's a fact.
P2. Goats exists.
C. Goats are facts.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm A factual assertion has a truth-value, but a fact doesn't.
Huh? OK, so if a fact has no truth value, but factual assertions have truth-value then where do truth-values come from and what bestows a truth-value upon a factual assertion?
As I keep saying, people will say just about anything when they are 'trying to' justify the beliefs that they maintaining are true.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:56 pm This would become so much easier if you quit talking in the abstract and present us with a fact that we can examine and talk about already.
I AGREE, FULLY.

When people assert or claim some 'thing' is true, then instead of just continually making the claim/assertion, how about just PROVIDING an ACTUAL 'example', so that we can then, at least, LOOK AT 'it', and DISCUSS 'it'?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:11 pm Elsewhere, VA repeats the following claim.

'My position is 'Moral is Objective' because there are justified objective moral facts conditioned upon a moral FSK which adopt scientific facts at its major inputs.' [sic]

Just to point out. Again.

1 What we call objectivity is reliance on facts. So the expression objective fact is redundant - or even incoherent, because there's no such thing as a subjective fact.
The qualification of 'objective' to 'fact' is critical especially when there are so many mixed and contentious meanings with those words.
Btw, it is not up to your father or mother to decide what the meaning of a word should or must be.

As I had explained there are various senses to the terms 'facts' and 'objective'.
  • There are two senses of 'what is fact'
    viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
    A. Facts as feature of reality = illusory, fiction, nonsensical
    B: FSK Conditioned Facts = realistic, e.g. scientific facts.
    PH's facts are illusory - P1 cannot be real.
    viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

    There are two senses of Objectivity
    viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
    1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense - illusory
    2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense - realistic
I have even raised a thread;
There is no such things as Facts [as defined by PH]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39806

As such 'objective-fact' is valid and necessary for the purpose of our arguments in a philosophy forum. What is critical is I provide the contexts and explanations.
When we have to concede to certain 'facts' [human-FSK-based facts] we have to determine whether their objectivity is credible or reliable or not.
WHO ARE YOU to decide otherwise?

2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - a thing that just exists or existed. It has nothing to do with knowledge, and (outside language), nothing to do with language - and therefore nothing to do with truth. A factual assertion has a truth-value, but a fact doesn't.
So it has nothing to do with the human conditions [aka mind].
So your 'what is fact' is 'nothing' i.e. nothingness, emptiness.
That is what Kant termed as noumenon, i.e. merely an intelligible [not real] things that is useful only for intellectual discussion and has no quality of realness.

For Kant, the noumenon is merely a limiting concept, i.e. to be use in the negative sense and NEVER in the positive sense to represent reality.
Thus the noumenom, i.e. your sense of 'fact' is merely at most a useful illusion only for intellectual discussion and it is psychologically therapeutic to you personally.
3 The claim that facts are 'conditioned upon [?] a framework and system of knowledge' is false. 'Being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact', any more than is 'being described'.
Strawman the 'millionth' time.
You are so straightjacketed by your dogmatic ideology that you have no freedom to understand the reality of your own existing conditions.
The possibility of knowing more about your human nature is SO painful to you that you will resist any possibility of new knowledge for yourself.

There is a complex process within humans and its external [social, natural, etc.] environment that has gone on within a FSK [schema, schemata, schematism, etc] before something is known to be subsequently described.

Don't try to refute anything if you are so ignorant of the underlying processes.
4 It's possible - if ridiculous - to deny that such things as facts exist. But to say that facts don't exist, but that moral facts do exist, is to assert a contradiction.
As stated above, there are two senses of 'what is fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
A. Facts as feature of reality = illusory, fiction, nonsensical
B: FSK Conditioned Facts = realistic, e.g. scientific facts.

Facts in the sense of A do not exist as real things.
However, facts in the sense of B do exist as real things as qualified.
So moral facts do exist within sense B.
5 If a so-called moral fact exists, it must be a moral feature of reality (?) that is or was the case, regardless of being known or described. And the burden of proof for the existence of such a thing is with the claimant - and unmet so far, to my knowledge.
Fact as "that is or was the case" - this is illusory, fiction, meaningless and non-sensical, why should I take these as real.
As I had argued, objective moral facts can be inferred as represented by PHYSICAL neural correlates, in terms of neural algorithm, neurons, genes, atoms and quarks which can possibly be verified and justified empirically via the scientific FSK.
There are already research going on is this area, albeit not yet precise.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:26 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:39 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:53 am
How did you get there from this?????
I wonder if what might make morality objective is an attitude of disinterest. 'Disinterest' in the sense of justice blindfolded, or the veil of ignorance.

You never make any sense.
The connection between the former and the latter is that in order to be good or efficient people we exercise notions of probability. Thus the veil of ignorance probably aids justice, and reasoned guesses probably aid justice.
For the decisions we must make, chance and reasoned choice are constants, however reason and knowledge weigh against the element of chance.
There is NO such 'thing' as so-called 'good people'. There are, however, 'people' who do 'good' AND 'bad', or 'wrong', things'. Which, by the way, is ALL of 'you', adult people, here.

Also, LEARNING, and thus COMING-TO-KNOW the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between what IS 'good', 'bad', and/or 'wrong' here HELPS TREMENDOUSLY in tending towards ONLY DOING what IS GOOD and Right, in Life.
I agree, and what I wrote could and should have included the morality of existentialism as you imply.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Elsewhere, VA has kindly offered a travesty of my argument against moral objectivism. So here's VA's own silly argument for moral objectivism.

P1 A fact exists only within a 'framework and system of knowledge'.
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

P1 is false, because the facts we discover and describe existed before we discovered and described them, and would exist even had we not discovered and described them. (After all, there was a universe before humans turned up, would be one had we not turned up, and will be one after we're gone.)

As this premise is false, the argument is unsound.

P2 begs the question, because it assumes the conclusion: that there are moral facts which can therefore be known within a framework and system of knowledge. (After all, there is an astrology 'framework and system of knowledge', so there should be astrology facts and astrology should be objective. But there aren't, and it isn't.)

As this premise assumes the conclusion, the argument is fallacious.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:56 pm P1 is false, because the facts we discover and describe existed before we discovered and described them
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes - why are you avoiding the issue?

The universe exists.
Everything contained in the universe exists.

What or where do facts exist over and above everything that already exists?
Post Reply