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
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:33 pm 2. In addition, I have the other project,
God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
In the meantime the pro-life fanatics are grounding their morality on an illusory being, i.e. God who has issued the maxim and command "abortion is evil".
You wrote that argument out 5 years ago and it was both a strawaman and deductively invalid at the same time. Is it not time you stopped bragging about it yet?

You should have improved at this stuff given the effort you have expended in the last 5 years. Why not replace bad old arguments with modern ones of whatever standard you are currently capable?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Alexander_Reiswich has posted the following.

'The concept of rights and duties is just an idea, one that has existed for quite a long time and which is common to virtually all cultures. Although there are many variations and more complex forms, the basic idea is fairly clear, i.e. "if I have right X in relation to subject Y, then subject Y has a duty to satisfy my claim to right X". That's what I mean by the logic of the "concept of rights and duties". Does this clarify it? If you meant something else, please let me know.'

My standing questions are these: what and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? So - what and where are so-called concepts, and in what way do they exist? So far, answers avoiding question-begging or equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' come there none. But - any offers?

So, if a concept is 'just an idea', what and where is an idea, and in what way does it exist? If an idea is a thing that supposedly exists in a mind, what and where is a mind, and in what way does it exist? When we say a concept or an idea is a thing that exists in a mind, have we explained anything at all?

How does a supposed non-physical cause have a physical effect? And how can a physical effect be evidence for a supposed non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism? Rational answers come there none.

What I'm trying to hunt down and expose is the myth of so-called abstract or non-physical things, which is ancient and persistent. And talk of ideas or - more modern and technical-sounding - concepts in minds demonstrates how deeply runs the myth.

It informs all the important philosophical questions about truth, knowledge, identity, justice, goodness, beauty, being, and so on, and so on - all the things supposedly named by what we misleadingly call abstract nouns.

Socrates and Plato made careers out of asking and trying to provide answers to these misguided questions - and philosophers have been hamstering in the silly wheel ever since.
CIN
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:59 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by CIN »

Apologies to people who have posted comments addressed to me to which I have not replied; I simply haven't had the time, and this situation looks set to continue for some weeks at least.
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: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:37 pm Alexander_Reiswich has posted the following.

'The concept of rights and duties is just an idea, one that has existed for quite a long time and which is common to virtually all cultures. Although there are many variations and more complex forms, the basic idea is fairly clear, i.e. "if I have right X in relation to subject Y, then subject Y has a duty to satisfy my claim to right X". That's what I mean by the logic of the "concept of rights and duties". Does this clarify it? If you meant something else, please let me know.'

My standing questions are these: what and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? So - what and where are so-called concepts, and in what way do they exist? So far, answers avoiding question-begging or equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' come there none. But - any offers?

So, if a concept is 'just an idea', what and where is an idea, and in what way does it exist? If an idea is a thing that supposedly exists in a mind, what and where is a mind, and in what way does it exist? When we say a concept or an idea is a thing that exists in a mind, have we explained anything at all?

How does a supposed non-physical cause have a physical effect? And how can a physical effect be evidence for a supposed non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism? Rational answers come there none.

What I'm trying to hunt down and expose is the myth of so-called abstract or non-physical things, which is ancient and persistent. And talk of ideas or - more modern and technical-sounding - concepts in minds demonstrates how deeply runs the myth.

It informs all the important philosophical questions about truth, knowledge, identity, justice, goodness, beauty, being, and so on, and so on - all the things supposedly named by what we misleadingly call abstract nouns.

Socrates and Plato made careers out of asking and trying to provide answers to these misguided questions - and philosophers have been hamstering in the silly wheel ever since.
I would read Alexander_Reiswich's point above differently.
Where rights and duty are to be imposed, they cannot belong to morality-proper.
Rather they should belong to politics [legislation, judiciary and policing] or within the governance of an Association or Society or other social groups [even criminal gangs].

Criminal Codes within national political laws are based on some abstracted ideas; agreed by all, majority or imposed by a dictator within some social contract.

Btw, why do you still live in UK and be dominated by its laws which are based on abstracted ideas and not on facts. It is likely you are not happy with some of these laws based on abstracted ideas which to you is non-existence.
You should move to somewhere [some isolated island, jungle, wilderness] where there are no laws nor rules imposed on you.
Then, it is possible you will realize and sense the 'moral laws' within you [Kant?] which you 'ought' to comply or else you will die miserably.
Socrates and Plato made careers out of asking and trying to provide answers to these misguided questions - and philosophers have been hamstering in the silly wheel ever since.
That is your narrow, shallow, archaic and dogmatic view due to your ignorance that the Philosophy of Morality has since shifted and made progress towards morality with neuroscientific, genetics, genomics, etc. basis.
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: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:16 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:37 pm Alexander_Reiswich has posted the following.

'The concept of rights and duties is just an idea, one that has existed for quite a long time and which is common to virtually all cultures. Although there are many variations and more complex forms, the basic idea is fairly clear, i.e. "if I have right X in relation to subject Y, then subject Y has a duty to satisfy my claim to right X". That's what I mean by the logic of the "concept of rights and duties". Does this clarify it? If you meant something else, please let me know.'

My standing questions are these: what and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? So - what and where are so-called concepts, and in what way do they exist? So far, answers avoiding question-begging or equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' come there none. But - any offers?

So, if a concept is 'just an idea', what and where is an idea, and in what way does it exist? If an idea is a thing that supposedly exists in a mind, what and where is a mind, and in what way does it exist? When we say a concept or an idea is a thing that exists in a mind, have we explained anything at all?

How does a supposed non-physical cause have a physical effect? And how can a physical effect be evidence for a supposed non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism? Rational answers come there none.

What I'm trying to hunt down and expose is the myth of so-called abstract or non-physical things, which is ancient and persistent. And talk of ideas or - more modern and technical-sounding - concepts in minds demonstrates how deeply runs the myth.

It informs all the important philosophical questions about truth, knowledge, identity, justice, goodness, beauty, being, and so on, and so on - all the things supposedly named by what we misleadingly call abstract nouns.

Socrates and Plato made careers out of asking and trying to provide answers to these misguided questions - and philosophers have been hamstering in the silly wheel ever since.
I would read Alexander_Reiswich's point above differently.
Where rights and duty are to be imposed, they cannot belong to morality-proper.
Rather they should belong to politics [legislation, judiciary and policing] or within the governance of an Association or Society or other social groups [even criminal gangs].

Criminal Codes within national political laws are based on some abstracted ideas; agreed by all, majority or imposed by a dictator within some social contract.

Btw, why do you still live in UK and be dominated by its laws which are based on abstracted ideas and not on facts. It is likely you are not happy with some of these laws based on abstracted ideas which to you is non-existence.
You should move to somewhere [some isolated island, jungle, wilderness] where there are no laws nor rules imposed on you.
Then, it is possible you will realize and sense the 'moral laws' within you [Kant?] which you 'ought' to comply or else you will die miserably.
Socrates and Plato made careers out of asking and trying to provide answers to these misguided questions - and philosophers have been hamstering in the silly wheel ever since.
That is your narrow, shallow, archaic and dogmatic view due to your ignorance that the Philosophy of Morality has since shifted and made progress towards morality with neuroscientific, genetics, genomics, etc. basis.
It appears you don't understand - because you certainly don't address - my point about the myth of so-called abstract or non-physical things: what and where are they, and in what way do they exist?

Your use of the expression 'abstracted ideas' shows that the fog you're in is as thick as ever. What is an 'unabstracted' idea supposed to be? And is a 'concrete idea' a concrete, physical thing?

Or could it be that the adjectives 'concrete' and 'abstract' mean 'real' and 'unreal' when used to modify the noun 'idea'? But then, how could something unreal be the basis for legal systems? Well - what a conceptual mess!

Turns out the emperor always was naked.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:15 am It appears you don't understand - because you certainly don't address - my point about the myth of so-called abstract or non-physical things: what and where are they, and in what way do they exist?
What a non-sensical and confused question.

Everything that exists - exists. That's all there is to say about it. There are no "ways of existence".

In what way do you exist? Dumb dualist equivocating existence!
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:15 am What is an 'unabstracted' idea supposed to be?
idea /ʌɪˈdɪə/ noun 1. a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.
Ideas propose action.
Abstract ideas refer to contents of minds. Like the abstract idea of a "myth".

But hey, insert your own argument up your own ass...

If abstract things don't exist then what or where is a "myth". In what way do myths exist; and if they don't exist then what the fuck are you talking about?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:15 am Or could it be that the adjectives 'concrete' and 'abstract' mean 'real' and 'unreal' when used to modify the noun 'idea'?
"Somethig unreal"? There's no such thing.

To speak of "unreal" things is to reify them. If you don't want to reify an abstract idea - then you should shut the fuck up about it.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of so-called moral facts. So what constitutes what we call a fact is at the heart of our discussion. And here's VA's ridiculous argument for moral objectivity.

Premise: A description (a truth-claim) exists only in a descriptive context. So there are physics facts, chemistry facts, history facts, and so on. (This is true.)

Conclusions:

1 Therefore, what we call a fact exists only in a descriptive context. (This is false.)
2 Therefore, any descriptive context can produce facts; so there can be moral facts. (This is false.)

VA has been suckered by Kant's silly but influential idea that we can never know (and describe) things-in-themselves (noumena), because they don't exist - so all we can know (and describe) are things-as-they-appear (phenomena). It's silly because, if you abolish one pole of a dichotomy, it's no longer a dichotomy.

The silly idea has morphed into post-modern fashions, such as 'all models are wrong, but some are useful', and what's called 'model-dependent realism'. Mistaking what we say about things for the way things are - an ancient delusion - is at the root of all this nonsense.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:39 am The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of so-called moral facts.
That's a fallacious premise - a double standard.

What makes gravity objective is not the existence of "so-called gravitational facts".

What makes gravity objective is that it has a causal, observable and measurable phenomenon.

And that's exactly what makes morality objective - it's a causal, observable and measurable phenomenon.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:39 am The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of so-called moral facts.
You know what... I am not even going to move the goal posts. I am just going to address you on your own standard...
fact noun a thing that is known or proved to be true.
It's true that murdering people is wrong and I know it. And I think just about everybody knows to be true.

How do we know it to be true? It's true by definition - it's a tautology.

There's your moral fact. Morality is objective.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

AR says that morality can be objective if it's based on the 'legitimate' claiming of rights. Here's an example:

'For example, if a serial killer intends to murder you, the morally correct conclusion is to understand that they do not have your interests in mind and as such you are under no obligation to respect their interests. It's not about whether killing is moral or immoral -- that's just noise. It's all about what right can legitimately be claimed. In this particular case, you can claim a right to self-defense.'

So according to this theory, a killer's killing (or wanting to kill) me is neither morally right nor morally wrong. That's just noise. And my killing (or wanting to kill) the killer is also neither morally right nor morally wrong. That's also just noise. The actions or intentions themselves are not morally significant.

Instead, morality - moral rightness and wrongness - kick in only when rights are the issue. If the killer doesn't acknowledge my right not to be killed, I need not acknowledge the killer's right not to be killed - that's the 'morally correct conclusion'.

But why is it a 'moral' conclusion at all? Where does morality - moral rightness and wrongness - come into it? And where does the legitimacy come from in 'It's all about what right can legitimately be claimed'?

That a right can be claimed legitimately only if it's acknowledged for others is a matter of opinion, which is subjective. And the moral rightness or wrongness of the right is a separate matter anyway. Nothing approaching moral objectivity can emerge from this explanation.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:25 pm AR says that morality can be objective if it's based on the 'legitimate' claiming of rights. Here's an example:

'For example, if a serial killer intends to murder you, the morally correct conclusion is to understand that they do not have your interests in mind and as such you are under no obligation to respect their interests. It's not about whether killing is moral or immoral -- that's just noise. It's all about what right can legitimately be claimed. In this particular case, you can claim a right to self-defense.'

So according to this theory, a killer's killing (or wanting to kill) me is neither morally right nor morally wrong. That's just noise. And my killing (or wanting to kill) the killer is also neither morally right nor morally wrong. That's also just noise. The actions or intentions themselves are not morally significant.

Instead, morality - moral rightness and wrongness - kick in only when rights are the issue. If the killer doesn't acknowledge my right not to be killed, I need not acknowledge the killer's right not to be killed - that's the 'morally correct conclusion'.

But why is it a 'moral' conclusion at all? Where does morality - moral rightness and wrongness - come into it? And where does the legitimacy come from in 'It's all about what right can legitimately be claimed'?

That a right can be claimed legitimately only if it's acknowledged for others is a matter of opinion, which is subjective. And the moral rightness or wrongness of the right is a separate matter anyway. Nothing approaching moral objectivity can emerge from this explanation.
Oh, you are theorising.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I thought you are doing something useful.

Let us know when you navigate your dysfunctional mind into discarding the subjective/objective distinction.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

It could be that human societies can function and flourish only if there's a reciprocal recognition of at least some rights. That looks like a reasonable explanation.

But it has no moral entailment, such as: therefore, (it's a fact that) an asymmetrical or unreciprocated claiming or possession of rights is morally wrong. That doesn't follow.

It may be impractical to claim a right denied to others, but that doesn't make it factually illegitimate, or morally wrong, to do so. Those are separate value judgements.

Example. There's a fully reciprocated recognition of the right to exploit others by stealing the surplus value of their labour. My right to rob you is legitimate, because I accept that you have the right to rob me, and behave accordingly.

Et, voila: moral objectivity?

(In itself, the claiming of a right, like a right itself, is morally neutral.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:53 am (In itself, the claiming of a right, like a right itself, is morally neutral.)
So your moral opinions are morally neutral?

What does that even mean?
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: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:39 am The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of so-called moral facts. So what constitutes what we call a fact is at the heart of our discussion. And here's VA's ridiculous argument for moral objectivity.

Premise: A description (a truth-claim) exists only in a descriptive context. So there are physics facts, chemistry facts, history facts, and so on. (This is true.)

Conclusions:

1 Therefore, what we call a fact exists only in a descriptive context. (This is false.)
2 Therefore, any descriptive context can produce facts; so there can be moral facts. (This is false.)

VA has been suckered by Kant's silly but influential idea that we can never know (and describe) things-in-themselves (noumena), because they don't exist - so all we can know (and describe) are things-as-they-appear (phenomena). It's silly because, if you abolish one pole of a dichotomy, it's no longer a dichotomy.

The silly idea has morphed into post-modern fashions, such as 'all models are wrong, but some are useful', and what's called 'model-dependent realism'. Mistaking what we say about things for the way things are - an ancient delusion - is at the root of all this nonsense.
You are just a gnat relative to Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times] and Stephen Hawkins ['model-dependent realism'].

Your above has nothings substantive other than blabbering.
You need to produce arguments that are sound and I don't think you are capable, given I have not read of you posting any credible references [ZERO] to support your arguments [actually blabbering].
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true. But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all. So, what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent from judgement, belief or opinion?

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?
(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)
What could make morality objective------- A SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post Reply