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: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:48 am What could make morality objective------- A SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"A SUBJECT" ???

There are >8 billion subjects, so there are > 8 billion conceptions of 'moral objectivity'?

This is why the most realistic definition of 'what is objectivity' is;
"Objectivity is intersubjectivity" as in scientific objectivity based on the intersubjective consensus [shared] of individual subjective views,
Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
What is 'objectivity' is reducible to 'subjects' via intersubjectivity not via 'a subject'.

That objectivity is intersubjectivity prevails because such conception has produced tremendous utilities and contributed to the progress within humanity via Scientific Objectivity which can be extended to moral objectivity.
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: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:51 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:48 am What could make morality objective------- A SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"A SUBJECT" ???

There are >8 billion subjects, so there are > 8 billion conceptions of 'moral objectivity'?

This is why the most realistic definition of 'what is objectivity' is;
"Objectivity is intersubjectivity" as in scientific objectivity based on the intersubjective consensus [shared] of individual subjective views,
Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
What is 'objectivity' is reducible to 'subjects' via intersubjectivity not via 'a subject'.

That objectivity is intersubjectivity prevails because such conception has produced tremendous utilities and contributed to the progress within humanity via Scientific Objectivity which can be extended to moral objectivity.
Claptrap. Scientific and technological progress comes from the refusal to accept the intersubjective consensus - the current orthodoxy. It comes from observing reality as it really is - not as it's supposed to be.

Consensus theories of truth and knowledge are patently ridiculous and easily refuted - as is moral cognitivism.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:51 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:48 am What could make morality objective------- A SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"A SUBJECT" ???

There are >8 billion subjects, so there are > 8 billion conceptions of 'moral objectivity'?
This is why the most realistic definition of 'what is objectivity' is;
"Objectivity is intersubjectivity" as in scientific objectivity based on the intersubjective consensus [shared] of individual subjective views,
Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
What is 'objectivity' is reducible to 'subjects' via intersubjectivity not via 'a subject'.

That objectivity is intersubjectivity prevails because such conception has produced tremendous utilities and contributed to the progress within humanity via Scientific Objectivity which can be extended to moral objectivity.
OK, define intersubjectivity in the relation between subject and object, does intersubjectivity mean inside the subject DUH! It doesn't matter that there are many conscious subjects their relationship is between the physical world as object and A- CONSCIOUS SUBJECT. When you try to introduce many conscious subjects into the equation, you're creating what is call a consensus of like biologizes about a like object experience. To the individual, experience is truth, to the group it is agreement. Intersubjectivity again define!! This is why our common biology is the only sane foundation for the establishment of a moral system, it is insane to base it on the supernatural.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:38 pm reality as it really is
That's begging the question.

Model-dependent realism
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

So, intersubjectivity is inquiry with no emotional or self-interested investment--yes? I don't think that is even possible, that is why science is peer-reviewed. It also has nothing to do with what makes morality objective. There is but one simple answer to that question, a conscious subject objectifies that which it creates.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Here's a recently quoted paragraph.

'Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.'

The stupidity of this fashionable argument beggars belief. Here it is:

Reality can be described in many different ways; therefore, there are many different realities.

1 It's invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

2 It mistakes a description for the described - an ancient delusion.

3 It flirts with the fantasy of a perfect or complete and context-free description - the saying that say sit all - then both dismisses the fantasy and invokes it to denigrate all actual descriptions as 'wrong' - ('All models are wrong, but some are useful.')

4 It echoes Kant's disastrous flirtation with, and dismissal of, noumena - things-in-themselves - by supposed contrast with which we can only have access to phenomena - appearances. (If you abolish one pole of a dichotomy, it's no longer a dichotomy.)

I think that objections to so-called philosophical realism are really justifiable objections to the claim that any one description captures the 'essence' of 'ultimate reality' - as though there is such a thing - such a 'thing-in-itself' - about which the 'real truth' could be told.

And quite apart from all this, the invocation of model-dependent realism to support belief in moral realism or objectivism - 'moral reality' or 'the moral order' - is farcical.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:51 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:48 am What could make morality objective------- A SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"A SUBJECT" ???

There are >8 billion subjects, so there are > 8 billion conceptions of 'moral objectivity'?

This is why the most realistic definition of 'what is objectivity' is;
"Objectivity is intersubjectivity" as in scientific objectivity based on the intersubjective consensus [shared] of individual subjective views,
Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
What is 'objectivity' is reducible to 'subjects' via intersubjectivity not via 'a subject'.

That objectivity is intersubjectivity prevails because such conception has produced tremendous utilities and contributed to the progress within humanity via Scientific Objectivity which can be extended to moral objectivity.
Claptrap. Scientific and technological progress comes from the refusal to accept the intersubjective consensus - the current orthodoxy. It comes from observing reality as it really is - not as it's supposed to be.

Consensus theories of truth and knowledge are patently ridiculous and easily refuted - as is moral cognitivism.
You are trapping your own claps due to ignorance.

Strawman again;
I did not emphasize this "Consensus theories of truth and knowledge" plainly or whatever is supposed to be without empirical verification and justification.

In Science,
1. there must be the scientific FSK in place.
2. A hypothesis is raised.
3. Empirical observations and evidence are collected based on the standard scientific methods.
4. If the evidence correspond with the hypothesis, the thesis is then considered verified and justified.
5. Then the thesis is subjected to peer review, an only accepted as an objective scientific theory /knowledge /truth upon sufficient consensus from the recognized peers.

Of course, consensus alone will not qualify a thesis as an objective scientific theory or knowledge.

What I claimed as objective moral facts must first be verified and justified within the scientific FSK via process 1-5 above, then conditioned upon the specific Moral FSK to be recognized as an objective moral fact.

Note it is not all talks but whatever is recognized as an objective moral fact must be able to translate to moral utilities.
The objective moral fact, the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans is a standard to guide individuals not to kill humans and to achieve the theoretical possible ZERO killings of humans by humans in the future.
In practice it may not be possible to achieve ZERO but such a factual standard will guide individuals to continually improve toward and be as close as possible to the target.

On the other hand, you are expecting all individuals to be sitting ducks to be killed by evil prone killers as in the past, now and into the future.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, deal with this!!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:08 am The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, deal with this!!
To me the above is which is obvious is moot, a non-starter based and MEANINGLESS re the point that I have emphasized Kant's Copernican Revolution '1000s' of times.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:40 pm So, intersubjectivity is inquiry with no emotional or self-interested investment--yes? I don't think that is even possible, that is why science is peer-reviewed. It also has nothing to do with what makes morality objective. There is but one simple answer to that question, a conscious subject objectifies that which it creates.
Basically the term 'objectivity' is to reflect the confidence level of how realistic a knowledge claim is.

If there are various claims the Sun is 150, 500, 1000 million miles from Earth.
Surely the first thing, if you are rational, would want to know whether the above is a subjective or objective knowledge.

As is quite well known, the above claims 150, 500, 1000 million miles are identified as subjective claims by different subjects based on their person judgments or from unreliable sources.

The scientific knowledge is the Sun is Appx 93 million miles from Earth.
Surely you would NOT classify this scientific claim as a subjective claim like the above.
As such to differentiate the reliability and credibility of the scientific knowledge, it is general identified as 'OBJECTIVE' knowledge as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
This is a common practice, why do you want to resist it without any sound basis at all?

This scientific objectivity is ultimately reinforced by intersubjective agreement [intersubjectivity] within the relevant peers.
Without this condition of intersubjectivity, no thesis will be recognized as an objective scientific theory, truth or knowledge.

Because it is accepted by peers, it is independent of the individual scientist judgment or belief, thus objective via intersubjectivity.
E.g. the theory of relativity is objective, not because Einstein said so, but because Science [Physics FSK] said so.

Harping on the term subjective and subjectivity will not generate confidence levels for others to rely upon it to generate utilities.
This is why the term 'objectivity' [via intersubjectivity] is critical to identify the knowledge is reliable as derived from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

As I had stated, whatever is an objective fact must be conditioned upon a credible FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK being the most credible at present.
Then we have a credible moral FSK which rely its input from the scientific FSK, objective moral fact are derived from the moral FSK with reasonable degree of objectivity.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:30 pm Here's a recently quoted paragraph.

'Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.'

The stupidity of this fashionable argument beggars belief. Here it is:

Reality can be described in many different ways; therefore, there are many different realities.

1 It's invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

2 It mistakes a description for the described - an ancient delusion.

3 It flirts with the fantasy of a perfect or complete and context-free description - the saying that say sit all - then both dismisses the fantasy and invokes it to denigrate all actual descriptions as 'wrong' - ('All models are wrong, but some are useful.')

4 It echoes Kant's disastrous flirtation with, and dismissal of, noumena - things-in-themselves - by supposed contrast with which we can only have access to phenomena - appearances. (If you abolish one pole of a dichotomy, it's no longer a dichotomy.)

I think that objections to so-called philosophical realism are really justifiable objections to the claim that any one description captures the 'essence' of 'ultimate reality' - as though there is such a thing - such a 'thing-in-itself' - about which the 'real truth' could be told.

And quite apart from all this, the invocation of model-dependent realism to support belief in moral realism or objectivism - 'moral reality' or 'the moral order' - is farcical.
Is there a reason you avoided the elephant in the room?

If there are many different (potentially infinite) descriptions of reality; and many different (potentially infinite) contexts then...

Why isn't the description "wrong" in a moral context pertaining to me kicking you in the Idiot-testicles a factual description? Isn't that how we use the word "wrong" in a moral context?
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:01 am, edited 6 times in total.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas"
Basically, the term 'objectivity' is to reflect the confidence level of how realistic a knowledge claim is.
If there are various claims the Sun is 150, 500, 1000 million miles from Earth.
Surely the first thing, if you are rational, would want to know whether the above is subjective or objective knowledge. [/quote]

All knowledge is subjective, if you were driving a very big truck and a consensus of locals told you the bridge you need to cross was perfectly safe for all truck traffic. Nevertheless, your subjectivity is telling you this bridge doesn't look like it could support a number of people never mind the tonnage you were driving, which do you think would win out. Would you drive fearlessly across said bridge? The local evaluation is objective knowledge, isn't it? Subjective knowledge is going to win out every time your butt is on the line.


As is quite well known, the above claims 150, 500, 1000 million miles are identified as subjective claims by different subjects based on their person judgments or from unreliable sources. The scientific knowledge is the Sun is Appx 93 million miles from Earth.
Surely you would NOT classify this scientific claim as a subjective claim like the above.
As such to differentiate the reliability and credibility of the scientific knowledge, it is generally identified as 'OBJECTIVE' knowledge as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
This is a common practice, why do you want to resist it without any sound basis at all? [/quote]

While in the case above there is no subjective experience to come into play, there is just trust in authority, in hearsay. Here you are assuming others know better than you. It is very thin ice from a subjective perspective and depends upon the level of trust in the experiences of the past with this particular authority.

This scientific objectivity is ultimately reinforced by intersubjective agreement [intersubjectivity] within the relevant peers.
Without this condition of intersubjectivity, no thesis will be recognized as an objective scientific theory, truth or knowledge.
Because it is accepted by peers, it is independent of the individual scientist judgment or belief, thus objective via intersubjectivity.
E.g. the theory of relativity is objective, not because Einstein said so, but because Science [Physics FSK] said so. [/quote]

This is still trust in authority well founded as it may be. It is the collective subjective of like biologizes concerning an experience the subject has not had in order to have subjective knowledge of the case of point. TRUST!

Harping on the term subjective and subjectivity will not generate confidence levels for others to rely upon it to generate utilities.
This is why the term 'objectivity' [via intersubjectivity] is critical to identify the knowledge is reliable as derived from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
As I had stated, whatever is an objective fact must be conditioned upon a credible FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK being the most credible at present.
Then we have a credible moral FSK which rely on its input from the scientific FSK, objective moral fact are derived from the moral FSK with reasonable degree of objectivity.
[/quote]

It is trust in the collective subject evaluation as it is instituted. I don't think we really disagree here, but personal subjectivity will always trump the collective if there is a great deal at stake for the individual. Trust will only carry one so far, our personal subjectivity is the individual's survival mode and the measure and meaning of all things. The topic above though is misleading, for the question asks HOW morality becomes objectified and the only possible answer is morality in whatever structure or forms it might take is biological extension, an expression of humanities subjective nature, the subject manifests his sentiments in outward creations.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

The stupidity of the 'that's-how-we use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity beggars belief. Here it is:

'(It's a fact that) X is morally right/wrong because that's how we use the words '(X is) morally right/wrong.'

So,... (It's a fact that) water is H2O because that's how we use the words '(water is) H2O'.

So,...saying something is so makes it so? Nothing else is required?

Stroll on. Troll along.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:51 am The stupidity of the 'that's-how-we use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity beggars belief.
Why does it "beggar belief" for moral arguments, but not for other kinds of arguments?

Care to account for your special pleading?
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:51 am Here it is:

'(It's a fact that) X is morally right/wrong because that's how we use the words '(X is) morally right/wrong.'
Yes. What's confusing you about it?

It's a fact that X is red because that's how we use the word "red".

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:51 am So,... (It's a fact that) water is H2O because that's how we use the words '(water is) H2O'.

So,...saying something is so makes it so? Nothing else is required?
Yes. That's precisely how all definitions work. Congratulations on finally figuring it out.

Saying that this color is red makes it red.

That is how humans assign meaning to words.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

A suggestion for moral realists and objectivists.

Demonstrate the existence of moral rightness and wrongness as physical properties. Or stfu.

Hint: stfu.
Post Reply