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: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:06 am

-1- wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:42 am

You can prove my belief is wrong by quoting from Kant's books to support your view. If your evidences/argument are true, then I will change my beliefs on this issue.
I don't read books per se, they are too long for my attention span. And this is actually not a joke.

And I actually don't know what your view is. You wrote it down, but I could not or else did not want to follow it. Too many capitalized, too many bolded, too many differently emphasized text... you sure do know how to lose your readers.

But I know this much: Kant's idea is that to do only those acts which we would approve of if everyone does that particular deed in the given circumstances.

This is a prisoner's dilemma. If, for instance, everyone works towards a common good, such as no theft of private property, then one might say, "hey, nobody is going to steal from me, but if I steal from someone, in a way that I can get away with it unsuspected and unpunished, then I'll get an advantage in social standing. So I will steal given the proper circumstances."

There you have it, AV.

That's A.
Kant's Morality do not depend on the casuistry [Trolley Dilemma] approach but rather banked on the Framework and System approach. So there no prisoner's dilemma.
The trolley problem approach is never effective as it is impossible to generate the all possible trolley scenarios [each very specific] within humanity.

In the Kantian approach, there is the Moral and Ethics aspect.
The ideal morality is everyone must be morally perfect and thus capable of self-managing their own moral competence and ALL are involved in establishing the moral absolutes as guides as a controls against the practical [ethics].
In this case, because all are morally perfect no one will steal from another.

Btw, if you do not read any philosopher thoroughly then you must acknowledge your views on his/her philosophy is obviously limited and not credible.
B. is that moral guides are what? Tour guides? guide rails? "This maxim of Kant (ibid) shalt guide my moral behaviour." What does that actually mean, guide my behaviour? That sometimes I follow it, and sometimes I don't, depending on the inner and outer landscape of circumstances at a time?

If you can explain what you and Kant meant by "guide", then I'll be closer to the truth. At this point I am forced to think that a moral "guide" derived from nothing by intellectualized speculative means is at best a weak proposition, and lo and behold, at this point in my view it provides no more certainty than a prisoners dilemma.
From the moral aspect of the Kantian approach, the perfect collective will establish objective moral absolutes as guides.
These moral absolutes are not any intellectualized speculations but intellectualized on the basis that all humans are sort of philosophy-kings and are perfectly moral. This is nevertheless an ideal which is to be used as a guide.
All are to be philosophy-kings and morally perfect and they will establish perfect moral absolutes as guides. They are not to be enforced.

The question is how can we expect ALL humans to be philosophy-kings. This is an absolute ideal. Whilst ideals are impossible, it is possible for humanity to assist all humans to be as near as possible to be philosophy-kings in the future given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. It is not something utopic, I am optimistic this is tenable as the trend is evident in relation to morality.
This is the critical step that the Kantian approach is banking on.

On the practical side, what we have is Ethics, where moral absolute [guides] are translated into maxims. e.g. Thou Shall not Steal, period, not ifs and buts.
But humans - being human - are not infallible and thus there will be a percentage people who will steal.

Now because there is an ideal guide or standard, there is something [fixed & absolute] for what is going on in reality to be compared against.
This comparison will produce a variance between the ideal and the actual which we shall call the Moral/Ethics Gap.
The first to take action will be the individual who is supposed to be morally perfect. In this case the individual will have to question why his conscience is not working and thus has to work on his impulse control related to stealing. If not effective then the collective will assist.

The Kantian Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is like [crude analogy] a Thermostat System, where we set the optimal standard of temperature and it is up to the relevant machinery to adjust to close the gap between the actual conditions and the optimal standard that is set.
The Kantian System is definitely much more refined and sophisticated since it involves humans and especially ALL humans working against absolute moral ideals.

The moral absolute as ideals enable FIXED GOAL POSTS to be set which will drive continual improvements towards the perfect ideals establish by autonomous [full freedom] morally perfect humans. Note from experience, shifting goal posts are not effective in the long run.

In the case of consequentialism there are only shifting goal posts relative the whims of 7+ billion individuals. There are no fixed goal posts to drive continuous improvements towards the ideal.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:06 am
In the Kantian approach, there is the Moral and Ethics aspect.
The ideal morality is everyone must be morally perfect and thus capable of self-managing their own moral competence and ALL are involved in establishing the moral absolutes as guides as a controls against the practical [ethics].
In this case, because all are morally perfect no one will steal from another.
That's a pipe dream. You seem to be concerned with intentional immoral actions only (theft) e.g things which have direct and immediate consequences. What about unintentional-yet-immoral actions like unconscious or even systemic biases e.g racism?

For everybody to be morally perfect, everybody needs to be capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. The effects of racism aren't typically direct and immediate. They only manifest at social scale.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:50 am

Veritas, you seem to be enamoured by the Kantian futuristic morality, but you see its faults clearly as well. That's what I get from your description.

I understand your love for it (everyone is enamoured by some or another philosophical futurism), and I even more understand your skepticism (I, myself, see Kant's vision of a future moral society as no more than a pipe dream, a mid-nineteenth century romantic view of an ideal society, the type of which vision was popular in the era-- whether Kant lived in that era, or he was heralding it. Your description further solidifies and supports my attitude on Kant's theory).

So I don't see why argue with you, when our views are so closely aligned. Maybe not views, but attitudes. About Kant's vision.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:58 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 4:43 pm
-1- wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 4:37 pm
...once extortionists cooperate, they become cooperationists. So they lose their extortionist's character, which is needed to be retained in them for the sake of the experiment.
No, that's too simplistic a view. There are cooperationists with self-imposed moral boundaries. Things they wouldn't do and lines they wouldn't cross - that is to their detriment.
So you say there would be two types of cooperationists in the petri-dish. One is a sincere cooperationist, the other one is an insincere, and opportunistic cooperationist.

(1) How do you program that in a computer simulation?

(2) In real life, how do you distinguish between a true cooperation, and a simulant (pretended) cooperation?

While (2) is possibly possible, (1) is not. Please also don't forget, that, after all, the model is derived from a computer simulation, so you can't actually mix that up with human social behaviour and society's behaviour. It would be like, as you pointed it out to Peter Holmes I think, mixing the map up with the actual terrain.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:06 am
Kant's Morality do not depend on the casuistry [Trolley Dilemma] approach but rather banked on the Framework and System approach. So there no prisoner's dilemma.
The trolley problem approach is never effective as it is impossible to generate the all possible trolley scenarios [each very specific] within humanity.
Veritas: I would like to ask you to please be more careful.

Here, you responded by denying that Kant's morality poses a Trolley Dilemma. I fully agree, and I never actually posed that. You did a nice and neat little Strawman here.

I am not saying this to argue, but to point out to you to please be more careful, perhaps slow down and repeat, and absorb and digest the text more fully, in your readings, before forming a reply.

Declaring that since there is no Trolley Dilemma, therefore there is no prisoner's dilemma is inconsequential, they don't follow from each other.

I am not saying this to argue, but to point out to you to please be more careful; simple declarations that are wrong won't work on this audience. Please slow down and don't believe everything that you write will be believed by your readers, when it is wrong.

I am not saying you should get up every morning sharp at 6 a.m., take a shower, work out, shine your shoes, but I do ask you to be a bit more disciplined in your line of thinking, and more importantly, in your communication.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:09 pm

-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:58 am
So you say there would be two types of cooperationists in the petri-dish. One is a sincere cooperationist, the other one is an insincere, and opportunistic cooperationist.

(1) How do you program that in a computer simulation?
There are at least two and I don't think we can simulate all possible strategies. Human behaviour is too complex.

The one thing humans can do that computers can't is goal and sub-goal setting as part of strategising. The simulations we build have clear "success" criteria. Real life doesn't.
-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:58 am
(2) In real life, how do you distinguish between a true cooperation, and a simulant (pretended) cooperation?
Difficult to impossible unless you are a mind reader.
-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:58 am
While (2) is possibly possible, (1) is not. Please also don't forget, that, after all, the model is derived from a computer simulation, so you can't actually mix that up with human social behaviour and society's behaviour. It would be like, as you pointed it out to Peter Holmes I think, mixing the map up with the actual terrain.
Of course, but probabilistic models forget one thing - if majority of the population adopts that strategy then a new (minority) winning strategy will emerge. Because every rule-based system can be gamed and abused by players who know how to bend the rules.

Nash equilibria are (so far) just theoretical. Also - it's entirely possible that an equilibrium is a state of perpetual warfare *shrug*

Back to my original point on ensemble vs time averages. Any simulation/statistical model will probably hold true at societal scale, but from the time-average (individual) perspective all models are prone to Ludic fallacies.

Reality is the only non-artificial experiment :/

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:11 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:06 am
Kant's Morality do not depend on the casuistry [Trolley Dilemma] approach but rather banked on the Framework and System approach. So there no prisoner's dilemma.
The trolley problem approach is never effective as it is impossible to generate the all possible trolley scenarios [each very specific] within humanity.
Veritas: I would like to ask you to please be more careful.

Here, you responded by denying that Kant's morality poses a Trolley Dilemma. I fully agree, and I never actually posed that. You did a nice and neat little Strawman here.

I am not saying this to argue, but to point out to you to please be more careful, perhaps slow down and repeat, and absorb and digest the text more fully, in your readings, before forming a reply.

Declaring that since there is no Trolley Dilemma, therefore there is no prisoner's dilemma is inconsequential, they don't follow from each other.

I am not saying this to argue, but to point out to you to please be more careful; simple declarations that are wrong won't work on this audience. Please slow down and don't believe everything that you write will be believed by your readers, when it is wrong.

I am not saying you should get up every morning sharp at 6 a.m., take a shower, work out, shine your shoes, but I do ask you to be a bit more disciplined in your line of thinking, and more importantly, in your communication.
Noted my oversight, it was Logik who mentioned, "it all boiled down to the Trolley Problem", I mistakenly thought it was yours.

In any case, Kant's Moral System is not related to the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:45 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:50 am
Veritas, you seem to be enamoured by the Kantian futuristic morality, but you see its faults clearly as well. That's what I get from your description.

I understand your love for it (everyone is enamoured by some or another philosophical futurism), and I even more understand your skepticism (I, myself, see Kant's vision of a future moral society as no more than a pipe dream, a mid-nineteenth century romantic view of an ideal society, the type of which vision was popular in the era-- whether Kant lived in that era, or he was heralding it. Your description further solidifies and supports my attitude on Kant's theory).

So I don't see why argue with you, when our views are so closely aligned. Maybe not views, but attitudes. About Kant's vision.
You misunderstood my points.

I do not see any faults with Kant's Moral and Ethics system.
The point is his system covers and recognizes humans as fallible and cater for that weakness.

Kant's Moral and Ethics system is not a pipe dream for me or even humanity. Kant's system is guided by ideals with the mission to strive towards those ideals while understanding the ideals are impossible to be achieved. The point is, it is more effective to strive towards some moral ideals than doing morality without some fixed goals.

One example is;
do you want to have a serious surgery in a hospital which has a mission of 'zero death by negligence' and shown to be striving for that mission or
one that state 'we are humans and we will do our best we can'.

In addition the Kantian Moral System is already implicitly practiced by humanity as driven by the inherent evolving moral faculty within humanity. One example is the UN's striving towards zero Chattel Slavery as a mission. [note 'Chattel' not all types of slavery']. In a way, humanity at present has already achieve an ideal [legal], i.e. all recognized Nations has implemented Laws to abolish Chattel Slavery.

Once we have implemented such a standard [the ideal] the next step is to close the gap between the actual and the ideal. Despite the laws on chattel slavery, there will be people breaking the law. Thus the solution is to find out why there is a variance. If there is no fixed standard, it will not be effective for improvements.
This is the principle of how Kant's morality will work, albeit this is only one aspect of morality.

If this principle had worked for one aspect of morality, then it is possible to apply to the whole of humanity's morality and ethics. To do it systematically and efficiently one will need to understand Kant's Moral system thoroughly. Generally it will take about 3 years full time for one to have a good grasp of Kant's philosophy. In addition, there are other complex issues to deal with.

One point is you lack intellectual and philosophical integrity. How can your critique of Kant be credible if you have not understood [not necessary agree with] his philosophical works? In the above case your superficial understanding of Kant's system is actually using a straw man to argue. [mine was an oversight, not deliberate ignorance].

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:45 am
I do not see any faults with Kant's Moral and Ethics system.
The point is his system covers and recognizes humans as fallible and cater for that weakness.
No it doesn't. Else Kant would be a consequentialist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:45 am
do you want to have a serious surgery in a hospital which has a mission of 'zero death by negligence' and shown to be striving for that mission or
one that state 'we are humans and we will do our best we can'.
If the hospital that claims 'we are humans and we will do our best we can' has lower mortality rates than the hospital which strives for 'zero death by negligence' - guess where I am going?

I choose the hospital which has the lowest, empirically measured, mortality rate. Irrespective of their stated mission.

If I had to deal with a stab wound (immediate life/death scenario) - I want to have my surgery in the hospital which treats the most knife-trauma cases per annum. Because statistically significant sample size correlates with the skill level of the doctors in dealing with trauma. It's called experience.

We covered this in another thread, but you failed to address the contingencies with your position.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:28 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:05 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:45 pm
1 As I think I've said several times, I reject correspondence theories of truth - at least, the ones I've come across so far. The claim that the factual assertion 'snow is white' is true because real snow really is white, obviously confuses what we say with the way things are - as though features of reality conform to our ways of talking about them. 'Correspondence' implies a two-way relationship - but actually it's all one-way.
Your rejection in words became worthless the moment that you insisted that the English sentence "Earth orbits the Sun" is a fact. By correspondence.
How did you assert that "The Earth orbits the Sun" is "the way things are"?
The 'way things are' is always from a perspective, and describing them using signs is always contextual and conventional. I thought we'd agreed all that. We use the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' from a perspective, contextually and conventionally. That from a different perspective what we call 'true'. 'factual' and 'objective' is none of those is irrelevant.

Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:45 pm
2 But there is such stuff as snow and whiteness
Trichromates experience color different to tetrachromates. Is all "whiteness" the same for all observers?
Perhaps it would be clearer to say 'there is such stuff as the stuff we call 'snow' and 'whiteness' - perceived from our perspective - the only one available to us'. There is no absolute perspective from which the 'really' true, factual and objective can be discerned.

Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:45 pm
3 Given this, the moral objectivist task is to show that there is such a thing (such stuff) as 'the wrongness of murder' which verifies the moral assertion 'murder is wrong', in the way that the wetness and whiteness of snow verifies the factual assertion 'snow is usually white and made of water'. The claim that both of these are subjective assertions is false and represents an ab-use of the word 'subjectivity'. Again, you're free to use words any way you like - but who cares? Go and play your different game somewhere else.
No, you are just moving the goal posts to suit your dogma. Snowflakes are made of water (which is made of molecules, which is made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, which are made of sub-atomic particles and we know that the standard model of physics is wrong or incomplete). Snowflakes are translucent, not white. Snow (made of translucent snowflakes) appears white to a trichromatic observer because of refraction.
No, you're missing the point yet again. As I've pointed out above, and repeatedly in this discussion, the distinction between factual and moral assertions is not about the sort of perspective you're talking about here, as tiresomely as ever.

What you're failing to do is show in what way - from what perspective, if you like - a moral assertion makes a factual claim of any kind. Please could you show that, because I have no idea what that could mean. Try it with any example you like, such as: 'slavery is morally wrong'. If, as you claim, such a value-judgement could be as objective as 'the earth orbits the sun', please can you show how that might be the case. I'm asking you to, as it were, put your money where your mouth is.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:15 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:28 am
The 'way things are' is always from a perspective, and describing them using signs is always contextual and conventional. I thought we'd agreed all that.
So there are as many "ways things are" as there are observer perspectives from which things can be described? In which case - I agree.
That has been my position all along.

Which is why I said that claiming "The Earth orbits the Sun" tells me nothing about reality and everything about your subjective perspective of reality.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:28 am
We use the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' from a perspective, contextually and conventionally.
This sounds to me like an admission that all truth-claims are subjective?

Your notion of "objectivity" is contingent on perspective. To be explicit about a perspective implies an observer - a subject.
If "truth" is only valid from a particular perspective and a particular context that is the exact opposite of the convention in which we use the word "objective truth"!

It contradicts the way YOU claim to use the phrase "objective truth" - true irrespective of what anybody claims to believe or know.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:28 am
That from a different perspective what we call 'true'. 'factual' and 'objective' is none of those is irrelevant.
That the notions of 'objectivity' and 'objective facts' are subjective conventions is irrelevant? Ok, genius :)

From a contradiction anything follows...
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:28 am
What you're failing to do is show in what way - from what perspective, if you like - a moral assertion makes a factual claim of any kind.
Because any and all claims AND assertions require a subject to make said assertions. The notions of objectivity, objective facts, morality and objective morality are inseparable from the subject!

Linguistic expressions exist because the observers exists. Objectivity and facts exists because observers exist.

The above is true from ANY perspective. It's objective truth. A fact - if you like.

Objective morality exists because the observers exist.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:39 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:15 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:28 am
The 'way things are' is always from a perspective, and describing them using signs is always contextual and conventional. I thought we'd agreed all that.
So there are as many "ways things are" as there are observer perspectives from which things can be described? In which case - I agree.
That has been my position all along.
No, that's shifting the goal posts. Previously you've appealed to perspective with regard to, say, whether the earth orbits the sun - from a geocentric as opposed to a barycentric perspective. From either perspective, there can be true or false claims about 'the way things are', given the conventional use of signs. If you're saying that two people on earth - using the same signs in the same way - can legitimately think the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' is both true or false - then that's nonsense.

Which is why I said that claiming "The Earth orbits the Sun" tells me nothing about reality and everything about your subjective perspective of reality.
Sorry, but this really is nonsense. And if this is what you believe, our conversation is pointless.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:28 am
We use the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' from a perspective, contextually and conventionally.
This sounds to me like an admission that all truth-claims are subjective?
There's the problem. I think you radically misunderstand the standard uses of 'objective' and 'subjective'.

Your notion of "objectivity" is contingent on perspective. To be explicit about a perspective implies an observer - a subject.
If "truth" is only valid from a particular perspective and a particular context that is the exact opposite of the convention in which we use the word "objective truth"!
As above, this is just a misunderstanding of 'subjective', which means 'a matter of judgement, belief or opinion'. It has nothing to do with what any particular individual thinks. If everyone thought that ice cream is delicious, that would still be an opinion, and therefore subjective. And the same applies to the moral claim that slavery is wrong - which is the point of my OP.

It contradicts the way YOU claim to use the phrase "objective truth" - true irrespective of what anybody claims to believe or know.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:28 am
That from a different perspective what we call 'true'. 'factual' and 'objective' is none of those is irrelevant.
That the notions of 'objectivity' and 'objective facts' are subjective conventions is irrelevant? Ok, genius :)

From a contradiction anything follows...
A contradiction can occur only within a logical framework (a linguistic practice), which can only be conventional. You're still moaning about the absence of some kind of foundation outside a framework, from which contradictions between claims within different frameworks could occur.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:28 am
What you're failing to do is show in what way - from what perspective, if you like - a moral assertion makes a factual claim of any kind.
Because any and all claims AND assertions require a subject to make said assertions. The notions of objectivity, morality and objective morality are inseparable from the subject!
Your misunderstanding gets clearer - and I'm sorry we didn't sort this out earlier.

Linguistic expressions exist because the observers exists. Objectivity exists because observers exist.

The above is true from ANY perspective. It's objective truth. A fact - if you like.

Objective morality exists because the observers exist.
No - this is a complete misunderstanding of the objective / subjective distinction. You're making fundamental mistakes, and they explain why we've been talking past each other. If all we have is our subjectivity (our individual or collective judgements, beliefs and opinions), how can there be objectivity of any kind, let alone moral objectivity? That's the real contradiction in your argument.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:49 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:39 pm
No, that's shifting the goal posts.
I am not shifting them. I am contradicting the goalposts. Which means the goal posts don't exist!
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:39 pm
Previously you've appealed to perspective with regard to, say, whether the earth orbits the sun - from a geocentric as opposed to a barycentric perspective. From either perspective, there can be true or false claims about 'the way things are', given the conventional use of signs. If you're saying that two people on earth - using the same signs in the same way - can legitimately think the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' is both true or false - then that's nonsense.
Peter, that is precisely the implication of perspectivism!

The claim "Earth orbits the Sun" is true from a Heliocentric perspective. It is false from a Baryocentric and Heliocentric perspective.
Baryocentrist, Heliocentrists and Geocentrists use the words "Earth", "Sun" and "orbit" in exactly the same way and in EXACTLY the same sense!

Ceteris paribus the "truth-value" of the claim is determined by the perspective, not by the meaning of the signs!

Therefore the statement "Earth orbits the Sun" cannot be objective truth independent from anybody knows or believes. Precisely because somebody who believes in Baryocentrism rejects that Earth orbits the Sun!

There is no way to resurrect your notion of 'objectivity' from these ashes!

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:39 pm
Sorry, but this really is nonsense. And if this is what you believe, our conversation is pointless.
Why is it nonsense Peter, in the paragraph above you admitted that truth-claims are only valid within a frame of reference and within a context.

Your claim about Earth orbiting the Sun is only true in the perspective and context of Heliocentrism.
It is false in the context of Baryocentrism AND Geocentrism.

Geocentrism, Heliocentrism or Baryocentrism has EVERYTHING to do with with what any particular individual thinks! That is what we call belief!
You believe that the Earth orbits the Sun. You are a Heliocentrist. A Baryocentrist believes you are stupid. Exactly in the same way that you think a Geocentrist is stupid.

Which perspective is "correct"?

I have no idea, but the Baryocentric perspective is more complete than the Heliocentric one; and the Heliocentric perspective is more complete than the Geocentric one.

If you don't recognise the relativity of the above claims then you are a faux atheist.

Because according to your claim 'God exists' is also true from a particular perspective/context given a particular convention and linguistic signs.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:29 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:39 pm
No - this is a complete misunderstanding of the objective / subjective distinction. You're making fundamental mistakes, and they explain why we've been talking past each other.
How can I be making any "fundamental mistakes" when I reject fundamentalism?

I refuse to believe that you are this intellectually challenged, perhaps you are being contrarian for philosophy's sake?

According to you:
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:39 pm
From either perspective, there can be true or false claims about 'the way things are', given the conventional use of signs.
A Heliocentrist claims "The Earth orbits around the Sun" is the way things are. Given his perspective - he speaks truth.
A Baryocentrists claims "The Earth does not orbit the Sun." is the way things are. Given his perspective - he speaks truth also.

It is impossible for both claims to be true because that would lead to a contradiction!

Of course, I am not a prescriptivist either, and so you are completely free to ignore the absurdities that arise from your position, but if we don't at least agree on the LNC as being some sort of objective standard for "being wrong" then there is not much point to engaging you further, is there?

As I have said before: The question of the OP is "What could make morality objective?" a contradiction can! By the principle of explosion.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5130
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

buttin' in cuz I see a problem (that probably doesn't exist)

Post by henry quirk » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:31 pm

"A Heliocentrist claims "The Earth orbits around the Sun" is the way things are. Given his perspective - he speaks truth."

If 'truth' is 'what is true/real' then, yeah, he does cuz the earth does orbit sol.

#

"A Baryocentrists claims "The Earth does not orbit the Sun." is the way things are. Given his perspective - he speaks truth also."

No he doesn't. Earth does orbit sol. There's no gettin' away from this fact. So: sayin' "earth doesn't orbit sol' is not 'true' on any level. At best, it's an error; at worst, a big, fat lie.

The baryocentrist can believe any old thing he likes, but his belief don't make it so.

Put another way: the objective truth (earth orbits sol) will always kick the the ass of the subjective opnion (earth doesn't orbit sol).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests