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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:08 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:36 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:05 am
I'm newly puzzled by the incoherence of your argument. I don't know what you mean by the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' and their cognates. I don't know if you think there can be any such things as truth, facts and objectivity - and from what perspective you reject them, if you do. I don't know if you accept or reject the rules of classical logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - and in either case, on what grounds. And I don't know if you think morality can be objective (factual).

I don't think my incomprehension of your position is a result of negligence - but perhaps it is. Or it could be the result of your having no idea what you're talking about. If there's a chance you could lay out your case as simply and concisely as possibly - perhaps as a series of statements, or even premises and a conclusion - I'd like to try again.
I don't know if I can help you with a definition - Wittgenstein himself recognised that words are imprecise and my argument is all about precision!
I can help you with an example to help you draw a distinction.

The truth-value of "Earth orbits the Sun" is dependent on perspective. If I shift my perspective a greater truth emerges - baryocentrism!
The truth value of "Logik is 1.87 meters tall" is independent of perspective. A greater truth about my height does not emerge no matter how much I shift my perspective.

If the truth-value of any claim is perspective-dependent it cannot be said that it is objective.
If objectivity is perspective-dependent - nobody cares about such a conception of morality.

Objective morality is about answering one question: Is murdering another human being wrong?

It's a question with a boolean answer. Yes or no. True or false.
Thanks. I need to mull this over and get back to you later.

Can I ask, though - I think there are contradictions in what you say - but do you think that matters? What I mean is, do you think there's a perspective-independent position from which the very idea of contradiction makes sense? Or do you think contradictions can occur only within the context of a specified perspective? For example, if Logik is X meters tall but Y feet tall, would you call that a contradiction?

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:12 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:08 pm
Can I ask, though - I think there are contradictions in what you say
Yes. There are. They are caused by incompleteness/omissions of our theoretical/conceptual models.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:08 pm
- but do you think that matters? What I mean is, do you think there's a perspective-independent position from which the very idea of contradiction makes sense? Or do you think contradictions can occur only within the context of a specified perspective?
Contradictions within a single perspective are always problematic. Those are easy to fix - you identify the error in reasoning and discard one perspective.

Or in terms of scientific theories: Two perspectives contradicting each other's axiomatic truths/pre-suppositions is also problematic. But you can't discard them because both theories are useful within their domains of applicability.

Scientific truth is probabilistic/relativistic and always open to revision.

Objective morality cannot be open to revision. Murder is either right or wrong, so yes - it matters.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:08 pm
For example, if Logik is X meters tall but Y feet tall, would you call that a contradiction?
If there is a bi-directional mathematical function to convert one measurement to another then there is no contradiction.

The reason why "Earth orbits the Sun" is problematic is because "orbits" is ambiguous.

"to orbit" means - to revolve around a point in space. The Sun is not a point - it's a sphere.

The difference between a point and a sphere is that a point has no volume.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:12 am

Logik wrote:

'The reason why "Earth orbits the Sun" is problematic is because "orbits" is ambiguous.

"to orbit" means - to revolve around a point in space. The Sun is not a point - it's a sphere.

The difference between a point and a sphere is that a point has no volume.'

But here's a dictionary definition of orbit: 'the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.' So your reference to a geometrical point is spurious. And your claim of 'precision' and 'greater truth' belies your perspectivism and contextualism.

Wittgenstein's approach to meaning is far more radical than you suggest. It's not that he thought our use of words is imprecise. Rather, he recognised that we use words as precisely or imprecisely as we need to, and (most important), that there's no independent standard of precision, accuracy, completeness or truth by which we can assess the ways we use them.

My question all along - what kind of foundation is it that you think doesn't exist? - was intended to expose your unacknowledged foundationalism. There is no foundation for what we say beneath our various linguistic practices, which are necessarily contextual and conventional.

And this applies to what we say about what we say, including what we mean by the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity', which all refer to one of our linguistic practices: making factual assertions about features of reality. If you say there are no such things as truth, facts and objectivity - or that they aren't what we conventionally say they are - you're making the classic mistake of metaphysicians: mistaking abstract nouns for things about which existence-claims make sense and which we may be able to describe. Talk of 'precision' and 'greater truth' reveal the delusion.

You argue that my conception of objectivity is incoherent - but I'm just using the word 'objective' in a standard way, to mean 'relying on facts' or 'factual'. And pari passu for my use of the words 'fact' and 'truth' and their cognates.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:55 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:12 am
But here's a dictionary definition of orbit: 'the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.' So your reference to a geometrical point is spurious. And your claim of 'precision' and 'greater truth' belies your perspectivism and contextualism.
The dictionary is not a source of truth. It is a source of conventions. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Yes, this is how the word 'orbit' is most commonly used. Which merely shows that Heliocentrism is deeply embedded in our society whereas Baryocentrism is not. Given the dictionary definition the 'Earth orbits the Sun" is not a fact - it is merely a truism.

And yet, to say that the meaning of "orbit" is as per the dictionary definition is to appeal to Authority on Meaning..
Appealing to convention is a it bandwagon fallacy.
And claiming that "the way the word is conventionally used is the only way for the word to be used" is appealing to prescriptivism.

All of which you apparently reject?

I am using 'orbit' in its most precise and unambiguous use possible: orbiting a point.

Given my unconventional definition, the social convention is wrong.

But lets for a second go along with your claim of conventional use. Here are the conventions for 'star' and 'planet'.
planet Noun. a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit round a star.
So lets ask the question: Is the Sun a star? Well, what is the conventional use of 'star'?
star Noun. a fixed luminous point in the night sky which is a large, remote incandescent body like the sun.
A star is 'like the sun'.

Ok, what is the conventional use of 'sun'
Sun. noun. the star round which the earth orbits.
This is all very circular, don't you think?

Because all language is circular!

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:42 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:55 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:12 am
But here's a dictionary definition of orbit: 'the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.' So your reference to a geometrical point is spurious. And your claim of 'precision' and 'greater truth' belies your perspectivism and contextualism.
The dictionary is not a source of truth. It is a source of conventions. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
But just look at your unacknowledged foundationalism here. What are the 'true' meanings of words behind those pesky conventions? If you say a dictionary is not a source of truth, that suggests you think there really is a source of truth (or precision or accuracy or completeness) somewhere else, which is precisely the foundationalism that you condemn.


Yes, this is how the word 'orbit' is most commonly used. Which merely shows that Heliocentrism is deeply embedded in our society whereas Baryocentrism is not. Given the dictionary definition the 'Earth orbits the Sun" is not a fact - it is merely a truism.
But here's a definition of 'truism': 'a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.'
And here's a definition of 'fact': 'a thing that is known or proved to be true.'
So all you're saying is that you know what truth and facts really are - you have privileged access to non-perspectival, non-contextual truth - so that you know 'the earth orbits the sun' isn't a fact - a true factual assertion. Sorry, but you're wrong, and you've been wrong and doggedly confused right from the start.

And yet, to say that the meaning of "orbit" is as per the dictionary definition is to appeal to Authority on Meaning..
Appealing to convention is a it bandwagon fallacy.
And claiming that "the way the word is conventionally used is the only way for the word to be used" is appealing to prescriptivism.
Straw man - and to invent a quote from me is dishonest. I've said nothing of the sort. I've merely pointed out dictionary (standard) definitions of words - I've never said those words have to be used in any particular way. But what you've argued is that the standard ways we use those words are somehow wrong, inaccurate, imprecise, incomplete, and so on. The authority you've been appealing to all along is the non-existent perspective from which all factual claims can be judged independently. It's as ridiculous as this: The claim 'that's a dog' isn't really a fact, because really that dog is random quantum events - that's a more precise or accurate description.

All of which you apparently reject?

I am using 'orbit' in its most precise and unambiguous use possible: orbiting a point.

Given my unconventional definition, the social convention is wrong.
QED. You claim your use of 'orbit' is the most precise and unambiguous. But on what grounds? Is an orbit something that defines or describes itself? Did you ask an orbit what it really is, so that you know your use of the word is more precise and unambiguous? Please. Wake up.

But lets for a second go along with your claim of conventional use. Here are the conventions for 'star' and 'planet'.
planet Noun. a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit round a star.
So lets ask the question: Is the Sun a star? Well, what is the conventional use of 'star'?
star Noun. a fixed luminous point in the night sky which is a large, remote incandescent body like the sun.
A star is 'like the sun'.

Ok, what is the conventional use of 'sun'
Sun. noun. the star round which the earth orbits.
This is all very circular, don't you think?

Because all language is circular!
But you say you know what words like 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' really mean, so that you can reject our conventional uses - what we call facts aren't really facts, because they're imprecise, inaccurate, incomplete, and so on. You claim to cut out of the circularity and find the real truth.

Please spend some time and think deeply about this. Just shooting back with the same misconceptions is unproductive.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:01 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:42 pm
QED. You claim your use of 'orbit' is the most precise and unambiguous. But on what grounds?
On the grounds of it being a universal, unambiguous and precise definition.

On the grounds that it is logically consistent with the axioms of geometry.

On the grounds that it is a non-contradictory and objective definition independent from any observer or perspective.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:42 pm
The authority you've been appealing to all along is the non-existent perspective from which all factual claims can be judged independently.
Yes. I said that in my very first post. The truth-value of any claim is a logical property.
The rest is misunderstanding and abuse of logic and deduction.

Given the mathematically precise a, geometric definition of 'orbit'. The Earth orbits X if and only If X is the point which Earth orbits.That point is not the Sun.

I appeal to logic and consistency. The law of non-contradiction is my point of departure, as my username might give away.
What is yours?
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:42 pm
But you say you know what words like 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' really mean, so that you can reject our conventional uses - what we call facts aren't really facts, because they're imprecise, inaccurate, incomplete, and so on. You claim to cut out of the circularity and find the real truth.

Please spend some time and think deeply about this. Just shooting back with the same misconceptions is unproductive.
I have spent plenty of time thinking about this. I understand how logic works and how it doesn't. And I have 100 years of developments to lean on, over and above Wittgenstein.

He was wrong. Like most philosophers who weren't educated on probability, risk and uncertainty.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:01 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:42 pm
QED. You claim your use of 'orbit' is the most precise and unambiguous. But on what grounds?
On the grounds of it being a universal, unambiguous and precise definition.
So you haven't thought it through yet again. You are tiresome. There is no universal, unambiguous and precise perspective from which to define or describe things. There are countless different ways of describing things, within which we can make factual assertions with truth-value.

On the grounds that it is logically consistent with the axioms of geometry.

On the grounds that it is a non-contradictory and objective definition independent from any observer or perspective.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:42 pm
The authority you've been appealing to all along is the non-existent perspective from which all factual claims can be judged independently.
Yes. I said that in my very first post. The truth-value of any claim is a logical property.
Wrong. Logic deals with validity and has nothing to say about the truth-value of a premise, and so the soundness of an inference. You really don't know what you're talking about after all. And there are many other than classical logics, so your claim is false anyway.

Given the mathematically precise a, geometric definition of 'orbit'. The Earth orbits X if and only If X is the point which Earth orbits.That point is not the Sun.
Platonism pure and simple - the most pervasive and pernicious of all foundationalisms. You're coming out with such nonsense now, that it's evident you know you're wrong and are too vain or embarrassed to admit it.

I appeal to logic and consistency. The law of non-contradiction is my point of departure, as my username might give away.
What is yours?
Perhaps you're a lost cause - but I hope others following our discussion have benefited in some way from it.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:00 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm
There are countless different ways of describing things
No. There are countless different ways to describe the various aspects of things.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm
within which we can make factual assertions with truth-value.
No, you can't. Any more than you can be 1.87 meters tall from one perspective and 2.57 meters tall from another.
If two perspectives describe the same aspect of the same thing they must produce the same truth-value, otherwise at least one of them is necessarily wrong.

Just admit it already: you don't care about the LNC.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm
There is no universal, unambiguous and precise perspective from which to define or describe things.
Then on what grounds do you reject theism and flat-earthism?

Are you saying that the way they use words "Earth" and "flat" is incorrect?
Or the way they use the words "God" and "exists" is incorrect?
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm
Platonism pure and simple - the most pervasive and pernicious of all foundationalisms. You're coming out with such nonsense now, that it's evident you know you're wrong and are too vain or embarrassed to admit it.
1.You have mistaken an instrumentalist for a Platonist.
2. On what grounds have you asserted 'wrongness' or 'perniciousness' If you reject objective morality?

You can't have your cake and eat it too!

You have insisted that judgments of 'right' and 'wrong' cannot possibly be based on facts. So kindly explain to us how you have reached a conclusion that I am "wrong" and why we should care about your feelings?

Without objective morality all perspectives are equally valid!

tim3003
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:56 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by tim3003 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:21 pm

Morality is about acts of right and wrong. To be more than a vague concept we have to define right and wrong. I believe evolution has defined these terms for us. As an advanced social species they necessarily involve our survival at the most basic level - that of life and death. 'Death is evil, life is good' is the result. That doesnt mean death is an example of evil, it means 'death' is equivalent to 'evil', likewise 'life' to 'good'. Slavery is evil because it tends towards the death of the slaves, usually quite quickly, via appalling living conditions - both physically and emotionally - I don't need to go into more detail on this I assume. So the act of purchasing a slave can be seen to be wrong - or evil. Similarly, the act of freeing a slave can be seen as an act of goodness as it improves the life chances of the slave.

A subtlety concerns acts of heroism - ie where a soldier sacrifices his life to save a colleague's. Is that act 'good'? Clearly if his act saves 2 colleagues it is, as despite 1 lost life 2 have been saved..

I believe we can grade the morality of an act by weighing the sum of the death or harm it causes against the benefit done to the perpetrator, and thus define a scale. So a serial killer could be seen as the epitome of evil. His killing spree does even himself no necessary good. However a soldier at war killing an equal number of enemies has many excuses - ie that of no choice, self-defence etc. Of course if that 'soldier' is Hitler, he clearly had the choice so ranks right at the top too.

Similarly acts of goodness can be judged by weighing the good done to the perpetrator against the good done to others: The greatest figure of good I can come up with is Mother Theresa, who worked tirelessly in the slums of India to help the poor, with no thought of reward for herself. This is a 'better' act than, say, the spiritual guru, how helps others but as a paid employee and harvests reward and fame for his efforts. But even she did not sacrifice her own life to save others (not immediately anyway), so maybe the heroic soldier scores even higher? Personally I rank Bill Gates at the top too. The spending of a vast fortune to help those in need is an act of goodness almost none of his peers can even approach..

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:32 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:00 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm
There are countless different ways of describing things
No. There are countless different ways to describe the various aspects of things.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm
within which we can make factual assertions with truth-value.
No, you can't. Any more than you can be 1.87 meters tall from one perspective and 2.57 meters tall from another.
If two perspectives describe the same aspect of the same thing they must produce the same truth-value, otherwise at least one of them is necessarily wrong.

Just admit it already: you don't care about the LNC.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm
There is no universal, unambiguous and precise perspective from which to define or describe things.
Then on what grounds do you reject theism and flat-earthism?

Are you saying that the way they use words "Earth" and "flat" is incorrect?
Or the way they use the words "God" and "exists" is incorrect?
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm
Platonism pure and simple - the most pervasive and pernicious of all foundationalisms. You're coming out with such nonsense now, that it's evident you know you're wrong and are too vain or embarrassed to admit it.
1.You have mistaken an instrumentalist for a Platonist.
2. On what grounds have you asserted 'wrongness' or 'perniciousness' If you reject objective morality?

You can't have your cake and eat it too!

You have insisted that judgments of 'right' and 'wrong' cannot possibly be based on facts. So kindly explain to us how you have reached a conclusion that I am "wrong" and why we should care about your feelings?

Without objective morality all perspectives are equally valid!
1 Instrumentalism is the rejection of claims of universal, non-perspectival or absolute truths about reality. Your position seems incoherent.

2 I reject flat-earthism because the earth isn't flat but rather approximates to an oblate spheroid. As before, you confuse ways of describing things with the things themselves. For example, you said we can only talk about the map, never the terrain. You're still wrong about that - as you seem to be saying here. More incoherence.

3 You conflate and confuse two different meanings of 'wrong' - which can just mean 'incorrect' or 'mistaken'.

4 You seem to have misunderstood my view of morality. My whole purpose has been to show the sharp distinction between factual and moral assertions. We can and do cite facts to justify our moral judgements, but they remain judgements (and so subjective) - and others can and may well cite other facts to justify their differing moral judgements.

If there were moral facts - true factual assertions about features of reality - then we could, at least in principle, settle moral disagreements by finding the relevant features of reality, such as 'the moral wrongness / rightness of slavery'. But, of course, there are no such things, and thinking that there are is an objectivist delusion.

My challenge stands: show what you claim is a moral fact, and why it correctly describes a feature of reality, which is what a fact does. Please do so and show I'm wrong. If, as I believe, there are no moral facts, the case for moral objectivism collapses, and maintaining it is irrational.

5 You say: 'without objective morality all perspectives are equally valid!' But an argument from undesirable consequences is a fallacy, as you know. And what does the expression 'morally valid perspective' mean? Does it mean 'what the majority thinks' (bandwagon fallacy), or 'what a god thinks'? Please dig deeper and spell this all out, if you think morality is objective.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:37 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:32 am
1 Instrumentalism is the rejection of claims of universal, non-perspectival or absolute truths about reality. Your position seems incoherent.
That's not how I choose to use it.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:32 am
2 I reject flat-earthism because the earth isn't flat but rather approximates to an oblate spheroid.
That's special pleading! Earth approximates to flat from certain perspectives!

Do you take the curvature of the Earth into account when you walk? No you don't.
Hypocrite!
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:32 am
3 You conflate and confuse two different meanings of 'wrong' - which can just mean 'incorrect' or 'mistaken'.
Is that so? While they may have a different meanings, given your taxonomy all the possible meanings are subjective value judgments.
Else you are necessarily appealing to some authority.

Is there any use of "incorrect" or "mistaken" that is not a value judgment?
Is there any use of "incorrect" or "mistaken" that is an "objective assertion"?
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:32 am
4 You seem to have misunderstood my view of morality. My whole purpose has been to show the sharp distinction between factual and moral assertions.
It seems the distinction is not as sharp as you nave deluded yourself into believing.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:32 am
We can and do cite facts to justify our moral judgements, but they remain judgements (and so subjective) - and others can and may well cite other facts to justify their differing moral judgements.
You have asserted that I am "mistaken" or "incorrect", right?

Would you say that's a factual assertion?
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:32 am
5 You say: 'without objective morality all perspectives are equally valid!' But an argument from undesirable consequences is a fallacy, as you know.
Is it a fallacy? By what objectively factual assertion for 'fallaciousness'?

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:51 am

Here's a fact.

You can't produce a moral fact - an assertion that makes a factual claim about a feature of reality - and show why or how it does so.

So you are wrong to claim that morality is objective. Your moral objectivism is a mistake.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:19 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:51 am
Here's a fact.

You can't produce a moral fact - an assertion that makes a factual claim about a feature of reality - and show why or how it does so.

So you are wrong to claim that morality is objective. Your moral objectivism is a mistake.
Here is an objective moral fact: Peter Holmes does not want to be kicked in the testicles.

Here is a fact: Peter Holmes can't produce a factual argument to show how/why the above is a mistake without committing any logical fallacies, or appealing to authority.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:52 pm

I think I've gotten to the bottom of this. You are not accounting for your own ignorance.

Your definition of 'objectivity' artificially constrains the discussion to deductive methods only. This is your error.
Godel has demonstrated that within every framework there are true statements which cannot be deduced from the axioms.
This is why foundationalism fails. There are provable truths and unprovable truths.

To insist on 'objective truth' based solely on facts is to insist on provable truth, which is the same as rejecting all unprovable truths. That's an own goal.
The way to get to the unprovable truths is by guessing them then seeing if any contradictions arise.

So here are my guesses:

H1: Morality is objective, but you fail to recognise it.
H2: Moraliity is objective and you recognise it.
H3: Morality is not objective and you recognize it.
H4: Morality is not objective and you don't recognize it.

If H1 is true-but-undeducible you will never get to H2 if you constrain the discussion only to deductive methods.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:22 pm

Logik wrote:

'Here is an objective moral fact: Peter Holmes does not want to be kicked in the testicles.'

That I don't want to be kicked in the testicles is a fact - a true factual assertion. It isn't a moral assertion of any kind. You are confused.

A moral assertion might be: it is wrong to kick people in the testicles. Moral assertions contain words such as 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'should' and 'ought to'.

Frankly, I can't believe you're as mixed up as this. No wonder you're so at sea in this discussion.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests