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: 529
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:06 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:58 am
Belinda wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
I disagree. Lightwaves and brain-processing (electrical and chemical) to produce perception are real things we can measure. The expression 'the nature of [a particular situation's] morality' begs the question: in what way does a particular situation 'have' a moral value? (And why introduce the metaphysical category 'mind' in this anyway? Let's just stick with brains.)
Peter, this is inconsistent with your idea about how murder is always wrong at all times and all places. Laws against murder, as taken to refer to all instances of illegal taking of human life, constantly appear in historical and anthropological records. Murder is one of several actions which tend to destry the mutual trust upon which all societies are founded. We prefer naturalistic explanations.
No, the expression 'murder is wrong' - with which I agree - expresses a moral judgement. And the nature of those judgements is that we tend to make them universally - not restricted to a time or place. (It would be inconsistent to do otherwise.) My argument is simply that the claim 'murder is wrong' is not and can't be a fact - true independent of opinion.

If you believe no claims are independent of opinion, then that includes moral claims. And in that case, it makes no sense to say there are moral facts - that morality is objective.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:06 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:04 pm
Objectiveness and subjectiveness apply to opinions; by making something you don't create an opinion, you create a unit, which is not at all independent of your mind, therefore not only is it meaningless to talk about "making something objective", it is also wrong.
How do you propose we do any science without units (of measurement) if inventing yardsticks is what scientific "objectivity" rests upon?

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:12 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:01 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:58 am
My argument is simply that the claim 'murder is wrong' is not and can't be a fact - true independent of opinion.
Then how do you explain the 700+ years of reduction in murders?

To what cause do you attribute that effect?
That's easy, Univalence. People have formed the same, recurring, subjective opinion about murder. The opinion has been "murder is wrong".

That an opinion occurs consistently, is by no means an indication that it's a fact. Think how for thousands of years it had been accepted that the earth is flat like a dinner plate. That opinion was accepted as a fact. But was it actually factual? No, it was not. It was interpreted from observation, and interpreted wrongly.

"Murder is wrong" is not a fact. It is an opinion, and it is derived from many considerations. It is an interpreted opinion, and as such, it is liable to be wrong, as any opinion is potentially liable to be proven wrong.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:16 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:06 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:04 pm
Objectiveness and subjectiveness apply to opinions; by making something you don't create an opinion, you create a unit, which is not at all independent of your mind, therefore not only is it meaningless to talk about "making something objective", it is also wrong.
How do you propose we do any science without units (of measurement) if inventing yardsticks is what scientific "objectivity" rests upon?
What makes you think that I think that science is not mere opinion? The very fact that any scientific claim is only that if and only if it has a potential to be proven wrong, makes all scientific findings absolutely into opinions.

That's A. B. is that by putting "objectivity" in quotes, you remove the potential meaning of objectivity from the word objectivity; quotation marks do that. "Funny" means not funny, for example. So I don't quite know what you mean, but if you mean what I think you mean, my answer is as above.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:18 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:12 pm
That's easy, Univalence. People have formed the same, recurring, subjective opinion about murder. The opinion has been "murder is wrong".
And you think that's coincidental? Given that the probability-space is 3 possible outcomes?
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:12 pm
That an opinion occurs consistently, is by no means an indication that it's a fact.
It is exactly what "reproducibility" in science is about. Consistent outcomes.

-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:12 pm
Think how for thousands of years it had been accepted that the earth is flat like a dinner plate. That opinion was accepted as a fact.
False analogy. The opinion regarding the shape of the Earth has no measurable effect on reality. The wrongness of murder does.
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:12 pm
"Murder is wrong" is not a fact. It is an opinion, and it is derived from many considerations. It is an interpreted opinion, and as such, it is liable to be wrong, as any opinion is potentially liable to be proven wrong.
Very well. Tell me what evidence would be sufficient to falsify it?

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:20 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:12 pm
Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:01 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:58 am
My argument is simply that the claim 'murder is wrong' is not and can't be a fact - true independent of opinion.
Then how do you explain the 700+ years of reduction in murders?

To what cause do you attribute that effect?
That's easy, Univalence. People have formed the same, recurring, subjective opinion about murder. The opinion has been "murder is wrong".

That an opinion occurs consistently, is by no means an indication that it's a fact. Think how for thousands of years it had been accepted that the earth is flat like a dinner plate. That opinion was accepted as a fact. But was it actually factual? No, it was not. It was interpreted from observation, and interpreted wrongly.

"Murder is wrong" is not a fact. It is an opinion, and it is derived from many considerations. It is an interpreted opinion, and as such, it is liable to be wrong, as any opinion is potentially liable to be proven wrong.
A reservation. The factual claim 'the earth is flat' turned out to be wrong (false), because it isn't. But the claim 'murder is wrong' can't turn out to be wrong (false), because it isn't a factual claim in the first place. It just expresses a moral opinion.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:21 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:16 pm
What makes you think that I think that science is not mere opinion? The very fact that any scientific claim is only that if and only if it has a potential to be proven wrong, makes all scientific findings absolutely into opinions.

That's A. B. is that by putting "objectivity" in quotes, you remove the potential meaning of objectivity from the word objectivity; quotation marks do that. "Funny" means not funny, for example. So I don't quite know what you mean, but if you mean what I think you mean, my answer is as above.
Yes. I mean exactly that.

If evidentiary weight, testability and falsifiability is not a sufficient criterion for "objectivity" then nothing is.

Your view is tantamount to "objectivity requires omniscience".

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:25 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:21 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:16 pm
What makes you think that I think that science is not mere opinion? The very fact that any scientific claim is only that if and only if it has a potential to be proven wrong, makes all scientific findings absolutely into opinions.

That's A. B. is that by putting "objectivity" in quotes, you remove the potential meaning of objectivity from the word objectivity; quotation marks do that. "Funny" means not funny, for example. So I don't quite know what you mean, but if you mean what I think you mean, my answer is as above.
Yes. I mean exactly that.

If evidentiary weight, testability and falsifiability is not a sufficient criterion for "objectivity" then nothing is.

Your view is tantamount to "objectivity requires omniscience".
You actually got it right. Human minds are incapable of proving opinions to be true. Human minds are incapable of perceiving the world at face value. Everything that humans think of the external world (or of their own internal worlds) are things that have been interpreted from processing stimuli.
Last edited by -1- on Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:26 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:25 pm
You actually got it right. Human minds are incapable of poving opinions to be true. Human minds are incapable of perceiving the world at face value. Everything that humans think of the external world (or of their own internal worlds) are things that have been interpreted from processing stimuli.
Yet you accuse me of robbing "objectivity" of its meaning?
Last edited by Univalence on Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:27 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:21 pm

If evidentiary weight, testability and falsifiability is not a sufficient criterion for "objectivity" then nothing is.
That's exactly how it is. Nothing is objective knowledge that humans possess. All human knowledge is opinion.

Objective knowledge exists, as far as reality exists; except it's beyond human grasp.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:28 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:21 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:16 pm
What makes you think that I think that science is not mere opinion? The very fact that any scientific claim is only that if and only if it has a potential to be proven wrong, makes all scientific findings absolutely into opinions.

That's A. B. is that by putting "objectivity" in quotes, you remove the potential meaning of objectivity from the word objectivity; quotation marks do that. "Funny" means not funny, for example. So I don't quite know what you mean, but if you mean what I think you mean, my answer is as above.
Yes. I mean exactly that.

If evidentiary weight, testability and falsifiability is not a sufficient criterion for "objectivity" then nothing is.

Your view is tantamount to "objectivity requires omniscience".
There is no evidentiary weight, testability and falsifiability to the claim 'murder is wrong', or its negation.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:30 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:26 pm

Yet you accuse me of robbing "objectivity" of its meaning?
Yes. Just because humans are incapable of possessing it, it does not mean it is impossible.

And I said you used the quotations as a means of negating the word's meaning. That is a stylistic mistake, and I gave you the slack of interpreting your poorly written text into being in a shape I could use, and which I honestly believe you wanted to write in the first place. I said that already.
Last edited by -1- on Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:32 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:20 pm

A reservation. The factual claim 'the earth is flat' turned out to be wrong (false), because it isn't. But the claim 'murder is wrong' can't turn out to be wrong (false), because it isn't a factual claim in the first place. It just expresses a moral opinion.
Reservation noted. However, if all human thoughts are opinions, then "moral opinion" and "belelived-to-be-fact opinion" are both opinions, and my opinion about objectivity apply to both equally, whether they are factual claims or moral opinions. "A rose is a rose is a rose by any other name."

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:35 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:30 pm
Yes. Just because humans are incapable of possessing it, it does not mean it is impossible.
But it does mean that it's impossible for humans. And therefore any claims of "possibility" you make implies that you are thinking of another kind of entity.

Which would be confusing because...
-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:57 am
It is true that I am an atheist
Last edited by Univalence on Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:38 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:35 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:30 pm
Yes. Just because humans are incapable of possessing it, it does not mean it is impossible.
But it does mean that it's impossible for humans. And therefore any claims of possibility you make implies that you are thinking of another kind of entity.
That's true. I agree.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests