What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2359
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:14 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:16 am So you can't show how a moral assertion can follow logically from a factual assertion. So you can see why your appeal to reason and evidence is incoherent. Whatever facts and arguments we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion - by definition. And others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different a moral opinion. And that's our moral predicament.
The idea of 'moral opinion' is merely a derogatory term introduced by some low class moral philosophers.

Your idea of an "opinion" is false;
When faced with a FACT.
That is all you have. A random ad hominem followed by denial.
I have presented this many times;
Opinion= a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

The moral fact I presented is justified from scientific facts, other knowledge and philosophical reasoning.
ALL moral statements are opinions. That is an objective fact.
Btw, if you think induction can ride to the rescue, please show how a factual premise can induce a moral conclusion. (I assure you, you won't be able to - but you still haven't cracked the conceptual problem - recognised the category error - so feel free to find out for yourself.)

Btw, if you think a normative approach can demonstrate the existence of moral facts, please show an example. (You'll find it doesn't.)
Are you sure you understand Normative Ethics thoroughly?
I don't believe you do.

Re induction, as I had demonstrated, you can do a test and ask every normal human whether they will volunteer to be stopped from breathing till they die.
Any normal person will arrive at the same answer intuitively and this can be confirmed by induction.
Would you dispute this?
In addition I have introduced philosophical reasoning to support how I have arrived at the moral conclusion, i.e. a moral fact or moral standard.

I had also argued, if other various types of Framework and System can generate their respective facts, why can a Framework and System of Morality generate moral facts?
And btw, I choose not to waste time dealing with every one of your specious arguments and misconceived appeals to misconstrued authorities.
I believe they are very critical otherwise your arguments will be full of holes if you do not counter the critical counters I have presented especially your reliance on fact and 'state of affairs' from the Philosophical Realists perspective which is not realistic all at.
If your ground is unrealistic how can you conclusion be realistic?
Skepdick
Posts: 5261
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:58 am So, deduction doesn't work. A factual assertion can't entail a moral assertion. You can't get an ought from an is. Well - who knew?

I know - let's try induction. Perhaps a collection of facts can induce a moral conclusion.

For example, perhaps we can show by induction that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

Or perhaps we can show, by Bayesian analysis, the post probability that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

(Please. Wake up. Ffs.)
I agree with you 100% Peter.

There is absolutely no way for you to induce OR deduce that "Murdering me, Peter Holmes, is wrong."
There is absolutely no way you could possibly arrive at such conclusion and hold the opinion that you hold.

So lets murder you then. Commit to your opinions.

I want to be so woke!
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 7:50 am
Atla wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 7:04 am Whoa :)
The answer to "What could make morality objective?" is "nothing", as morality is never objective. Yet 243 pages weren't enough to get there apparently.
Hey. It's fascinating, in my opinion. Like any faith-commitment, moral objectivism has its faithful whom no amount of reason and sound argument can shift.

I believe in my deepest heart's core that X is morally wrong. So it must be a fact that X is morally wrong, never mind what anyone believes. I know that X is morally wrong - and anyone who doesn't know it is ignorant.
Fascinating and also kinda frightening.. For example Veritas seems to have no ability to comprehend how different perspectives/frameworks relate to each other, especially when it comes to an "objective" perspective.
Skepdick
Posts: 5261
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:33 am Fascinating and also kinda frightening.. For example Veritas seems to have no ability to comprehend how different perspectives/frameworks relate to each other, especially when it comes to an "objective" perspective.
Surely a non-dualist can tell us how perspective unification works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unificati ... r_science)
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 25, 2020 3:02 pmI am not a twat.I am a dick. Skepdick.
Is that an example of your decision-making process?
Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 8:37 am A. This is red.
B. This is red.
HOW did you decide which one is "true"?

Literally! Tell me what went into your decision-making process!
Well Skepdick, one of them is red.
Skepdick
Posts: 5261
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:12 pm Well Skepdick, one of them is red.
Marvelous! Do you know which one, or is it 1 in 2 odds?
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:35 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:12 pm Well Skepdick, one of them is red.
Marvelous! Do you know which one, or is it 1 in 2 odds?
Odds have nothing to do with it; it's the red one. If your gift to us dumb philosophers is to make something red equally blue, no thanks.
Skepdick
Posts: 5261
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:10 pm Odds have nothing to do with it; it's the red one. If your gift to us dumb philosophers is to make something red equally blue, no thanks.
This was YOUR counter against murder rates decreasing. 3 options makes 1 in 3 odds.

Now there are two options. Any one of them could have been red. That's 1 in 2 odds.

Why do you feel so strongly about one over the other if the odds are equal?

It's fucking obvious to me that your posterior probability is not 1/2. All I am asking is what evidence swayed you towards A.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Skepdick wrote:
All I am asking is what evidence swayed you towards A
The name given to the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is this colour and all the various shades of it is red
And so when the photons from an object that is that colour pass through my retina my brain will register that as red
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2359
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:23 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:58 am So, deduction doesn't work. A factual assertion can't entail a moral assertion. You can't get an ought from an is. Well - who knew?

I know - let's try induction. Perhaps a collection of facts can induce a moral conclusion.

For example, perhaps we can show by induction that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

Or perhaps we can show, by Bayesian analysis, the post probability that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

(Please. Wake up. Ffs.)
I agree with you 100% Peter.

There is absolutely no way for you to induce OR deduce that "Murdering me, Peter Holmes, is wrong."
There is absolutely no way you could possibly arrive at such conclusion and hold the opinion that you hold.

So lets murder you then. Commit to your opinions.

I want to be so woke!
Deducing that Killing Peter is wrong is easy.
Deduction is defined and limited by the nature of the premises, even if they are wrong the conclusion is deductively true.
Murder is wrong
Bob murdered Peter
Therefore Bob was wrong to do so.

In the same way.

All Wallies are Dingbats
Skeptic is a Wally
Therefore Skeptic is a Dingbat.

But Induction only gives you several examples where killing is bad, and whilst this might suggest that killing is generally bad since there are also many examples where killing is good, it is hard to make a general case - certainly not one that is objective.
Skepdick
Posts: 5261
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:56 pm Deducing that Killing Peter is wrong is easy.
Deduction is defined and limited by the nature of the premises, even if they are wrong the conclusion is deductively true.
Murder is wrong
Bob murdered Peter
Therefore Bob was wrong to do so.
Except you have one not-so-minor problem.

Peter Holmes disagrees with your premise.
According to Peter Holmes "murder is wrong" is not true.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:56 pm But Induction only gives you several examples where killing is bad, and whilst this might suggest that killing is generally bad since there are also many examples where killing is good, it is hard to make a general case - certainly not one that is objective.
You aren't going to get very far if you can't even tell the difference between "killing" and "murder".
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2359
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:56 pm Deducing that Killing Peter is wrong is easy.
Deduction is defined and limited by the nature of the premises, even if they are wrong the conclusion is deductively true.
Murder is wrong
Bob murdered Peter
Therefore Bob was wrong to do so.
Except you have one not-so-minor problem.

Peter Holmes disagrees with your premise.
According to Peter Holmes "murder is wrong" is not true.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:56 pm But Induction only gives you several examples where killing is bad, and whilst this might suggest that killing is generally bad since there are also many examples where killing is good, it is hard to make a general case - certainly not one that is objective.
You aren't going to get very far if you can't even tell the difference between "killing" and "murder".
Murder is wrong is definitively true. Murder is legally wrong. If it was not, then it is not murder

I'd never say it is objectively so, since that makes no sense, as without a frame of reference "objectivity" is meaningless. Objective and subjective cases are relative to the situation in which claims are being made.

As for murder, it is a category of killing. It's a shame God does not seem to know the difference: divinely verified versions have both word in different editions for the 6th commandment.

There is a very good reason I used "killing" since the idea that murder is definitely bad is a moot point in my example. Well I supposed you noticed. Shame you did not get the point.

The point is that if I call an act murder I have made a subjective judgement that an example of killing is a bad one. What is moot is whether or not my judgement is valid more widely.

Sometimes this is like banging your head against a wall.
Skepdick
Posts: 5261
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:25 pm Murder is wrong is definitively true. Murder is legally wrong. If it was not, then it is not murder

I'd never say it is objectively so, since that makes no sense, as without a frame of reference "objectivity" is meaningless. Objective and subjective cases are relative to the situation in which claims are being made.

As for murder, it is a category of killing. It's a shame God does not seem to know the difference: divinely verified versions have both word in different editions for the 6th commandment.

There is a very good reason I used "killing" since the idea that murder is definitely bad is a moot point in my example. Well I supposed you noticed. Shame you did not get the point.

The point is that if I call an act murder I have made a subjective judgement that an example of killing is a bad one. What is moot is whether or not my judgement is valid more widely.

Sometimes this is like banging your head against a wall.
Apart from the fact that you don't know the difference between murder (wrong), self-defence (right) and killing (neither wrong nor right) I agree with you, but that doesn't matter.

Peter Holmes disagrees with your premise.

Therefore Peter Holmes cannot make the deduction that you have made.

Peter Holmes cannot possibly hold an opinion that murdering Peter Holmes is wrong, because Peter Holmes can't reason himself into such a position inductively OR deductively. Or so he claims.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1427
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Lest anyone be suckered by specious arguments -

The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions, which are typically linguistic expressions.

So if an assertion is not factual, it can't be true or false - it can't have what's called a truth-value. Here's an example.

'Bach's music is sublimely beautiful.'

This assertion expresses an opinion or value-judgement about Bach's music. We could emphasise the opinion or value-judgement by prefacing the assertion with 'It's true that...' or 'It's a fact that...' But the assertion remains an aesthetic value-judgement, with no factual truth-value. So those additions are merely emphatic.

Moral objectivists claim that moral assertions such as 'slavery is morally wrong' and 'eating animals is morally justifiable' are factual - so that they can be true or false. And to sell this false claim, they pick moral assertions that most of us strongly agree with. Here are some examples.

Torturing babies for fun is morally wrong.
Slavery is morally wrong.
Rape is morally wrong.
Murder is morally wrong.

And it's a powerful confidence trick, that easily suckers people. Of course I think that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong - so it must be true that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. So, yeah, moral assertions are factual - they can be true or false.

This is what the Dick has been doing here: selling a confidence trick - an illusion: Peter doesn't think the assertion 'murder is morally wrong' is a fact - a true factual assertion - so he doesn't think murder is morally wrong, and he should be happy to be murdered.

Yep. What can I say? Game over.
Skepdick
Posts: 5261
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:14 pm Lest anyone be suckered by specious arguments -

The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions, which are typically linguistic expressions.

So if an assertion is not factual, it can't be true or false - it can't have what's called a truth-value. Here's an example.

'Bach's music is sublimely beautiful.'

This assertion expresses an opinion or value-judgement about Bach's music. We could emphasise the opinion or value-judgement by prefacing the assertion with 'It's true that...' or 'It's a fact that...' But the assertion remains an aesthetic value-judgement, with no factual truth-value. So those additions are merely emphatic.

Moral objectivists claim that moral assertions such as 'slavery is morally wrong' and 'eating animals is morally justifiable' are factual - so that they can be true or false. And to sell this false claim, they pick moral assertions that most of us strongly agree with. Here are some examples.

Torturing babies for fun is morally wrong.
Slavery is morally wrong.
Rape is morally wrong.
Murder is morally wrong.

And it's a powerful confidence trick, that easily suckers people. Of course I think that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong - so it must be true that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. So, yeah, moral assertions are factual - they can be true or false.

This is what the Dick has been doing here: selling a confidence trick - an illusion: Peter doesn't think the assertion 'murder is morally wrong' is a fact - a true factual assertion - so he doesn't think murder is morally wrong, and he should be happy to be murdered.

Yep. What can I say? Game over.
Fucking hilarious. Accusing me of confidence tricks while trying to pull wool over everybody's eyes.
All this talk about "truth", "facts, "opinions", "objectivity", "morality", "arguments", "illusions", "aesthetics" and "value judgments" is the kind of philosophical bullshit Peter is throwing into the debate to distract us from the point.

Either murdering Peter Holmes is wrong or it isn't.

If Peter Holmes thinks murdering him is wrong, then Peter Holmes should tell us us how he reasoned himself into that opinion.
If Peter Holmes doesn't think murdering him is wrong - he should say so.

Game over indeed. Try bullshit somebody else.
Post Reply