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

Skepdick
Posts: 4770
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Pete

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:48 pm F0ck off to the dictionary moron.
You are just making an arse of yourself
Yes, moron! Lets ask the dictionary, shall we ?

Definition of fact
1a: something that has actual existence
example: space exploration is now a fact
b: an actual occurrence
example: prove the fact of damage
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
example: These are the hard facts of the case.
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
example: a question of fact hinges on evidence

SO. When are we shooting you in the face so you can win this argument?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by surreptitious57 »

A fact can contain a subjective reference but the fact itself will actually be objective like all facts
And so for example I like bacon is an expression of both subjective preference and objective truth
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4446
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Pete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:12 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:56 am I asked for one simple example. Just one. You have failed.
Surely you are not a simple-ton?
If the issue of Morality is that simple, we would not have stretched it to 267 pages and so many other threads.
It's complicated because morality is relative and subjective, idiot.
That's your problem, everyone else here seems fine with the reality of it.

PS
267 pages of you saying rubbish, people telling you its rubbish and you ignoring them and repeating yourself is not that hard to understand, actually.
You are the idiot who is contradicting yourself, you acknowledge it is complicated but you asked for something simple earlier.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4446
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Pete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
If the issue of Morality is that simple we would not have stretched it to 267 pages and so many other threads
The issue of morality from a very fundamental perspective only asks one question is it objective or subjective ?
All other questions about it arise from this one but although its a deceptively simple question there are no such things as simple answers
No one can agree on the origin of morality which would answer the question and whether one type is or is not superior to any other type
For this reason it is very subjective and as such not possible to get universal agreement on it at any time so it is a subject eternal in scope
The fundamental question of morality after 'what can I know' is
"what should I do that is good [net positive] for the individual for humanity"

It is true reality is complex with its various diversity - that is the subjectivity but there are generic principles [i.e. objectivity] to what human ought to do to live effectively and optimally.
Thus the task is to identify what is generic and what are the diversified forms of necessary behavior in tune with various conditions.

How is it so difficult for all to agree 'murder is morally wrong' and others of the likes.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4446
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Pete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:17 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:48 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:15 pm I think not. Since they always fail to offer a suggestion for that basis. As far as it being subjective, that only requires people to disagree with any or all moral rules.
It is a completely zero sum game for the objectivists, and its all in favour of the subjective.
Disagreement is all it takes to flip the table, eh?

Objectively you don't want me to shoot you in the face. Sign all the indemnity forms necessary and I'll gladly help you win the argument.

Real stakes cure sophistry.
The fact that I do not want you to shoot me in the face is purely subjective, idiot.
You are contradicting yourself again.

The moral rule re killing is;
"no human ought to kill another human."

But here is evidence, you do not want to be killed by another human.
Thus you agree with the above moral rule,
which contradict your above,
"As far as it being subjective, that only requires people to disagree with any or all moral rules."

Show me evidence where a normal person in a 'normal' situations who had volunteered to be killed by another human?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:48 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:12 am
Surely you are not a simple-ton?
If the issue of Morality is that simple, we would not have stretched it to 267 pages and so many other threads.
It's complicated because morality is relative and subjective, idiot.
That's your problem, everyone else here seems fine with the reality of it.

PS
267 pages of you saying rubbish, people telling you its rubbish and you ignoring them and repeating yourself is not that hard to understand, actually.
You are the idiot who is contradicting yourself, you acknowledge it is complicated but you asked for something simple earlier.
You poor confused boy.
Morality is complicated only because each moral rule DEPENDS,
Please have the decency to at least TRY to think.
Let's have your objective moral rule please.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:21 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:17 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:48 pm
Disagreement is all it takes to flip the table, eh?

Objectively you don't want me to shoot you in the face. Sign all the indemnity forms necessary and I'll gladly help you win the argument.

Real stakes cure sophistry.
The fact that I do not want you to shoot me in the face is purely subjective, idiot.
You are contradicting yourself again.

The moral rule re killing is;
"no human ought to kill another human."

But here is evidence, you do not want to be killed by another human.
Thus you agree with the above moral rule,
which contradict your above,
"As far as it being subjective, that only requires people to disagree with any or all moral rules."

Show me evidence where a normal person in a 'normal' situations who had volunteered to be killed by another human?
1) Define Normal
2) Warfare.
3) Euthanasia
http://www.dignitas.ch/?lang=en

Clearly the codisil "normal" which you have not defined, is a case of "depends", Making your rule the subject of a set of further criteria; in other words subjecive and relative.
Last edited by Sculptor on Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Pete

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:48 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:41 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:17 pm The fact that I do not want you to shoot me in the face is purely subjective, idiot.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Subjective fact.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Indeed. You are a fucking idiot.
F0ck off to the dictionary moron.
You are just making an arse of yourself
Is Skepdick's objection that facts are all objective ?
If so what would counter the argument that if men were not each subjects of their own experience they would be robotic and create nothing new ?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:40 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:48 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:41 pm
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Subjective fact.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Indeed. You are a fucking idiot.
F0ck off to the dictionary moron.
You are just making an arse of yourself
Is Skepdick's objection that facts are all objective ?
If so what would counter the argument that if men were not each subjects of their own experience they would be robotic and create nothing new ?
I'm not sure there is any arguing with a person who does not understand the terms he is using.
A common childish element is exemplified here; the conflation between objective = true, subjective= false.
Skepdick
Posts: 4770
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Pete

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:15 am I'm not sure there is any arguing with a person who does not understand the terms he is using.
That's why I am not arguing wit you - I am just pointing at your idiocy.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:15 am A common childish element is exemplified here; the conflation between objective = true, subjective= false.
Then stop conflating them?

I've said nothing of that sort. So it must be your belief.
Skepdick
Posts: 4770
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Pete

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:40 am Is Skepdick's objection that facts are all objective ?
If so what would counter the argument that if men were not each subjects of their own experience they would be robotic and create nothing new ?
My objection is much much broader than that.

ALL linguistic distinctions are instrumental. They are as short-lived as the duration required for them to fulfil their purpose within the context of the conversation, and their purpose is to help us better understand each other when communicating.

The objective/subjective distinction is no different. I use the distinction to draw your attention to whatever it is that I am pointing at with my words.

I say "subjective" when I am pointing to something inside of your head - I use the word because I want you to shift your attention internally.
I say "objective" when I am pointing to something outside of your head - I use the word because I want you to shift your attention externally.

And so it's as trivial as this: if both of us agree that "Sculptor doesn't want to get shot in the face" is "true"; or "true claim about reality"; or "factual" or an "accurate description of the state of affairs" or whatever other linguistic expression we decide to use as a rubberstamp of approval then it doesn't matter whether it's "objective" or "subjective".

Trivially, we agree that X is true, but we are arguing whether X is "objectively true" or "subjectively true".
Who cares? Language has fulfilled its purpose! The rest is sophistry.

And to push the boundaries on this point. It doesn't matter whether we SAY that "murder is right", or "murder is wrong" if the classification is inconsequential. Lets just agree to SAY the same thing. Lets SAY that "murder is right". And lets just say that you and I agree on this point.

What happens next? If the answer is "nothing" then it doesn't mater if murder is right or wrong.
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Pete

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:31 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:40 am Is Skepdick's objection that facts are all objective ?
If so what would counter the argument that if men were not each subjects of their own experience they would be robotic and create nothing new ?
My objection is much much broader than that.

ALL linguistic distinctions are instrumental. They are as short-lived as the duration required for them to fulfil their purpose within the context of the conversation. The objective/subjective distinction is no different. Two different conversation-flows the exact same phenomenon could end up being described as being "objective" or as being "subjective". It doesn't really matter HOW we describe it, as long as we both agree to use the same language to describe it.

And so it's as trivial as this: if both of us agree that "Sculptor doesn't want to get shot in the face" is "true"; or "true claim about reality"; or "factual" or an "accurate description of the state of affairs" or whatever other linguistic expression we decide to use as a rubberstamp of approval of linguistic expressions then it doesn't matter whether it's "objective" or "subjective".

Trivially, we agree that X is true, but we are arguing whether X is "objectively true" or "subjectively true".

Who cares? Language has fulfilled its purpose! We agree on the truth-value. The rest is sophistry.
I care because I believe it does matter who says what. The social context of Sculptors utterance matters because all utterances' meanings are dependent on their social contexts. By "social context" I refer to who said it to whom, and why, when and so forth. Each utterance is embedded not flitting around like some ghost.
The context within which somebody uses computer languages, or formal logic, or mathematics, is ultimately social. Society arbitrates the parameters for interpretation whatever the medium of communications. Even avant garde art has to have some connection with accepted meanings.
Skepdick
Posts: 4770
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Pete

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:51 am I care because I believe it does matter who says what. The social context of Sculptors utterance matters because all utterances' meanings are dependent on their social contexts. By "social context" I refer to who said it to whom, and why, when and so forth. Each utterance is embedded not flitting around like some ghost.
The context within which somebody uses computer languages, or formal logic, or mathematics, is ultimately social. Society arbitrates the parameters for interpretation whatever the medium of communications. Even avant garde art has to have some connection with accepted meanings.
But that's only because you are minding the broader audience, and you are minding that somebody outside of the present interaction might judge your words outside of the context in which you've used them. Ignore all of those concerns for a second.

Between you and me - why does it matter whether we classify murder as "right" or "wrong"?
Belinda
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Pete

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:54 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:51 am I care because I believe it does matter who says what. The social context of Sculptors utterance matters because all utterances' meanings are dependent on their social contexts. By "social context" I refer to who said it to whom, and why, when and so forth. Each utterance is embedded not flitting around like some ghost.
The context within which somebody uses computer languages, or formal logic, or mathematics, is ultimately social. Society arbitrates the parameters for interpretation whatever the medium of communications. Even avant garde art has to have some connection with accepted meanings.
But that's only because you are minding the broader audience, and you are minding that somebody outside of the present interaction might judge your words outside of the context in which you've used them. Ignore all of those concerns for a second.

Between you and me - why does it matter whether we classify murder as "right" or "wrong"?
It matters because I respect you as an authentic and knowledgeable contributor to discussions and so I take your opinions seriously. I expect you take my opinions seriously ,if I did not I'd not bother to talk to you. Murder is hardly a topic for small talk.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4446
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Pete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:21 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:17 pm
The fact that I do not want you to shoot me in the face is purely subjective, idiot.
You are contradicting yourself again.

The moral rule re killing is;
"no human ought to kill another human."

But here is evidence, you do not want to be killed by another human.
Thus you agree with the above moral rule,
which contradict your above,
"As far as it being subjective, that only requires people to disagree with any or all moral rules."

Show me evidence where a normal person in a 'normal' situations who had volunteered to be killed by another human?
1) Define Normal
2) Warfare.
3) Euthanasia
http://www.dignitas.ch/?lang=en

Clearly the codisil "normal" which you have not defined, is a case of "depends", Making your rule the subject of a set of further criteria; in other words subjecive and relative.
First there is nothing absolutely-absolute within reality, thus no absolute 'normal'.
In consideration of 'normal' we have to deliberate whatever the variable within certain principles.

Note the meaning of normal i.e. average.
  • Average
    1.1An amount, standard, level, or rate regarded as usual or ordinary.
    A number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.
Do you understand the Principles of the Normal Distribution.
Those within the 1% percentile on each side are obviously not 'normal' relatively to the rest of the population.
As for the rest of percentile, 5%, 10% we have to deliberate them in terms of contexts.
What is 'normal' in a Normal Distribution is the average defined above.

Note in the case of 'normal' situations, I am referring to ordinary situations where warfare is not permanent norm of humanity and note warfare can be prevented. Soldiers going to war do not 'want' or desired to be killed except expect they could be killed in their duty.
In the case of euthanasia at present, there is always some reason for it, usually related to some terminal disease or unavoidable incurable pain.

In terms of the above definitions,
Euthanasia and Warfare are not 'normal' acts and situations.

Show me the evidence where any human would volunteer to be killed by another without any justified reason?
If you think there are any, upon analysis, it is likely the person would be suffering from some mental issues within DSM-V.
Post Reply