What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

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: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:55 pm Even if they were normative or prescriptive that wouldn't have anything to do with morality.
Well no shit!

That's trivially true! Since you've just pointed out that ANY two things are necessarily different.

Morality and rightness. Different.
Morality and evil. Different.
Morality and murder. Different.
Morality and social norms. Different.
Morality and Morality. Different.
Morality and <ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ELSE>. Different.

So, now you gotta tell me what morality is "the same" as...

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:55 pm But how are they normative/prescriptive? According to whom?
You.

You are behaving in a manner which prescribes normative conceptions of "factuality".

You are prescribing a normative interpretative framework for human experience.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:58 pm Morality and rightness. Different.
Morality and evil. Different.
Morality and murder. Different.
Morality and social norms. Different.
Morality and Morality. Different.
Morality and <ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ELSE>. Different.
As if people are talking about text marks/marks on screens per se, lol.

Can we stop going back to you pretending to be stupid? That's not how philosophy is done.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:11 pm As if people are talking about text marks/marks on screens per se, lol.
Strawman.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:11 pm Can we stop going back to you pretending to be stupid?
Then stop pretending!

If discernment in spatio-temporal location is a sufficient criterion for asserting "difference" then ANY TWO PHENOMENA are necessarily different.

The rabbit on the left and the rabbit on the right. Different. So what makes them "rabbits" ?
The murder last week and the murder yesterday. Different. So what makes them both "murder"?
Your morality and my morality. Different. So what makes it "morality"?
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:11 pm That's not how philosophy is done.
Prescriptive/normative claim :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:30 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:11 pm As if people are talking about text marks/marks on screens per se, lol.
Strawman.
I'm not presenting that as your argument, so no.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:15 pm I'm not presenting that as your argument, so no.
You are misrepresenting me/misunderstanding me. So yes.

You can't even tell me what "sameness" and "difference" means with things right in front of your face.

I imagine you'll make an even bigger mess of it when those referents are used as tokens.
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:29 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:15 pm I'm not presenting that as your argument, so no.
You are misrepresenting me/misunderstanding me. So yes.
I'm putting you back on ignore for a while. I just can't keep spending so much time responding to utter stupidity where it's impossible for you to learn anything.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:30 pm I'm putting you back on ignore for a while. I just can't keep spending so much time responding to utter stupidity where it's impossible for you to learn anything.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ohhh. So I OUGHT to "learn", am I? So you are (after all) trying to "teach" me? Supposedly, because I require "teaching"...

Translation: I insist you submit to my programming.... err no... teaching! Why do you reject my software?!?!?
At no point did you actually blame yourself for erroneously assuming I want to learn from you.

You are a condescending p.r.i.c.k. Until you learn to treat others as your equals I'll treat you like the condescending "teacher" you think you are.

Respect my free will if you want me to respect yours.

Sum of our choices...
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12374
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:01 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:05 pm First I want to focus on this:



So wait a minute--you're saying that at the moment there is no moral FSK that can verify/empirically justify any moral maxim (or whatever we want to call the moral "things" in question)?
I am referring to the ONE I am talking about . . .
Huh?

Look, yes or no, do you think that there is a moral FSK that can verify/empirically justify some moral maxim?

Pleas just answer yes or no.
Yes.

That is no different to a yes, there is a scientific FSK that can verify and justify scientific claims.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12374
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:55 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:47 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:45 pm Is this going to wind up having something to do with the moral issue at hand, by the way?
The notions of "sameness" and "difference" are normative/prescriptive...

You tell me.
Even if they were normative or prescriptive that wouldn't have anything to do with morality. It's not as if all normatives/prescriptives are moral.
I agree with Skepdick's arguments above.

Yes, not all normatives are moral, but those normatives that are moral are within what is defined as morality, i.e. morality-proper.

I have defined morality-proper generally as promoting good and avoiding evil to maintain and uplift the well being of the individuals and humanity.
What is 'good' is not what is 'evil'.
What is evil is any human acts [or thoughts] that is a net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
The humans killing of humans is evil.
The inherent normative of 'no human ought to kill humans' is a moral ought.
But how are they normative/prescriptive? According to whom?
According the the human individuals and humanity as conditioned by what is inherent to human nature.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:03 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:55 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:47 pm
The notions of "sameness" and "difference" are normative/prescriptive...

You tell me.
Even if they were normative or prescriptive that wouldn't have anything to do with morality. It's not as if all normatives/prescriptives are moral.
I agree with Skepdick's arguments above.

Yes, not all normatives are moral, but those normatives that are moral are within what is defined as morality, i.e. morality-proper.

I have defined morality-proper generally as promoting good and avoiding evil to maintain and uplift the well being of the individuals and humanity.
What is 'good' is not what is 'evil'.
What is evil is any human acts [or thoughts] that is a net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
The humans killing of humans is evil.
The inherent normative of 'no human ought to kill humans' is a moral ought.
But how are they normative/prescriptive? According to whom?
According the the human individuals and humanity as conditioned by what is inherent to human nature.
The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:51 am The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.
Objectively speaking, subjectivity doesn't exist - it's just a misnomer.

People's opinions are objective and consequential existents. <--- This is a fact independent of my own opinion.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Peter Holmes »

People have and express opinions, such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'abortion is not morally wrong'. Those opinions exist and have consequences. Der.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:43 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:01 am
I am referring to the ONE I am talking about . . .
Huh?

Look, yes or no, do you think that there is a moral FSK that can verify/empirically justify some moral maxim?

Pleas just answer yes or no.
Yes.
Okay, and name the moral FSK (we're not going to be talking about scientific FSKs at all, you need to NAME A MORAL FSK) that you think can verify/empirically justify some moral maxim. Once you name it, we're going to stick with that one in subsequent comments, so be prepared to name one that you can continue to support for this.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:21 am People have and express opinions, such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'abortion is not morally wrong'. Those opinions exist and have consequences. Der.
Well, or they can have consquences. They don't always.

Not that Skepdick is that clear on his views, because at times he's seemed to be an (solipsistic) idealist (of the type common among Internet philosophy chatters, where he's skeptical of being able to access anything aside from his own mind), but a lot of his comments on this end have seemed to be championing an eliminativist brand of behaviorism, which results in having a problem acknowledging mental content that doesn't have a third-person observable behavioral correlate.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:10 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:21 am People have and express opinions, such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'abortion is not morally wrong'. Those opinions exist and have consequences. Der.
Well, or they can have consquences. They don't always.

Not that Skepdick is that clear on his views, because at times he's seemed to be an (solipsistic) idealist (of the type common among Internet philosophy chatters, where he's skeptical of being able to access anything aside from his own mind), but a lot of his comments on this end have seemed to be championing an eliminativist brand of behaviorism, which results in having a problem acknowledging mental content that doesn't have a third-person observable behavioral correlate.
Agreed; 'can have consequences'.
Post Reply