From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:58 pm Thank you for the clarifications @Veritas Aequitas. I certainly understand where you are coming from, but the definition you use for the term "objective" is muddy and it leads to unnecessarily vague conclusions. It's also not very useful, because by your definition, there is no true objectivity, as such the best we can get is consensus based on inter-subjectivity, and so we just lazily call that objectivity... That's not how it works.
As I had posted earlier, I take objectivity [philosophical] to the following;
In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.

Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence. Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it.[1]

Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through subjectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
My definition is scientific knowledge and truth are recognized within 'objectivity' thus objective; in this sense how can you say my definition of 'objectivity' via intersubjective consensus is not useful when scientific objective is the most productive means [net pros over cons] for the welfare and progress of humanity to date?

There is no question of an absolutely true objectivity.
The only true objective is true within the requirements of the specific FSK and not true to an absolute external thing-in-itself which is an illusion that is conjured by the subject and reified as real.


Here's the problem: Your definition of objectivity is linked to accuracy. You believe (and you're certainly not alone in this) that we can only know something objectively if we understand it truly accurately. But given how limiting our sense-experience is, it would be foolish to think that we can understand anything as it truly is. Therefore, the best we can do is come up with some form of inter-subjective agreement on the objective nature of a thing. This standard is then deemed sufficient to be called "objective". Because this standard is (philosophically) fairly low, it can also be applied to inherently subjective fields such as aesthetics and morality. As such, it makes perfect sense that there are moral facts.

However, this approach is essentially a *cheat*. In actuality, we can't magically go from inter-subjectivity to objectivity.

But the nice thing is that we don't have to. That's because objectivity is not linked to accuracy. To be objective simply means to state a concept which refers to an external object, absent of a subjective viewpoint.
The significant criteria of objectivity, e.g. scientific objectivity is not accuracy but rather it compliance with the conditions of the scientific FSK, i.e. empirically verifiable, testable, repeatability, intersubjective consensus by peers, [peer review].

There cannot a question of accuracy in relation to an external thing in itself because there is no real thing-in-itself without any entanglement to the subjects.
So for example, if I say that the earth is a sphere, my statement is objective, because it refers to an object -- the earth -- as it is. But it's not entirely accurate, because the earth is not actually perfectly round. By measuring the shape of the earth, we can improve of our concept of its shape. So for example, if I say that the earth is an oblate ellipsoid, my statement is objectively more accurate than the previous one, because it describes the measured shape of the earth more accurately. However, both statements were already objective -- what changed was the accuracy, i.e. how well they map to observable, measurable reality.

Here's the kicker: if I were to say that the earth is flat, this statement would still be objective. Now, it does not map well to observable reality, so it's inaccurate to such a degree that we can consider it straight-out false. But it's perfectly objective nonetheless.
When YOU say the earth is a sphere or an oblate ellipsoid, that is not directly objective but rather it is your subjective opinions or beliefs based on faith.
The above statements only qualify to objectivity and its degrees when specific reference is made implicitly or explicitly to 'because the astronomy FSK confirmed [said] so'.
So that's what it means for something to be objective. It's not hard to derive at all. The challenge lies in comparing objective concepts to reality and determining their accuracy. But conceiving of objective concepts is completely trivial.
Here you will encounter Meno's paradox.
How do you know what is the really real thing out there so that you can made comparison with it.
Subjective concepts are an entirely different beast. For example, if I say that the shape of the earth is pleasing, this would not refer to the actual shape of the earth, but rather my perception of it. So how do you know whether my statement is "accurate"? Well, you examine me. That's to say, you examine my biology, my neurology, my history, etc. in an attempt to determine if I actually am experiencing pleasure by contemplating the shape of the earth. In other words, you reference the subject, not the object.

This is all there is to it -- objective is that which references the object, subjective is that which references the subject (the observer). That's why it simply does not matter how many subjects you measure and how accurately you do it. You'll never, ever get an "object" out of it.
There is no issue with subjective feelings about some thing, e.g. the shape of the Earth is pleasing.

There is another aspect to subjectivity which is subject to the FSK that is relied upon where the FSK are fundamentally based on intersubjective consensus.
For example the Abrahamic theistic FSK may insist the Earth has a flat shape.
Since this proposition is conditioned upon a FSK with consensus, it qualify to be objective, but how credible is such claim of objectivity.
I have claimed that the scientific FSK is the most credible at present thus has the highest level of credibility and objective, so, it will be the standard.
If we rate the scientific FSK with say a standard of 100, we can easily rate the theistic FSK at say 10/100.
To briefly touch upon an example you made regarding (crypto) currencies: our inter-subjective evaluation of a currency is exactly that: inter-subjective. That's why the value of a currency constantly fluctuates, as it's dependent upon our collective subjective value of it. If Elon Musk tweets about Doge Coin, he manipulates the people's perception of that particular currency (he in no way changes the protocol of that crypto currency itself!).
But I have argued whatever is objective is grounded on inter-subjectivity, there is no other way; you cannot prove there is an absolute real external thing-in-itself out there.
The point with crypto currency is its FSK are not credible in comparison to say the US Dollar, thus there is a variation of objectivity and trustworthiness; but such objectivity [independent of any individual's judgment] is fundamentally intersubjective.
The problem with attempting to re-brand inter-subjectivity with objectivity is that you all of a sudden don't know what to call that which is actually objective. In the case of crypto currencies, they're based upon a software protocol distributed among millions of hardware devices. These are actual objects. If our evaluation of a currency itself is already objective, then is the actual software and hardware it's built upon "merely" objective also? So there is no distinction between the collective evaluation of a thing and the thing itself?

So hopefully you see that this approach just isn't very useful. It's confusing because it's based on an unnecessary miscategorization. As such it leads to the idea that there are moral (and aesthetical) objective facts, when all it really refers to are inter-subjective patterns and overlaps, based on similarities in biology and such.
There is no rebranding of objective as I had referenced this definition which is generally accepted within the philosophical community;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Show me where is the mass rejection of this definition?

It is the same with 'subjectivity' [philosophy].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

You cannot deny the definition of objectivity [philosophy] is not useful, given that scientific knowledge as objective, thus repeatable and consistent, has been very useful in contributing the progress and welfare of humanity.

On the other hand your idea of objectivity, i.e. refer to a real external thing-in-itself independent of the subject has brought terrible sufferings and evil throughout the history of mankind in the idea of God as an independent thing in itself that is ABSOLUTELY independent of all subjects.

Are you aware the tracking and mirroring of the referent out there is old fashioned?
Note,
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.

It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.

The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#:
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

@Veritas Aequitas I would love to get into some of the points you brought up in more detail, but replying to individual, tangential points usually leads nowhere really fast, so I would prefer to focus on one issue at a time.

With that in mind, I would like to ask you two questions / hypotheticals pertaining to objectivity and subjectivity in hopes of clarifying the details of your particular philosophical position. So here goes:

1) Let's say you're a merchant and you've found yourself in possession of a small diamond in the rough. You'd like to sell the diamond for as high a price as possible. But in order to do so, you have to first determine its quality, meaning you have to figure out its exact shape, size, weight, coloration and so on. My question is this: given that your goal is to establish facts about the physical properties of the diamond, what is the ultimate source of truth to which you refer to during this entire process? And what would be the appropriate, most generic term for this type of source of truth?

2) Let's say you've determined the quality of your diamond to your satisfaction -- it happens to have a very unusual crescent moon shape. You're now looking for a suitable buyer. Luckily, you know three people who would surely be interested in buying your diamond. However, you live in a poor country with bad infrastructure, so you have no choice but to travel by foot. All three are equidistant from you, but you don't have the time to travel to each one of them individually to inquire about the price they're willing to offer, so you want to only travel once to the buyer who will purchase it for the highest amount. Here's what you know about them: the first potential buyer happens to be the owner of a diamond mine. The second one happens to be a diamond cutter (who incidentally frequently buys raw diamonds from the aforementioned diamond mine owner). The third person is a collector of raw gemstones who is known to pay handsomely for unusually shaped stones. Now, here's my question: given that your goal is to determine the highest bidder for your raw diamond, what is your ultimate source of truth to which you refer to during this process? And what would be the appropriate, most generic term for this type of source of truth?

Looking forward to your answers.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

double posting.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 12:41 am @Veritas Aequitas I would love to get into some of the points you brought up in more detail, but replying to individual, tangential points usually leads nowhere really fast, so I would prefer to focus on one issue at a time.

With that in mind, I would like to ask you two questions / hypotheticals pertaining to objectivity and subjectivity in hopes of clarifying the details of your particular philosophical position. So here goes:

1) Let's say you're a merchant and you've found yourself in possession of a small diamond in the rough. You'd like to sell the diamond for as high a price as possible. But in order to do so, you have to first determine its quality, meaning you have to figure out its exact shape, size, weight, coloration and so on.
My question is this: given that your goal is to establish facts about the physical properties of the diamond, what is the ultimate source of truth to which you refer to during this entire process? And what would be the appropriate, most generic term for this type of source of truth?
The "being in accord" is conditioned upon a specific FSK.

Since the scientific FSK is the most credible and trustworthy, I will try establish the truth of the diamond based on testing within the scientific FSK.
This is the objective scientific truth of that diamond which is grounded on intersubjective consensus; this truth is conditional upon the scientific FSK.

Note scientific truth is Model Dependent Realism;
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.

It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]


The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#
Given I am merely a merchant, to be cost effective, the next most credible means to verify the truth of that piece of diamond would be to seek opinion from a certified expert gemologist and a valuer authorized by a recognized body; Gemological Institute of America (GIA), International Gemological Institute (IGI) and De Beers Group Institute of Diamonds (IOD).
This truth is also condition upon the Gemology FSK.

Suppose I am a diamond merchant with 40 years of experience who has learned most of the skills of the trade, then I could use my own expertise to grade the diamond to set an estimate price to be expected.
This truth is subjective but conditioned upon my expertise, thus this is conditioned upon my personal FSK [supported by whatever the credentials].
If you google there are load of advice on how to determine what is a real diamond?

The generic term for the above is;
-truths conditioned upon its specified FSK.
2) Let's say you've determined the quality of your diamond to your satisfaction -- it happens to have a very unusual crescent moon shape. You're now looking for a suitable buyer.
Luckily, you know three people who would surely be interested in buying your diamond.
However, you live in a poor country with bad infrastructure, so you have no choice but to travel by foot.
All three are equidistant from you, but you don't have the time to travel to each one of them individually to inquire about the price they're willing to offer, so you want to only travel once to the buyer who will purchase it for the highest amount.

Here's what you know about them:
the first potential buyer happens to be the owner of a diamond mine.
The second one happens to be a diamond cutter (who incidentally frequently buys raw diamonds from the aforementioned diamond mine owner).
The third person is a collector of raw gemstones who is known to pay handsomely for unusually shaped stones.

Now, here's my question: given that your goal is to determine the highest bidder for your raw diamond, what is your ultimate source of truth to which you refer to during this process?
And what would be the appropriate, most generic term for this type of source of truth?

Looking forward to your answers.
Whatever the decision it is a personal judgment.
There is no question of truth in relation to the above but is a judgment that is personal.

However I would add, his ability to make judgment is a feature of being human, thus human nature and that is an objective scientific truth as verified via the scientific FSK.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:14 am The generic term for the above is;
-truths conditioned upon its specified FSK.
I was not asking about where you get knowledge about the diamond from; I was simply asking about the basic properties of the diamond, which you can trivially measure in your workshop.

Let's make it as simple as possible: Let's say you want to determine the weight of the diamond. You have a scale which works consistently and accurately. How would you measure the weight of the diamond? Would you put a lemon on the scale? Do you put an FSK on it? Does it even matter at all what you put on the scale? And does the weight measured by the scale reflect a property of the thing that was put on it? If the property relates to the "thing", is the "thing" therefore containing this information? Can this information be ascertained without reference to that "thing"? If the information is derived from that "thing", isn't the thing therefore your ultimate source of truth -- and your FSK simply the methodology used to accurately determine its properties?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:14 am There is no question of truth in relation to the above but is a judgment that is personal.
Really? So you would say there is no right and wrong question here? So you would just randomly pick to whom to sell the diamond?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:14 am The generic term for the above is;
-truths conditioned upon its specified FSK.
I was not asking about where you get knowledge about the diamond from; I was simply asking about the basic properties of the diamond, which you can trivially measure in your workshop.

Let's make it as simple as possible: Let's say you want to determine the weight of the diamond. You have a scale which works consistently and accurately. How would you measure the weight of the diamond? Would you put a lemon on the scale? Do you put an FSK on it? Does it even matter at all what you put on the scale? And does the weight measured by the scale reflect a property of the thing that was put on it? If the property relates to the "thing", is the "thing" therefore containing this information? Can this information be ascertained without reference to that "thing"? If the information is derived from that "thing", isn't the thing therefore your ultimate source of truth -- and your FSK simply the methodology used to accurately determine its properties?
I am not too sure of your question and intention here but I'll try.

First we need to determine that "thing" is a real diamond.
The most credible FSK to determine whether that 'thing' is a real or fake diamond is to be done scientifically, i.e. via the scientific FSK.

If we do not rely on the scientific FSK, then we can rely on other lesser credible FSKs but whatever the objectivity or truth they must be qualified to the specific FSK conditioned upon.

The FSK is not merely the 'methodology' but the methodology is merely one feature of the FSK. E.g. the scientific method is merely one feature of the scientific FSK, the others are peer review, the assumptions, the limitations, the philosophy underlining it.

The FSK is a Framework, like a paradigm which includes the whole human system.
For example the human FSK view of reality is different from that of a bat, bacteria, virus and other living things.
There is no way you can claim the human FSK represent THE TRUTH, the absolute independent objective truth. It is inevitable whatever the truth or objectivity is, it has to carry the human baggage with it where humans are involved.

As such, the FSK is part and parcel of what is reality, truth, objective and fact. If not explicit, the FSK is implied as entangled in all sense of reality.

Btw, I stated there is no such thing as thing-in-itself. Are you familiar how this term 'thing-in-itself' is contentious? I stated to thing-in-itself is an illusion.
There can ONLY be thing-in-FSK or thing-in-FSR.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:14 am There is no question of truth in relation to the above but is a judgment that is personal.
Really? So you would say there is no right and wrong question here? So you would just randomly pick to whom to sell the diamond?
[/quote]
Nope, not randomly; obviously I will make the best judgment based on critical thinking and my experience to arrive at the optimal decision.
In this particular case there is no right and wrong question, like 1+1=3 is wrong, but rather what is the best judgment in the given conditions.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:55 am I am not too sure of your question and intention here but I'll try. [...]
Well, I'll just provide you with the "normal" answers to my questions, and I'll also attempt to frame them in your preferred terminology as best as I can.

Regarding the first question: if you want to understand the physical characteristics of a "thing" that you can observe with your senses, your point of reference is that "thing". The most generic term for such a "thing" (other than "thing") is an "object". As such, if you want to determine the weight of the diamond, you refer to the object -- in this case, the diamond. So in order to determine its weight you can put it on a scale. The information you derive on this basis is objective because it's relative to the object. The better your methodology, your tools, your philosophical basis to derive knowledge, etc., the more accurate will this information be, of course.

Now, none of this implies or requires that the diamond is "real" or that it "exists". The only thing that matters is that it's an entity you can observe and must refer to in order to gain knowledge about it. Would it be fair to say, on the basis of your proposed terminology, that the diamond in this case is the object-in-FSK/FSR? Would it be fair to say that the information we aim to derive describes the properties of that object-in-FSK/FSR? Would it be fair to say that the object-in-FSK/FSR is the source of truth for the properties of the object-in-FSK/FSR itself?

If you would answer these questions in the affirmative, then our only disagreement is a purely semantic one. I would simply call it the "object" rather than "object-in-FSK/FSR", but I don't disagree with the latter, because knowledge is necessarily derived within the context of some kind of system or framework of knowledge.

But if you disagree, please let me know how you would call the object (generically) and what the concrete source of truth when it comes to knowledge related to it would be (so please not simply "a particular FSK").

Regarding the second question: if you want to understand the (monetary) value of an object, you must refer to the person who is willing to buy it from you. The value that person is willing to assign to that object is relative to the personal circumstances and preferences of that person. The most generic term for a person with their own values and desires is a subject. So if you want to determine the (monetary) value of an object, you refer to the subject -- in this case, one of the three potential buyers. Even though you can be objective in your approach to determine which value a person would assign to an object, the nature of the value is subjective. As such, it will change whenever the circumstances and preferences of the subject change.

We can of course utilize an appropriate FSK to determine the values of a subject in an accurate and predictable manner. I believe you would consider this "objective". In my particular example, the owner of the diamond mine already has access to a large amount of diamonds. As such, he doesn't have need for diamonds -- he wants to sell them. It's therefore reasonable to deduce that he will offer you the lowest price. The diamond cutter needs raw diamonds, so you can be fairly certain he will offer you more money than the owner of the diamond mine. However, he has no problem procuring diamonds, and therefore won't offer you more money than he would offer his vendor, because he's only interested in your diamond if you offer it for a lower price than the diamond mine owner would (for an equivalent raw diamond). The collector of raw gem stones, however, is not simply looking to buy diamonds -- he is interested in unique and unusually shaped gem stones, which your crescent moon shaped diamond qualifies as. As such, you can be reasonably certain that the collector will offer you the best price. One could argue that this option is therefore your best bet, "objectively", yes?

I would disagree -- it's your best option, subjectively, because the source of truth is the subject. So let's say you're fairly certain that the collector will offer you the best price -- you know him well and can gauge from experience that he'll value your particular diamond highly. You travel to his home and ask him how much he would be willing to pay for this unique raw diamond. His answer: "Nothing. I don't want it." -- turns out he collected unusual gem stones because his terminally ill daughter was fascinated by them. However, she recently passed away, and as such he has lost any and all interest in buying any other gem stones. His circumstances changed, and his values changed accordingly. That's why all knowledge which is derived from a subject as its source of truth is inherently "subjective", regardless of what kind of FSK you use.

Now, would it be fair to say that the person who has the ability to assign a value to objects is the subject-in-FSK/FSR? Would it be fair to say that the the subject-in-FSK/FSR is the source of truth for all values and preferences the subject-in-FSK/FSR holds?

If yes, then once again, our disagreement is semantic. If not, please let me know how you would call the "subject" and what the concrete source of truth regarding their values and preferences would be (so not merely something like "human FSK").

Just to clarify, I am of course always referring to the original source of truth (which is also referenced by all other sources), not secondary sources (i.e. wikipedia articles).
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:17 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:55 am I am not too sure of your question and intention here but I'll try. [...]
Well, I'll just provide you with the "normal" answers to my questions, and I'll also attempt to frame them in your preferred terminology as best as I can.

Regarding the first question: if you want to understand the physical characteristics of a "thing" that you can observe with your senses, your point of reference is that "thing". The most generic term for such a "thing" (other than "thing") is an "object". As such, if you want to determine the weight of the diamond, you refer to the object -- in this case, the diamond. So in order to determine its weight you can put it on a scale. The information you derive on this basis is objective because it's relative to the object. The better your methodology, your tools, your philosophical basis to derive knowledge, etc., the more accurate will this information be, of course.
In the common and conventional sense, yes, we are referring to that 'thing' out there we can observe with our senses which we identify as the external object.
This is related to the reality of classical physics, i.e. the Newtonian Physics.

Then we have Einstein who proved that whatever is the object out there, it has to relate to the observer.
In physics, the Observer Effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.[1][2] This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.
A notable example of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena can change the measured results of this experiment. Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been misinterpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
The implication of the above is, the 'thing' that your senses observed is a 'thing' that you yourself has constructed within reality. This is obviously subjective.
There is no thing-in-itself that is absolutely independent and external to your self.
The fact is what is the same say, Moon when observed by the >8 billion people on Earth, we have 8 billion self-constructed moon-as-seen-by-a-subject. This is obviously subjective.

To ensure we termed the observed 'moon' as objective it is processed via a Framework and System of Reality to determine one's moon is objective, i.e. generic for every one.
The most credible to establish as objective moon is via the scientific FSR/FSK.

In general and common sense we deem the observed moon is real, but to be serious and credible, we must say the moon is real because Science [FSK] said so.

At the extreme, the moon does not exist when no one is actively cognizing [sensing, seeing,] it.

I have repeated the above many times, but it seem you have not understood [not agree with] what I am getting at?
Now, none of this implies or requires that the diamond is "real" or that it "exists". The only thing that matters is that it's an entity you can observe and must refer to in order to gain knowledge about it.
1. Would it be fair to say, on the basis of your proposed terminology, that the diamond in this case is the object-in-FSK/FSR?
2. Would it be fair to say that the information we aim to derive describes the properties of that object-in-FSK/FSR?
3. Would it be fair to say that the object-in-FSK/FSR is the source of truth for the properties of the object-in-FSK/FSR itself?

If you would answer these questions in the affirmative, then our only disagreement is a purely semantic one. I would simply call it the "object" rather than "object-in-FSK/FSR", but I don't disagree with the latter, because knowledge is necessarily derived within the context of some kind of system or framework of knowledge.

But if you disagree, please let me know how you would call the object (generically) and what the concrete source of truth when it comes to knowledge related to it would be (so please not simply "a particular FSK").
I don't agree with your Q3.
Your object-in-FSK/FSR itself is still a thing[object-in-FSK/FSR itself]-in-itself.
As you can see, you don't seem to be able to let go of the "itself" which imply absolutely independent of your self [the subject].

As I explained above, the object-in-FSK/FSR is first an object which you yourself construct and each individual construct their specific the object-in-FSK/FSR or say moon-by-themselves.

As such the source of truth is the object that one construct by oneself, and the objective truth of that object is via the specific FSK/FSR based on intersubjective agreement.
Regarding the second question: if you want to understand the (monetary) value of an object, you must refer to the person who is willing to buy it from you. The value that person is willing to assign to that object is relative to the personal circumstances and preferences of that person. The most generic term for a person with their own values and desires is a subject. So if you want to determine the (monetary) value of an object, you refer to the subject -- in this case, one of the three potential buyers. Even though you can be objective in your approach to determine which value a person would assign to an object, the nature of the value is subjective. As such, it will change whenever the circumstances and preferences of the subject change.

We can of course utilize an appropriate FSK to determine the values of a subject in an accurate and predictable manner. I believe you would consider this "objective". In my particular example, the owner of the diamond mine already has access to a large amount of diamonds. As such, he doesn't have need for diamonds -- he wants to sell them. It's therefore reasonable to deduce that he will offer you the lowest price. The diamond cutter needs raw diamonds, so you can be fairly certain he will offer you more money than the owner of the diamond mine. However, he has no problem procuring diamonds, and therefore won't offer you more money than he would offer his vendor, because he's only interested in your diamond if you offer it for a lower price than the diamond mine owner would (for an equivalent raw diamond). The collector of raw gem stones, however, is not simply looking to buy diamonds -- he is interested in unique and unusually shaped gem stones, which your crescent moon shaped diamond qualifies as. As such, you can be reasonably certain that the collector will offer you the best price. One could argue that this option is therefore your best bet, "objectively", yes?

I would disagree -- it's your best option, subjectively, because the source of truth is the subject. So let's say you're fairly certain that the collector will offer you the best price -- you know him well and can gauge from experience that he'll value your particular diamond highly. You travel to his home and ask him how much he would be willing to pay for this unique raw diamond. His answer: "Nothing. I don't want it." -- turns out he collected unusual gem stones because his terminally ill daughter was fascinated by them. However, she recently passed away, and as such he has lost any and all interest in buying any other gem stones. His circumstances changed, and his values changed accordingly. That's why all knowledge which is derived from a subject as its source of truth is inherently "subjective", regardless of what kind of FSK you use.

Now, would it be fair to say that the person who has the ability to assign a value to objects is the subject-in-FSK/FSR? Would it be fair to say that the the subject-in-FSK/FSR is the source of truth for all values and preferences the subject-in-FSK/FSR holds?

If yes, then once again, our disagreement is semantic. If not, please let me know how you would call the "subject" and what the concrete source of truth regarding their values and preferences would be (so not merely something like "human FSK").

Just to clarify, I am of course always referring to the original source of truth (which is also referenced by all other sources), not secondary sources (i.e. wikipedia articles).
If you have taken Economics 101 you would have known that what is 'price' is always the intersubjective-agreement between supply and demand.
Whatever the price arrive at is the objective price conditioned upon the Economic FSK.
Thus my point, whatever is objective [philosophical] is always intersubjectivity.

What is 'subject' in this case refer to humans.
The original source of truth an object is based on the object that is constructed by humans.
There is no objective reality that is absolutely independent of humans - this sounds counter-intuitive and generate cognitive dissonance, but that is the reality.

There is no way to deliberate on what is reality without the subject being entangled in it because humans are intricately and intrinsically part and parcel of reality as all-there-is.

The most one can do is to SPECULATE what is reality that is independent of humans, but that 'speculation' inevitably entails humans to speculate.

Btw, do you get [not necessary agree with] my points?
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 8:05 am Your object-in-FSK/FSR itself is still a thing[object-in-FSK/FSR itself]-in-itself
I'm almost positive we don't actually have any substantial disagreement here (but I could always be wrong! :D ). Maybe it will become clearer if I formulate my position without the terms "objective" and "subjective" to make it more explicit:

My position is that we can focus our awareness on what we perceive to be the target of our attention, and attempt to refine our conceptual model of it via a particular process designed to minimize distortions created by our perception of it. This can be done either on a low level (i.e. by using tools and performing various kinds of tests) or on a high level (i.e. peer-review and meta-analysis, what you would call "FSK"). However, I would like to stress that the difference between lower and higher systems of investigation is a qualitative one, not a categorical one. I don't believe you disagree with this, as you seem to define every approach to gain knowledge as an FSK, including more primitive ones.

Within our perception, our experience of the target of our attention is naturally "only" a part of our *perception*, in the same sense as a photo of an apple is not the apple-in-itself. In this way, we can never experience a thing as it is, but by refining our conceptual understanding of it via the appropriate process, we can increase our certainty of its nature, it's place in the world and our relationship to it. By clarifying our conceptual model of it in this manner, we can also distinguish between properties belonging to it, and those belonging to our perception of it. So to make a very basic example: if I look at an optical illusion, it might appear to me like it's moving. By applying an appropriate process to remove the distortions caused by my perception, I can ascertain that it's nothing but ink printed on a piece of paper, so there is no actual movement taking place. In this way, I can deduce that the sense of movement I received from it was part of my perception, and as such it does not belong to my *concept* of the thing in-itself. I would like to stress that the idea of a "thing-in-itself" is purely conceptual -- it's a mental construct to establish a relationship (in my mind) between my concept of "me" and my concept of "other things around me", so it's essentially no different than the concept of "left and right" or "inside and outside". So everything is a concept, including a "thing-in-itself", and we can never know if there is such a thing as a "thing-in-itself" which is not a concept.

I'll leave it at that for now -- as far as I'm concerned, there's no substantial difference between my description and yours, apart from the phrasing. But if you find a meaningful difference please let me know.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 8:05 am Whatever the price arrive at is the objective price conditioned upon the Economic FSK.
Thus my point, whatever is objective [philosophical] is always intersubjectivity.
I'm pretty sure this right here is the core of our disagreement. To be honest, I'm short-circuiting a bit because I really don't understand your logic here. But just to clarify (again and again), I don't disagree with you when you say that "There is no objective reality that is absolutely independent of humans"; I'm perfectly comfortable with this idea. However, I would argue that we have a *concept* of an external reality, which is distinct from the concept of *internal perception* -- agree, disagree?

But to get back to the previous point: Unfortunately you didn't indulge me in my concrete example regarding how individual people can determine the price of a thing. As such, I still have really no idea of how this would work in your model. But we can make it even simpler. Say you're at a bazaar in a foreign country on a month-long trip. There you find a particular balm against mosquito bites that's available in your home country and you know it's price to be 2,99$. However, the seller asks for 20$ -- unfortunately, this balm isn't available anywhere else in this country (as far as you know) and you could really use it during your month-long stay, as you're being plagued by mosquito's and you know this balm to work well for you.

How would this work through the lens of your paradigm? What is the economic FSK upon which the price is conditioned, exactly? How is it possible for there to be different prices for the same item? And: even if there is a particular "objective" price, what does it mean for it to be "objective" if the seller demands a much higher price?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 8:05 am Your object-in-FSK/FSR itself is still a thing[object-in-FSK/FSR itself]-in-itself
I'm almost positive we don't actually have any substantial disagreement here (but I could always be wrong! :D ). Maybe it will become clearer if I formulate my position without the terms "objective" and "subjective" to make it more explicit:

My position is that we can focus our awareness on what we perceive to be the target of our attention, and attempt to refine our conceptual model of it via a particular process designed to minimize distortions created by our perception of it. This can be done either on a low level (i.e. by using tools and performing various kinds of tests) or on a high level (i.e. peer-review and meta-analysis, what you would call "FSK"). However, I would like to stress that the difference between lower and higher systems of investigation is a qualitative one, not a categorical one. I don't believe you disagree with this, as you seem to define every approach to gain knowledge as an FSK, including more primitive ones.

Within our perception, our experience of the target of our attention is naturally "only" a part of our *perception*, in the same sense as a photo of an apple is not the apple-in-itself. In this way, we can never experience a thing as it is, but by refining our conceptual understanding of it via the appropriate process, we can increase our certainty of its nature, it's place in the world and our relationship to it. By clarifying our conceptual model of it in this manner, we can also distinguish between properties belonging to it, and those belonging to our perception of it. So to make a very basic example: if I look at an optical illusion, it might appear to me like it's moving. By applying an appropriate process to remove the distortions caused by my perception, I can ascertain that it's nothing but ink printed on a piece of paper, so there is no actual movement taking place. In this way, I can deduce that the sense of movement I received from it was part of my perception, and as such it does not belong to my *concept* of the thing in-itself. I would like to stress that the idea of a "thing-in-itself" is purely conceptual -- it's a mental construct to establish a relationship (in my mind) between my concept of "me" and my concept of "other things around me", so it's essentially no different than the concept of "left and right" or "inside and outside". So everything is a concept, including a "thing-in-itself", and we can never know if there is such a thing as a "thing-in-itself" which is not a concept.

I'll leave it at that for now -- as far as I'm concerned, there's no substantial difference between my description and yours, apart from the phrasing. But if you find a meaningful difference please let me know.
I can agree with the above, i.e.
"So everything is a concept, including a "thing-in-itself", and we can never know if there is such a thing as a "thing-in-itself" which is not a concept."

Actually rather than the 'thing-in-itself' [Ding an sich] as a concept, it would be more appropriate to label the thing-in-itself as an idea, i.e. ONLY a thought without any semblance of reality.

This would be in alignment with Kant's philosophy on the issue.
For Kant what is real is ONLY the perception [subjected to the FSK].
But via common sense logic, it is absurd to have a perception without the perceived [thing-in-itself], or appearance without the-appeared.
As such to satisfy the logic [not the reality] Kant label the perceived as the noumenom [aka thing-in-itself] such that for every phenomenon [the real] there must be its corresponding noumenon [the intellectualized thought].
The noumenon must NEVER be deliberated as objectively real [verified within a credible FSK].

If you agree to the above then we are in agreement.


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 8:05 am Whatever the price arrive at is the objective price conditioned upon the Economic FSK.
Thus my point, whatever is objective [philosophical] is always intersubjectivity.
I'm pretty sure this right here is the core of our disagreement. To be honest, I'm short-circuiting a bit because I really don't understand your logic here. But just to clarify (again and again), I don't disagree with you when you say that "There is no objective reality that is absolutely independent of humans"; I'm perfectly comfortable with this idea. However, I would argue that we have a *concept* of an external reality, which is distinct from the concept of *internal perception* -- agree, disagree?

But to get back to the previous point: Unfortunately you didn't indulge me in my concrete example regarding how individual people can determine the price of a thing. As such, I still have really no idea of how this would work in your model. But we can make it even simpler. Say you're at a bazaar in a foreign country on a month-long trip. There you find a particular balm against mosquito bites that's available in your home country and you know it's price to be 2,99$. However, the seller asks for 20$ -- unfortunately, this balm isn't available anywhere else in this country (as far as you know) and you could really use it during your month-long stay, as you're being plagued by mosquito's and you know this balm to work well for you.

How would this work through the lens of your paradigm? What is the economic FSK upon which the price is conditioned, exactly? How is it possible for there to be different prices for the same item? And: even if there is a particular "objective" price, what does it mean for it to be "objective" if the seller demands a much higher price?
There is no one absolute FSK but it is relative to various circumstances with various degrees of credibility.

In the above example re the balm it is still subject to the laws of supply and demand and that FSK is subject to the conditions as stated, i.e. foreign country and $20.
You need to consider the seller's cost may be $18 after going through various middlemen and currency exchanges.
Note cheap heroin in Afghanistan are selling for 100x in the streets of US inner cities; a Afghan refugee who is a heroin addict and had migrated to the US will have to pay that inflated price or else face cold turkey.

So in your case of a &2.99 to $20 mosquito balm it is still a case of supply & demand. If you beg the seller, the least he can sell you is $18 to break even. So it is your decision to make within that specific FSK taking into account the risks involved.
Whatever the final price, it is still objective as conditioned to the specific FSK subject to other conditions, but you cannot deny objectivity is intersubjectivity [seller and you] in this case.

Within the economic FSK [less credible than the scientific FSK], there is no specific 'objective' price.
Note the Share Market where millions of shares of a particular company are sold and bought by different sellers [subjects] and buyers [subjects].
Within the economic FSK and the Share Market FSK, what is the objective price is either the average price or the last price agreed of the day.
Whatever is the price within the relevant FSKs, it is accepted by financial reporters, financial papers, and other users of that objective price and they are used objectively.
As you will note, whatever is the objective price is based on intersubjective agreement; thus, what is objective is intersubjectivity.

It is the same for credible objective moral facts which is based on intersubjectivity within the scientific and a credible moral FSK.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 4:03 am This would be in alignment with Kant's philosophy on the issue.
For Kant what is real is ONLY the perception [subjected to the FSK].
But via common sense logic, it is absurd to have a perception without the perceived [thing-in-itself], or appearance without the-appeared.
As such to satisfy the logic [not the reality] Kant label the perceived as the noumenom [aka thing-in-itself] such that for every phenomenon [the real] there must be its corresponding noumenon [the intellectualized thought].
The noumenon must NEVER be deliberated as objectively real [verified within a credible FSK].

If you agree to the above then we are in agreement.
Hmm, I'm not sure Kant would agree with you here 😅
Normally, noumena are understood as concepts which are not directly represented through observed or observable phenomena, but rather (arguably) necessitated via logical deduction ("reine Vernunft"). Kant utilized this idea in ways that I would reject (i.e. to justify the existence of souls and a god).

That being said, I personally prefer your usage of that term, although I would prefer to explicitly describe it as a "concept of a thing/phenomenon/object" (purely due to the baggage associated with the term "noumenon"). The concept of a thing is by definition not physically real, as it's purely conceptual. However, it can be compared against phenomena, and in this manner it also becomes distinguishable from the distortions caused by our perception.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 8:05 am There is no one absolute FSK but it is relative to various circumstances with various degrees of credibility.

In the above example re the balm it is still subject to the laws of supply and demand and that FSK is subject to the conditions as stated, i.e. foreign country and $20.
You need to consider the seller's cost may be $18 after going through various middlemen and currency exchanges.
Note cheap heroin in Afghanistan are selling for 100x in the streets of US inner cities; a Afghan refugee who is a heroin addict and had migrated to the US will have to pay that inflated price or else face cold turkey.

So in your case of a &2.99 to $20 mosquito balm it is still a case of supply & demand. If you beg the seller, the least he can sell you is $18 to break even. So it is your decision to make within that specific FSK taking into account the risks involved.
Whatever the final price, it is still objective as conditioned to the specific FSK subject to other conditions, but you cannot deny objectivity is intersubjectivity [seller and you] in this case.

Within the economic FSK [less credible than the scientific FSK], there is no specific 'objective' price.
Note the Share Market where millions of shares of a particular company are sold and bought by different sellers [subjects] and buyers [subjects].
Within the economic FSK and the Share Market FSK, what is the objective price is either the average price or the last price agreed of the day.
Whatever is the price within the relevant FSKs, it is accepted by financial reporters, financial papers, and other users of that objective price and they are used objectively.
As you will note, whatever is the objective price is based on intersubjective agreement; thus, what is objective is intersubjectivity.

It is the same for credible objective moral facts which is based on intersubjectivity within the scientific and a credible moral FSK.
I get the sense that you're avoiding the most obvious explanation as to why the seller in my hypothetical example would offer the balm to you for an outrageous price. It's not that he acquired it at a high cost. He simply knows that you won't be able to get it anywhere else and since you're obviously a well-off tourist from a rich country, he is certain that you would be willing to pay this sum. That's because his interest is not to determine an "accurate" price, but the highest price possible to generate the highest profit feasible, right at the threshold where it's still worth more for the customer to buy it than not to buy it.

My point is that this process is centered around the personal interests of the seller vs. the personal interests of the buyer. The selling price which then emerges at the end of this process is determined by the personal interests of the individual people involved. And when expanded on a larger scale, the fundamental nature of this process does not change. It simply involves more people and therefore becomes more abstract. However, it's still based on the interests of the individual people involved. So for example, if a substantial enough number of people sensed that gas would soon become unavailable for some reason and thus the demand for it grew dramatically, the price for gas would quickly increase -- on the basis of a mere change in our perception of scarcity for this resource.

It's therefore undeniable that prices are determined by the consumers individual evaluation of a particular good or service. This is what I would call a subjective source of truth, but we would really be better off by avoiding terms such as objective and subjective altogether, as it has become quite clear that they cause more confusion than clarification. Instead I might call them "viewpoint" vs "world" based sources of truth.

If I understand you correctly, in your paradigm the qualification from subjective to objective is in fact just based on consensus (an appropriate FSK is desirable, but not required). Personally, I wouldn't be happy with this approach, as it implies that concepts which are more widely accepted somehow hold more truth-value.

Given that historically there have been plenty of widely accepted concepts which turned out to be completely wrong (including within the sciences), this just doesn't seem like a fair qualifier. Also, conversely, there have been plenty of theories that were accurate as initially devised, but not embraced by the scientific community for a long time. Most famously, heliocentrism was "inter-subjectively" rejected for over a century (or even much longer, if we attribute it to the Greeks rather than Copernicus). While it is fair to argue that the FSK utilized by the academic community of that time was far from ideal, this still brings the importance of inter-subjective consensus into question.

I think it is perfectly fair to argue that certainty of the accuracy and validity of a particular theory can be credibly established by subjecting it to an appropriate FSK and requiring a certain level of inter-subjective consensus. However, it seems to me that it is misleading to suggest that this is where "objectivity" originates from. For example, it seems to me that the general theory of relativity was already perfectly "objective" as first proposed in 1915, even though it took much longer for it to be widely accepted by the scientific community. But it's acceptance did not change the theory itself in any way. It merely cemented it as valid and accurate in the perception of the scientific community and the general public.

If this wrinkle doesn't bother you, then I guess keep using the term "objectivity" in this way... But my recommendation would be to simply paraphrase it in more descriptive terms, such as "credibly verified in its validity based on scientific consensus" or some such.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 4:03 am This would be in alignment with Kant's philosophy on the issue.
For Kant what is real is ONLY the perception [subjected to the FSK].
But via common sense logic, it is absurd to have a perception without the perceived [thing-in-itself], or appearance without the-appeared.
As such to satisfy the logic [not the reality] Kant label the perceived as the noumenom [aka thing-in-itself] such that for every phenomenon [the real] there must be its corresponding noumenon [the intellectualized thought].
The noumenon must NEVER be deliberated as objectively real [verified within a credible FSK].

If you agree to the above then we are in agreement.
Hmm, I'm not sure Kant would agree with you here 😅
Normally, noumena are understood as concepts which are not directly represented through observed or observable phenomena, but rather (arguably) necessitated via logical deduction ("reine Vernunft"). Kant utilized this idea in ways that I would reject (i.e. to justify the existence of souls and a god).

That being said, I personally prefer your usage of that term, although I would prefer to explicitly describe it as a "concept of a thing/phenomenon/object" (purely due to the baggage associated with the term "noumenon"). The concept of a thing is by definition not physically real, as it's purely conceptual. However, it can be compared against phenomena, and in this manner it also becomes distinguishable from the distortions caused by our perception.
I am very familiar with Kant's philosophy [spent 3 years full time on it], perhaps you are as well.
I believe the term 'noumena' is the most fitting term to describe that intelligible object which is a contrast against 'phenomena'.
  • That means, intelligible objects are objects which are represented through intellectual concepts. 17 Kant uses this term congruent with the concept of noumenon18 and differentiates between an improper usage (a) and a permissible use (b) of these intelligible objects.
    https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 8-0025/pdf#:~:
Kant in CPR wrote:If by 'Noumenon' we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Intuition, and so abstract from our Mode of intuiting it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative sense of the term. B307
The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.B311

But if we understand by it an Object of a non-Sensible Intuition, we thereby presuppose a special Mode of Intuition, namely, the intellectual, which is not that which we possess, and of which we cannot comprehend even the Possibility. This would be 'Noumenon' in the positive sense of the term. B307
In both senses, i.e. negative or positive, the noumenon is merely a thought and never a real object of possible experience.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote:Kant utilized this idea in ways that I would reject (i.e. to justify the existence of souls and a god).
Kant utilized the idea of the [noumenon] thing-in-itself to justify the non-existence of the Soul and God which he demonstrated are merely illusions.
I get the sense that you're avoiding the most obvious explanation as to why the seller in my hypothetical example would offer the balm to you for an outrageous price. It's not that he acquired it at a high cost. He simply knows that you won't be able to get it anywhere else and since you're obviously a well-off tourist from a rich country, he is certain that you would be willing to pay this sum. That's because his interest is not to determine an "accurate" price, but the highest price possible to generate the highest profit feasible, right at the threshold where it's still worth more for the customer to buy it than not to buy it.

My point is that this process is centered around the personal interests of the seller vs. the personal interests of the buyer. The selling price which then emerges at the end of this process is determined by the personal interests of the individual people involved. And when expanded on a larger scale, the fundamental nature of this process does not change. It simply involves more people and therefore becomes more abstract. However, it's still based on the interests of the individual people involved. So for example, if a substantial enough number of people sensed that gas would soon become unavailable for some reason and thus the demand for it grew dramatically, the price for gas would quickly increase -- on the basis of a mere change in our perception of scarcity for this resource.
I understood your intended point but in the game of price determined by supply and demand, there are so many other possible factors, i.e. physical and psychological.
As such, it would be difficult for me to accept your point less you had qualified it earlier.
It's therefore undeniable that prices are determined by the consumers individual evaluation of a particular good or service. This is what I would call a subjective source of truth, but we would really be better off by avoiding terms such as objective and subjective altogether, as it has become quite clear that they cause more confusion than clarification. Instead I might call them "viewpoint" vs "world" based sources of truth.

If I understand you correctly, in your paradigm the qualification from subjective to objective is in fact just based on consensus (an appropriate FSK is desirable, but not required). Personally, I wouldn't be happy with this approach, as it implies that concepts which are more widely accepted somehow hold more truth-value.
To me, whatever is an objective truth is conditioned upon a specific FSK which ultimately is intersubjective agreement by subjects.

It is not wrong and thus right [true] to represent objective black from 0.1% to 99.9% blackness
and therefrom 0.1% blackness is 99.9% whiteness.

My intent for my purpose, is I don't want to end up with absolute objectivity, but rather place objectivity within a continuum from 0.1% to 99.9% in relation to the credibility of its specific FSK, i.e. establishing a common denominator for effective analysis.

In my case it won't end up "that concepts which are more widely accepted somehow hold more truth-value."
There is the assessment of the credibility of the FSK, where the basic scientific FSK is the most credible thus used as the standard bearer.
However within the basic scientific FSK there are also varying degrees of credibility, e.g. those of social sciences are less credible than say the established theories of Physics, Chemistry, Biology.
Given that historically there have been plenty of widely accepted concepts which turned out to be completely wrong (including within the sciences), this just doesn't seem like a fair qualifier. Also, conversely, there have been plenty of theories that were accurate as initially devised, but not embraced by the scientific community for a long time. Most famously, heliocentrism was "inter-subjectively" rejected for over a century (or even much longer, if we attribute it to the Greeks rather than Copernicus). While it is fair to argue that the FSK utilized by the academic community of that time was far from ideal, this still brings the importance of inter-subjective consensus into question.
This is why the term 'objectivity' [as intersubjectivity] is such a critical criteria to sort out the various claims of truths by various subjects.
For example, Science never claim absolute certainty and Science agreed its theories can be changes subject to verified-justified empirical evidences plus it lays down clearly its conditions.
On the other hand, theology claim absolute certainty based on faith.
Using a common denominator of 'objectivity' in relation to its specific FSK we can roughly the credibility [based on empirical evidence, verifiability, repeatability, peer reviewed] of the scientific FSK at >80% while that of theology is <10%.

In this case, the term 'objectivity' defined as intersubjectivity is the most effective for any purpose of analysis.
I think it is perfectly fair to argue that certainty of the accuracy and validity of a particular theory can be credibly established by subjecting it to an appropriate FSK and requiring a certain level of inter-subjective consensus.
However, it seems to me that it is misleading to suggest that this is where "objectivity" originates from. For example, it seems to me that the general theory of relativity was already perfectly "objective" as first proposed in 1915, even though it took much longer for it to be widely accepted by the scientific community. But it's acceptance did not change the theory itself in any way. It merely cemented it as valid and accurate in the perception of the scientific community and the general public.

If this wrinkle doesn't bother you, then I guess keep using the term "objectivity" in this way... But my recommendation would be to simply paraphrase it in more descriptive terms, such as "credibly verified in its validity based on scientific consensus" or some such.
That "the general theory of relativity was already perfectly "objective" as first proposed in 1915" its 'objectivity' must qualified to the then specific FSK and its degree of acceptance by the relevant peers in that field.

In a way on hindsight the general theory of relativity was 100% true as proven by Einstein but that is subjective to Einstein personal beliefs and not considered objective.
Its degree of objectivity increased as it was justified by more evidences, Edington in 1919 and with more evidences it works in recent years.

The point is the general theory of relativity did not pre-existed "Objectively" before Einstein proved it himself.
In a way, the the general theory of relativity was constructed by Einstein and its objectivity proceeded with more evidences justifying it.

Kant stated,
Kant in CPR wrote:1. Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
2. We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
A125
Kant's view is supported by modern physics, NOTE this;
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.

It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]

The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
I have quoted these sort of references from Physics many times.
If you have any strong opposition against them, appreciate your views.

The general definition of 'objectivity' is "independent from individual or subject' opinions, beliefs and judgment."
The judgment from a collective of subjects i.e. a FSK is "independent from individual or subject' opinions, beliefs and judgment" thus satisfy the definition of what is 'objective'.

The point is subjects will make all sorts of claims about the truth of reality,
the most effective way to assess their credibility is a reference to their specific FSKs and rate the degree of objectivity to enable useful analysis for pragmatic utilities.

Thus my point,
'Objectivity is Intersubjectivity' for analytical and utility sake.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:16 am The general definition of 'objectivity' is "independent from individual or subject' opinions, beliefs and judgment."
The judgment from a collective of subjects i.e. a FSK is "independent from individual or subject' opinions, beliefs and judgment" thus satisfy the definition of what is 'objective'.
Agree with the definition, but (still) can't accept the conclusion that an aggregate of subjective opinions should be considered objective (even though I do know where you're coming from).

In any case, I understand your position and generally agree with it (including model-dependent realism), I simply don't find the terminology of "objectivity vs subjectivity" helpful, as it seemingly makes no distinction between what I previously called "viewpoint vs world" analysis. That's why it makes perfect sense for you to conclude that something which is generally attributed to "viewpoint" is part of "world" in your paradigm, i.e. objective moral facts, but also aesthetic facts, facts about music or fashion taste and so on. My point is that these are examples of (aggregate) viewpoint-based knowledge, and as such are distinct from biological facts, historical facts, chemical facts, astronomical facts and so on, which belong to world-based knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:16 am The general definition of 'objectivity' is "independent from individual or subject' opinions, beliefs and judgment."
The judgment from a collective of subjects i.e. a FSK is "independent from individual or subject' opinions, beliefs and judgment" thus satisfy the definition of what is 'objective'.
Agree with the definition, but (still) can't accept the conclusion that an aggregate of subjective opinions should be considered objective (even though I do know where you're coming from).

In any case, I understand your position and generally agree with it (including model-dependent realism), I simply don't find the terminology of "objectivity vs subjectivity" helpful, as it seemingly makes no distinction between what I previously called "viewpoint vs world" analysis. That's why it makes perfect sense for you to conclude that something which is generally attributed to "viewpoint" is part of "world" in your paradigm, i.e. objective moral facts, but also aesthetic facts, facts about music or fashion taste and so on. My point is that these are examples of (aggregate) viewpoint-based knowledge, and as such are distinct from biological facts, historical facts, chemical facts, astronomical facts and so on, which belong to world-based knowledge.
The dichotomy of "objectivity vs subjectivity" is relevant if anyone were to claim this or that is not objective, as I had pointed out, Peter Holmes, et. al, since Hume's days claimed whatever is associated with morality cannot be 'objective'.

To counter the above ignorance and dogmatism, I have show otherwise which I had done successfully.

I can easily avoid the term 'objective' and present the thesis that there are innate and inherent moral impulses within human nature that all human must aligned with accordingly to ensure the welfare of humanity. I can then rely on the Scientific FSK and a credible moral FSK to justify my thesis, QED, without mentioning the term 'objective'.
.. which belong to world-based knowledge.
Within common sense we have knowledge of things as separate from things-in-themselves.

At a more refined level, what-is-knowledge-of and the things-in-themselves are the same one united thing as entangled with the subject. In this case, knowledge of things is not independent of the things.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:19 am I can easily avoid the term 'objective' and present the thesis that there are innate and inherent moral impulses within human nature that all human must aligned with accordingly to ensure the welfare of humanity. I can then rely on the Scientific FSK and a credible moral FSK to justify my thesis, QED, without mentioning the term 'objective'.
That's great -- it would clarify a lot. You see, when a philosophically minded audience reads a sentence like "[...] that all human must aligned with [...]" within the context of objective morality, we immediately interpret that as you making the argument that there's some kind of "cosmic ought" which is independent from (inter-) subjective human interests. But in reality, you are making an appeal to our common, rationally derived goals of ensuring the welfare of humanity. Therefore, the is-ought-dichotomy is never broken. It's just that your terminology leads us to believe that it was.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:19 am At a more refined level, what-is-knowledge-of and the things-in-themselves are the same one united thing as entangled with the subject. In this case, knowledge of things is not independent of the things.
I would argue that it's a useful and meaningful conceptual distinction at all levels of inquiry, but if your approach works without it, then who am I to judge 😄
Post Reply