I'm sorry, but once again you seemed to grasp it, but then lose it, so that we go back around in circles.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:31 pmIt is no better than your approach. And the masochism example is not a problem because you seem happy to sweep cotigencies in your approach just the same.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:55 pmWhat I find puzzling is that you claim we have loads of work to do to find agreement about the meanings of the words we're using.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:11 am
I don't agree. Are you aware of the use-mention distinction?
Talking about a reference frame means that we both recognize the concept of a "reference frame" it does not mean we have agreed on one.
Until we both agree on said frame of reference from which we are to evaluate our "factual claims" we are stuck.
The way of this hamster wheel is convention which is the product of consensus. I think we have agreed on that?
So that is two ifs? That is (at least) two things we need to agree on before we can start talking about, reality, objectivity and facts?
Given that we have disagreed about this for 10+ pages of dialogue I am open to suggestions on how to come up to an agreement on these things.
But you seem hopeful. Go ahead and propose a reference frame together with all of the axioms which one must accept within said reference frame.
Because I have an easier way for us to reach consensus.I can kick you in the shins and ask you: "Do you want me to do that again?". I am confident you will agree the answer is "No".
By your definition of "facts" (claims about features of reality) I can reasonably claim that me kicking you was true, real and objective.
The pain you felt was true, real and objective.
And now you reasonably understand what I mean by harm.
By Occam's razor this is far easier than having to agree on frame of reference, objectivity, facts any other nonsense.
But then in your shin-kicking scenario, you say you can 'reasonably claim that your kicking me was true, real and objective.
The pain I felt was true, real and objective.'
I agree this is a reasonable claim, because you're using those words in a standard way - though you're making a common mistake in saying that an action can be true and objective, because only factual assertions can be true or false, and 'objective' means 'relying on facts - true factual assertions'. I take your actual meaning . I 'reasonably understand what I mean by harm', because you're using the word 'harm' in a standard way.
But now we're back to the sleight-of-hand deduction of a moral assertion from a factual one: your kicking me harms me, and you shouldn't kick me.
The following two assertions have completely different functions:
1 Kicking people harms them, because it hurts. (Let's ignore the obvious problems with this, such as that I may be a masochist.)
2 It's morally wrong to harm people.
The first is (arguably) a factual assertion. The second is a moral value-judgement. And the one doesn't entail the other in any way whatsoever.
Even if we could objectively assert that It is morally wrong to harm people, we could be mistaken. Or it could be wrong from one reference frame and right from another. Of what use is such “objective” morality?
And so one has to ask the question: If this is just about linguistic classification then why do we even care about objective morality then? Subjective morality works just fine too.
The foundational problem is one of agreement, not facts.
And using your definition this is a factual claim about reality: majority of humans agree that it is wrong to harm people.
Does this mean harm is objectively wrong?
I don't understand how you can ask that last question - as though that I might think morality is objective, given all I've been saying, is even a remote possibility - or say the following, as though it's a gotcha:
'And using your definition this is a factual claim about reality: majority of humans agree that it is wrong to harm people.'
That is a factual assertion, of course - so it's true or false. And the moral assertion 'it's wrong to harm people' is completely different, and has no factual truth-value. (All of this, given standard uses of 'truth', and 'fact' and their cognates. Please don't bother saying we don't have to use those words in a standard way - we could use a different framework - because it's becoming paralysingly boring.)