What could make morality objective?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: buttin' in cuz I see a problem (that probably doesn't exist)

Post by Logik » Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:39 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:31 pm
If 'truth' is 'what is true/real' then, yeah, he does cuz the earth does orbit sol.
But it doesn't.
henry quirk wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:31 pm
Put another way: the objective truth (earth orbits sol) will always kick the the ass of the subjective opnion (earth doesn't orbit sol).
Strawman. I never claimed that the Earth orbits the Sun. I claimed that both the Earth AND the Sun orbit the barycenter.

You wouldn't say that Pluto orbits Mercury, would you? No!

Then why would you say that Earth orbits the Sun when the Sun, Earth, Mercury and Pluto all orbit the barycenter?

Appealing to "objective truth" is the most cliche way of saying "I am right - you are wrong".

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5127
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

got the skinny...get your point...you're right

Post by henry quirk » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:06 pm

.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:08 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:11 am
In any case, Kant's Moral System is not related to the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Show that, or prove that. Monolithic utterances don't work for me unless supported by some compelling evidence.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by -1- » Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:16 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:45 am
-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:50 am
Veritas, you seem to be enamoured by the Kantian futuristic morality, but you see its faults clearly as well. That's what I get from your description.
You misunderstood my points.

I do not see any faults with Kant's Moral and Ethics system.
The point is his system covers and recognizes humans as fallible and cater for that weakness.

Kant's Moral and Ethics system is not a pipe dream for me or even humanity. Kant's system is guided by ideals with the mission to strive towards those ideals while understanding the ideals are impossible to be achieved. The point is, it is more effective to strive towards some moral ideals than doing morality without some fixed goals.

One point is you lack intellectual and philosophical integrity. I beg your pardon. You are an illogical thinker/ writer who writes Strawman fallacy arguments and claims victory.

This accusation of yours is untenable, Veritas. I'm putting you on Iggi.
I am sorry, Veritas, but you are still committing the same mistakes over and over and over, and I'm tired of it. I did not write Kant's system is faulty. That's what you accused me of writing. I wrote that Kant's futuristic morality is a pipe dream, which you supported by saying that his system is impossible to implement. THESE TWO ARE ALMOST EQUIVALENT.

I am not willing to argue against a goddamned fucking idiot (NOT you, veritas, but as a general statement) who is so stupid as to misunderstand concepts, and create strawman arguments, then declare moral and intellectual superiority. These people are not worthy of being on a philosophy website. Pfuy.

So now you are on my Iggi list, Veritas, thanks to your relentless misunderstanding, misreading, and drawing wrong consequences. Others have patience for this shit; I don't.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2772
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:22 am

-1- wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:45 am
-1- wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:50 am
Veritas, you seem to be enamoured by the Kantian futuristic morality, but you see its faults clearly as well. That's what I get from your description.
You misunderstood my points.

I do not see any faults with Kant's Moral and Ethics system.
The point is his system covers and recognizes humans as fallible and cater for that weakness.

Kant's Moral and Ethics system is not a pipe dream for me or even humanity. Kant's system is guided by ideals with the mission to strive towards those ideals while understanding the ideals are impossible to be achieved. The point is, it is more effective to strive towards some moral ideals than doing morality without some fixed goals.

One point is you lack intellectual and philosophical integrity. I beg your pardon. You are an illogical thinker/ writer who writes Strawman fallacy arguments and claims victory.

This accusation of yours is untenable, Veritas. I'm putting you on Iggi.
I am sorry, Veritas, but you are still committing the same mistakes over and over and over, and I'm tired of it. I did not write Kant's system is faulty. That's what you accused me of writing. I wrote that Kant's futuristic morality is a pipe dream, which you supported by saying that his system is impossible to implement. THESE TWO ARE ALMOST EQUIVALENT.
Note,
  • pipe dream = an unattainable or fanciful hope or scheme.
    faulty = having or displaying weaknesses.
The two words are not equivalent, but in this case both can be related in the context. Obviously there is some fault in it that it is merely a pipe dream and unattainable.

Nope, I did not say Kant's system is IMPOSSIBLE to implement. I stated the ideals used within the system are impossible to achieve, which is a default.
I also stated it is not possible to implement fully at the present period due to the lack of competence. But is possible to implement [..I given clue the specific slavery example] in the future when we have the capability [I'm optimistic of it] to implement it fully.

Note it is evident from the above you are the one who is constructing straw man, not me.

I am not willing to argue against a goddamned fucking idiot (NOT you, veritas, but as a general statement) who is so stupid as to misunderstand concepts, and create strawman arguments, then declare moral and intellectual superiority. These people are not worthy of being on a philosophy website. Pfuy.

So now you are on my Iggi list, Veritas, thanks to your relentless misunderstanding, misreading, and drawing wrong consequences. Others have patience for this shit; I don't.
You don't have to tell me or anyone, it is your discretion.
For me I am also using my discretion - as long as anyone present a reasonable rational argument I am on to it.

Btw, it is so easy to throw in a statement with "#%^$@%%$" and qualify (NOT you, abc, but as a general statement).

It is evident from the above you are the one who is constructing straw man, not me. You are ignorant [deliberately] of the Kantian system thus misinterpreted my points.
Whatever you wrongly thought I have presented a strawman I have explained why you got the wrong view.

If anyone who is not worthy of being on a philosophy site, it is you because you [admitted very strongly] are too lazy to read up the writings of philosophers seriously. Note I'd spent 3 years full time researching on Kant and loads of time on other philosophies, East, West, Middle-East and wherever.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11983
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: buttin' in cuz I see a problem (that probably doesn't exist)

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:39 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:31 pm
If 'truth' is 'what is true/real' then, yeah, he does cuz the earth does orbit sol.
But it doesn't.
henry quirk wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:31 pm
Put another way: the objective truth (earth orbits sol) will always kick the the ass of the subjective opnion (earth doesn't orbit sol).
Strawman. I never claimed that the Earth orbits the Sun. I claimed that both the Earth AND the Sun orbit the barycenter.

You wouldn't say that Pluto orbits Mercury, would you? No!

Then why would you say that Earth orbits the Sun when the Sun, Earth, Mercury and Pluto all orbit the barycenter?

Appealing to "objective truth" is the most cliche way of saying "I am right - you are wrong".
Well effectively the barycenter is in the Sun so it is pretty much true that the Earth orbits the Sun but "orbits" do need perspective. :)

Don't often do this and with some qualifications I like these orbital representations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: buttin' in cuz I see a problem (that probably doesn't exist)

Post by Logik » Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:22 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:05 pm
Well effectively the barycenter is in the Sun so it is pretty much true that the Earth orbits the Sun but "orbits" do need perspective. :)
Sure. We could say that it's approximately true but precisely false, then you are necessarily admitting that you are flexible with some margin of imprecision/error in "factual" claims. Now I just have to tweak the knobs to find out what margin you are comfortable with.

Does Pluto orbit Mercury?

Is murder OK approximately wrong but not always?

Facts are relative. If "objective morality" is going to be based on relative notions - I don't want it.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5127
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:58 pm

A_uk,

I hate to admit it, but: Logik is right.

'Orbit' has a specific definition and Earth 'orbits' Sol System's 'barycenter', not Sol itself.

But: Earth does 'revolve' around Sol (cuz 'revolve', while similar to, is not synonymous with, 'orbit').

As for 'objective morality': as I say up-thread, for that you need nuthin' less than the perfect Arbiter. Without such an entity morality is always a subjective exercise.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re:

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:23 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:58 pm
I hate to admit it, but: Logik is right.
I wish I was right. Merely more precise.

The way to prove me wrong (in turn) is to simply zoom out of the Solar system and include Alpha Centaury in your perspective.

The further you zoom out of the Solar system and observe other stars/planets the less you can describe the motions of any of the objects in your "field of view" as "orbiting" or even "revolving" around anything. In respect to what?

All the solar systems in the Milky way revolve around Sagittarius A. And you zoom out a bit more and even that's no longer "true".

Down this path lies madness because the motion of objects in the Universe needs to be described in relation to some stable/non-relativistic reference frame. Such reference frame doesn't exist!

Least we invent it. And that's how Gods are born...

Peter Holmes
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:06 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:23 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:58 pm
I hate to admit it, but: Logik is right.
I wish I was right. Merely more precise.

The way to prove me wrong (in turn) is to simply zoom out of the Solar system and include Alpha Centaury in your perspective.

The further you zoom out of the Solar system and observe other stars/planets the less you can describe the motions of any of the objects in your "field of view" as "orbiting" or even "revolving" around anything. In respect to what?

All the solar systems in the Milky way revolve around Sagittarius A. And you zoom out a bit more and even that's no longer "true".

Down this path lies madness because the motion of objects in the Universe needs to be described in relation to some stable/non-relativistic reference frame. Such reference frame doesn't exist!

Least we invent it. And that's how Gods are born...
Logik, I'm trying to clarify and generalise the structure of your argument, and I don't think I've got it yet. Is it something like the following?

1 What we call factual assertions (about features of reality) are both true and false, depending on perspective, context and conventions.

2 What we've called 'facts' (true factual assertions) are matters of opinion. Facts are relative to perspective, and so on. And there is no perspective-free perspective from which to assess the truth-value of an assertion.

3 What we've called 'objectivity' (reliance on facts) is an illusion - as, therefore, is the distinction between what we've called objectivity and subjectivity. In effect, all there can be is opinions.

4 We can call any assertion a fact, including a moral assertion, so moral discourse can be as objective as any other.

5 All the above assertions are both true and false, as is this one, depending on perspective, and so on.

Walker
Posts: 6879
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: buttin' in cuz I see a problem (that probably doesn't exist)

Post by Walker » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:23 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:22 pm
Facts are relative. If "objective morality" is going to be based on relative notions - I don't want it.
The "if" ensures you won't have it.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:40 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:06 pm
Logik, I'm trying to clarify and generalise the structure of your argument, and I don't think I've got it yet. Is it something like the following?

1 What we call factual assertions (about features of reality) are both true and false, depending on perspective, context and conventions.

2 What we've called 'facts' (true factual assertions) are matters of opinion. Facts are relative to perspective, and so on. And there is no perspective-free perspective from which to assess the truth-value of an assertion.

3 What we've called 'objectivity' (reliance on facts) is an illusion - as, therefore, is the distinction between what we've called objectivity and subjectivity. In effect, all there can be is opinions.

4 We can call any assertion a fact, including a moral assertion, so moral discourse can be as objective as any other.

5 All the above assertions are both true and false, as is this one, depending on perspective, and so on.
Let me try another approach.

We have the following two positions/perspectives:

A Heliocentrist claims "The Earth orbits around the Sun" is the way things are. Given his perspective - he speaks truth.
A Baryocentrists claims "The Earth does not orbit the Sun." is the way things are. Given his perspective - he speaks truth also.

Both of the above are factual claims and yet they contradict each other!
This is a problem, don't you think?

For even if we were able to arrive at moral claims from facts we could find ourself in the exact same predicament:

One person claims "Murder is wrong". Given his perspective - he speaks truth.
Another claims "Murder is right". Giveh his perspective - he speaks truth also.

Even IF their claims were factual and therefore objective (according to your conception/convention) you have missed the forrest for the trees! And so we would end up exactly where we are now!

Ask yourself this question: Why do we strive for (want? desire? insist on?) objective rather than subjective morality? What problem are we trying to solve?

Is it so that we can satisfy our foundational desire for firm groundig of morality?
Is it precisely because "Murder is right sometimes" seems like a ludicrous sentiment?
Is it this deep desire that we should clearly and trivially be able to determine right and wrong?

At a a first glance basing morality on facts seem like a promising strategy for solving the foundational dillema.
Reality seems like stable grounding, right? So if we can build our notion of morality on top of reality then bingo!
Problem solved. Murder is right or wrong, but never both!

Foundationalism is indefensible. Humans exist in a relativistic and ever-changing world. Sorry.

If you want objectivity and morality - we have to overcome relativism and invent it! Exactly like we have invented scientific "objectivity". Pragmatic necessity.

Exactly like objective scientific truth a product of scientific consensus, so is objective morality a product of social consensus.

Scientists agree that water boils at temperature X. Therefore the boiling point of water becomes objective fact.
Humans agree that murder is wrong. Therefore the wrongness of murder becomes objective fact.
Last edited by Logik on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: buttin' in cuz I see a problem (that probably doesn't exist)

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:42 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:23 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:22 pm
Facts are relative. If "objective morality" is going to be based on relative notions - I don't want it.
The "if" ensures you won't have it.
Except, I don't believe that you believe that you are a relativist.

As I mentioned on another thread. If you insist you don't know right from wrong then let me kick you in the groin. Pain is all relative, right?

My moral grounding is based on the fact that you have a healthy self-preservation instinct, and a statistically average pain threshold.

I speculate that far fewar people would agree to getting kicked in the groin than would agree that the Earth is flat.

So which one are you more certain of? That Earth' orbits the Sun; or that getting kicked in the groin hurts?

Peter Holmes
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:02 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:40 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:06 pm
Logik, I'm trying to clarify and generalise the structure of your argument, and I don't think I've got it yet. Is it something like the following?

1 What we call factual assertions (about features of reality) are both true and false, depending on perspective, context and conventions.

2 What we've called 'facts' (true factual assertions) are matters of opinion. Facts are relative to perspective, and so on. And there is no perspective-free perspective from which to assess the truth-value of an assertion.

3 What we've called 'objectivity' (reliance on facts) is an illusion - as, therefore, is the distinction between what we've called objectivity and subjectivity. In effect, all there can be is opinions.

4 We can call any assertion a fact, including a moral assertion, so moral discourse can be as objective as any other.

5 All the above assertions are both true and false, as is this one, depending on perspective, and so on.
Let me try another approach.

We have the following two positions/perspectives:

A Heliocentrist claims "The Earth orbits around the Sun" is the way things are. Given his perspective - he speaks truth.
A Baryocentrists claims "The Earth does not orbit the Sun." is the way things are. Given his perspective - he speaks truth also.

Both of the above are factual claims and yet they contradict each other!
This is a problem, don't you think?

For even if we were able to arrive at moral claims from facts we could find ourself in the exact same predicament:

One person claims "Murder is wrong". Given his perspective - he speaks truth.
Another claims "Murder is right". Giveh his perspective - he speaks truth also.

Even IF their claims were factual and therefore objective (according to your conception/convention) you have missed the forrest for the trees! And so we would end up exactly where we are now!

Ask yourself this question: Why do we strive for (want? desire? insist on?) objective rather than subjective morality? What problem are we trying to solve?

Is it so that we can satisfy our foundational desire for firm groundig of morality?
Is it precisely because "Murder is right sometimes" seems like a ludicrous sentiment?
Is it this deep desire that we should clearly and trivially be able to determine right and wrong?

At a a first glance basing morality on facts seem like a promising strategy for solving the foundational dillema.
Reality seems like stable grounding, right? So if we can build our notion of morality on top of reality then bingo!
Problem solved. Murder is right or wrong, but never both!

Foundationalism is indefensible. Humans exist in a relativistic world. Sorry.

If you want objectivity and morality - we have to overcome relativism and invent it! Exactly like we have invented scientific "objectivity". Pragmatic necessity.

Exactly like objective scientific truth a product of scientific consensus, so is objective morality a product of social consensus.
Thanks.

1 Just to be clear - I oppose moral objectivism, because I don't think moral assertions make falsifiable factual claims from any perspective. It seems we agree on that, but I'm still not entirely sure. If you think morality can't be objective, that seems to contradict things you've said earlier.

2 Though I think there's more to say, your explanation of our desire for foundations seems reasonable, as is your rejection of epistemological and ethical foundationalism. But your claim 'humans exist in a relativistic world' is nonsense. Features of reality aren't relative to anything. They just are. What we say about them is relative to perspective, etc. You're muddling map and terrain.

3 I'd be grateful if you could directly address the assertions (1-5) in my previous post - because I think they cut to the heart of your argument. Do you agree or disagree with them - and why? Or am I still off-track?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:44 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:02 pm
Features of reality aren't relative to anything. They just are. What we say about them is relative to perspective, etc. You're muddling map and terrain.
That's your religion and you are still holding onto it. Despite your inability to point out any feature of reality that "just is" - independent from perspective.
I am not muddying the map and the terrain. I recognize that that all we can ever speak about is the map, NOT the terrain.

Until such time that evidence presents itself that our map is incorrect (which happens to frontiers of science, not people on philosophy forums).
Peter Holmes wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:02 pm
3 I'd be grateful if you could directly address the assertions (1-5) in my previous post - because I think they cut to the heart of your argument. Do you agree or disagree with them - and why? Or am I still off-track?
OK lets try...
1 What we call factual assertions (about features of reality) are both true and false, depending on perspective, context and conventions.
No. I prefer to think of it as indeterminate truth-value until the axioms (per-suppositions) are stated. These can often be inferred from the perspective so a sufficiently approximate interpretation can be chanced. But if you are after precision - disambiguation is hard.
What we've called 'facts' (true factual assertions) are matters of opinion. Facts are relative to perspective, and so on. And there is no perspective-free perspective from which to assess the truth-value of an assertion.
They are a matter of shared pre-suppositions. Axioms. Which (by definition) are accepted on faith.We have to agree on those before we part-take in any truth-value determination of each other's claims.

Whether the conversation is in adversarial or cooperative context makes all the difference to "factuality".

If you use the metric system and I use the imperial system - we will never agree on anything.
What we've called 'objectivity' (reliance on facts) is an illusion - as, therefore, is the distinction between what we've called objectivity and subjectivity. In effect, all there can be is opinions.
All they can be is different ways of narrating and conceptions of our experiences of the world.
We can call any assertion a fact, including a moral assertion, so moral discourse can be as objective as any other.
This is what objectivity means to me: Given same observations and same reasoning process you always expect the same result.
True objectivity means 'no room for interpretation'.

Consistency or some such value.
5 All the above assertions are both true and false, as is this one, depending on perspective, and so on.
Yes. Because they can be interpreted conventionally and unconventionally.
If you are accusing me of murder - I get to choose which interpretation aligns with my agenda.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests