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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:44 am

Logik wrote:
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.
This is silly. The methodological naturalism that (informally) informs the natural sciences - and most ordinary life - is not a religion - though some theists like to say it is, unaware of the irony that they thereby identify religion as irrational because unsubstantiated belief.

Despite your inability to point out any feature of reality that "just is" - independent from perspective.
Try the planet that we call the earth. Or take any ordinary object near to you now. There are infinite ways of describing them from an infinite number of perspectives. But they're things that can be described.
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.
Yes, you are doing precisely that. The map is one of many possible maps of a terrain, which we use to talk about the terrain. Otherwise, why call it - or think of it as being - a map? Do you think maps are purposeless exercises in fictional play about nothing? We can use language to talk about the ways we use language - of course. But the main function of language is to talk about something other than language: 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.
I think this is prevarication. A factual assertion has a (contextual) (classical) truth-value: true or false. There's nothing indeterminate about it - you're smuggling in your religious dogma here. And where does 'precision', 'accuracy' or 'completeness' - or any other supposedly non-contextual property - come into the matter? This is foundationalism - as I've repeatedly pointed out.
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.
More prevarication. It's the axioms (the mapping rules) that are conventional, not the factual assertions and their truth-value, which are about the terrain.

Whether the conversation is in adversarial or cooperative context makes all the difference to "factuality".
So, you agree facts - true factual assertions - are possible. Perhaps I've misunderstood you all along.

If you use the metric system and I use the imperial system - we will never agree on anything.
You've got to be kidding. We can use either or any system to make true factual assertions about features of reality. Has your objection to truth, facts and objectivity been as banal as this all along?
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.
Prevarication blending into evasion. This is becoming suspiciously post-modern.
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'.
Whoa. So we've moved from 'facts are values' and 'objectivity is a con' (or something like that) to 'true objectivity means 'no room for interpretation'. From which non-contextual context can you claim to know what constitutes 'true' (?) objectivity? Are you now saying there can ever be no room for interpretation? That facts are independently true? Has the wheel come full circle?


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.
Oh well. The light gleamed an instant and is gone. Okay. As a skeptic, I think it rational to reject any of your factual assertions about our epistemological and moral predicament - because they could be true or false, and even you aren't and can't be sure which.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Re:

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:09 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:44 am
(blah blah blah)
I wrote a long post and then I realized it's a mistake to let you frame the discussion with your short-sighted thinking so I deleted it.

You are deflecting.

There is a fundamental issue with your fundamentalist position:
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.
You seem to accept both of the above as factually correct claims from their relevant perspectives given their relevant contexts and axioms. Therefore they both meet your criteria for being conventionally called "objective truth".

Putting aside the minor detail that the above line of reasoning is sufficient evidence to put you squarely in the relativist/Perspectivist/Protagorean camp (which outright rejects "objectivism") lets pretend for a second that the following arguments are factual:
A Moralist claims "Murder is wrong". Given his perspective - he speaks truth.
An Immoralist claims "Murder is right". Given his perspective - he speaks truth also.
Consistently with your previous reasoning both claims would be true from their relevant perspectives given their relevant contexts and axioms.
Therefore both would meet your criteria for being conventionally called "objective moral truths".

Murder is right and wrong depending on perspective would be an objective moral truth.

Is that really the conception of "objective morality" you had in mind when you started this thread?

Once again: I refuse to believe you are this intellectually challenged.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:44 am
As a skeptic, I think it rational to reject any of your factual assertions about our epistemological and moral predicament - because they could be true or false, and even you aren't and can't be sure which.
Define 'rational". I use the definition of rationality from CSD (Causal Decision Theory).

In that context I am more certain of my willingness to remain alive than I am of any other claim about reality.
A dead rationalist is an oxymoron.

If you were rational AND a skeptic then the way to maximize your skeptical utility would be to assume a Pyrrhonian position.
And if you were a Pyrrhonian you would acknowledge that neither knowledge nor justification were possible via foundationalist or coherentist approaches.

You acknowledge neither of those things, so it seems you pay only lip service to skepticism.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:35 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:09 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:44 am
(blah blah blah)
I wrote a long post and then I realized it's a mistake to let you frame the discussion with small-minded thinking so I deleted it.

You are deflecting and ignoring the elephant in the room. Until you address this problem with your perspective, the rest is moot:
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.
You seem to accept both of the above as factual claims on the grounds that from each perspective, within a particular context and given a set of axioms - both claims are true.

I agree and you agree. This is the fundamental position of all perspectivists, but then the consequence of such claim us thus.

Even if morality was factual assertion the following scenario presents itself:
One person claims "Murder is wrong". Given his perspective - he speaks truth.
Another claims "Murder is right". Giveh his perspective - he speaks truth also.
And you have to accept that both are objectively correct (since you are no prescriptivist).

If that is what objective morality is, how is it different to what we have today?
I'm not framing the discussion with small-minded thinking, nor deflecting, nor ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm just pointing out your mistakes.

As a fellow Wittgensteinian, you'll recognise the danger of bewitchment by the devices of our language. And one of them is the non-factual use of 'true' and 'truth', as in: 'It's true that [murder] is morally wrong' - which merely expresses (sometimes strong) agreement with a value-judgement - not a factual claim. Since neither moral claim about murder is factual, objectivity is irrelevant. What and where is the wrongness or rightness of murder?

To establish moral objectivity, you have to show how a moral assertion makes a factual claim about a feature of reality that may not be the case - in any context and from any perspective you like. Can you produce such a moral assertion and show it's a fact - without begging the question?

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

Re: Re:

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:43 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:35 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:09 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:44 am
(blah blah blah)
I wrote a long post and then I realized it's a mistake to let you frame the discussion with small-minded thinking so I deleted it.

You are deflecting and ignoring the elephant in the room. Until you address this problem with your perspective, the rest is moot:
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.
You seem to accept both of the above as factual claims on the grounds that from each perspective, within a particular context and given a set of axioms - both claims are true.

I agree and you agree. This is the fundamental position of all perspectivists, but then the consequence of such claim us thus.

Even if morality was factual assertion the following scenario presents itself:
One person claims "Murder is wrong". Given his perspective - he speaks truth.
Another claims "Murder is right". Giveh his perspective - he speaks truth also.
And you have to accept that both are objectively correct (since you are no prescriptivist).

If that is what objective morality is, how is it different to what we have today?
I'm not framing the discussion with small-minded thinking, nor deflecting, nor ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm just pointing out your mistakes.

As a fellow Wittgensteinian, you'll recognise the danger of bewitchment by the devices of our language. And one of them is the non-factual use of 'true' and 'truth', as in: 'It's true that [murder] is morally wrong' - which merely expresses (sometimes strong) agreement with a value-judgement - not a factual claim. Since neither moral claim about murder is factual, objectivity is irrelevant. What and where is the wrongness or rightness of murder?

To establish moral objectivity, you have to show how a moral assertion makes a factual claim about a feature of reality that may not be the case - in any context and from any perspective you like. Can you produce such a moral assertion and show it's a fact - without begging the question?
Yet another deflection.

Pretend for 3 seconds that objectivity has been established on the grounds of facts.

You would find yourself in a situation where murder is wrong from one perspective and right from anoter.

I refuse to believe that is your conception of “objective moral truth”.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:47 pm

Blah, blah, blah. Sorry - wrestling with the system here.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:56 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:43 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:35 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:09 am

I wrote a long post and then I realized it's a mistake to let you frame the discussion with small-minded thinking so I deleted it.

You are deflecting and ignoring the elephant in the room. Until you address this problem with your perspective, the rest is moot:


You seem to accept both of the above as factual claims on the grounds that from each perspective, within a particular context and given a set of axioms - both claims are true.

I agree and you agree. This is the fundamental position of all perspectivists, but then the consequence of such claim us thus.

Even if morality was factual assertion the following scenario presents itself:

And you have to accept that both are objectively correct (since you are no prescriptivist).

If that is what objective morality is, how is it different to what we have today?
I'm not framing the discussion with small-minded thinking, nor deflecting, nor ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm just pointing out your mistakes.

As a fellow Wittgensteinian, you'll recognise the danger of bewitchment by the devices of our language. And one of them is the non-factual use of 'true' and 'truth', as in: 'It's true that [murder] is morally wrong' - which merely expresses (sometimes strong) agreement with a value-judgement - not a factual claim. Since neither moral claim about murder is factual, objectivity is irrelevant. What and where is the wrongness or rightness of murder?

To establish moral objectivity, you have to show how a moral assertion makes a factual claim about a feature of reality that may not be the case - in any context and from any perspective you like. Can you produce such a moral assertion and show it's a fact - without begging the question?
Yet another deflection.

Pretend for 3 seconds that objectivity has been established on the grounds of facts.

You would find yourself in a situation where murder is wrong from one perspective and right from anoter.

I refuse to believe that is your conception of “objective moral truth”.
If you were to stop for a moment and reflect on what I've been saying, you'd see that I think the expressions 'objective morality', 'moral fact' and 'moral truth' are contradictions or oxymorons, because a moral assertion isn't a truth-claim of any kind whatsoever in any context and from any perspective. So of course I have no conception of 'objective moral truth'. That's your Frankenstein's monster.

'Murder is wrong' is NOT a factual claim. Or can you show that it is? Stop deflecting.

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

Re: Re:

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:00 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:56 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:43 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:35 pm

I'm not framing the discussion with small-minded thinking, nor deflecting, nor ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm just pointing out your mistakes.

As a fellow Wittgensteinian, you'll recognise the danger of bewitchment by the devices of our language. And one of them is the non-factual use of 'true' and 'truth', as in: 'It's true that [murder] is morally wrong' - which merely expresses (sometimes strong) agreement with a value-judgement - not a factual claim. Since neither moral claim about murder is factual, objectivity is irrelevant. What and where is the wrongness or rightness of murder?

To establish moral objectivity, you have to show how a moral assertion makes a factual claim about a feature of reality that may not be the case - in any context and from any perspective you like. Can you produce such a moral assertion and show it's a fact - without begging the question?
Yet another deflection.

Pretend for 3 seconds that objectivity has been established on the grounds of facts.

You would find yourself in a situation where murder is wrong from one perspective and right from anoter.

I refuse to believe that is your conception of “objective moral truth”.
If you were to stop for a moment and reflect on what I've been saying, you'd see that I think the expressions 'objective morality', 'moral fact' and 'moral truth' are contradictions or oxymorons, because a moral assertion isn't a truth-claim of any kind whatsoever in any context and from any perspective. So of course I have no conception of 'objective moral truth'. That's your Frankenstein's monster.

'Murder is wrong' is NOT a factual claim. Or can you show that it is? Stop deflecting.
You are grasping at straws now.

I get it yet you don’t agree. I am presenting you you with a hypothetical.

If it were a factual claim and truth value could be asserted then murder would be both right and wrong.

Exactly like the Earth does and does not orbit the Sun.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:11 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:00 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:56 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:43 pm

Yet another deflection.

Pretend for 3 seconds that objectivity has been established on the grounds of facts.

You would find yourself in a situation where murder is wrong from one perspective and right from anoter.

I refuse to believe that is your conception of “objective moral truth”.
If you were to stop for a moment and reflect on what I've been saying, you'd see that I think the expressions 'objective morality', 'moral fact' and 'moral truth' are contradictions or oxymorons, because a moral assertion isn't a truth-claim of any kind whatsoever in any context and from any perspective. So of course I have no conception of 'objective moral truth'. That's your Frankenstein's monster.

'Murder is wrong' is NOT a factual claim. Or can you show that it is? Stop deflecting.
You are grasping at straws now.

I get it yet you don’t agree. I am presenting you you with a hypothetical.

If it were a factual claim it would be both right and wrong.

Exactly like the Earth does and does not orbit the Sun.
1 I assume that by 'right and wrong' you mean 'true and false'. So we're back to your claim that all factual assertions are both true and false, depending on the context. I can't be bothered to hold your hand through that maze of canards again.

2 The OP question is precisely whether a moral assertion makes a factual claim with a truth-value. I don't care if the truth-value is true or false - or both or neither or indeterminate - or any other postmodernist absurdity by which you've been seduced. Just produce one that has a factual truth-value, and show why it does. Should be easy. Care to stump up?

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

Re: Re:

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:22 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:11 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:00 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:56 pm

If you were to stop for a moment and reflect on what I've been saying, you'd see that I think the expressions 'objective morality', 'moral fact' and 'moral truth' are contradictions or oxymorons, because a moral assertion isn't a truth-claim of any kind whatsoever in any context and from any perspective. So of course I have no conception of 'objective moral truth'. That's your Frankenstein's monster.

'Murder is wrong' is NOT a factual claim. Or can you show that it is? Stop deflecting.
You are grasping at straws now.

I get it yet you don’t agree. I am presenting you you with a hypothetical.

If it were a factual claim it would be both right and wrong.

Exactly like the Earth does and does not orbit the Sun.
1 I assume that by 'right and wrong' you mean 'true and false'. So we're back to your claim that all factual assertions are both true and false, depending on the context. I can't be bothered to hold your hand through that maze of canards again.

2 The OP question is precisely whether a moral assertion makes a factual claim with a truth-value. I don't care if the truth-value is true or false - or both or neither or indeterminate - or any other postmodernist absurdity by which you've been seduced. Just produce one that has a factual truth-value, and show why it does. Should be easy. Care to stump up?
Factual claims:
“Earth orbits the Sun” is true from a Heliocentric rspective.
“Earth doesn’t orbit the Sun” is true from a Baryocentric perspective.

You accepted both of the above as facts.

If the above doesn’t bother you then neither should these hypoyhetical factual claims:
“Murder is morally wrong” is true from a Moralist perspective.
“Murder is morally right” is true from an Immoralist perspective.

I don’t know how to simplify this any further so as to overcome your intellectual disability.

If at this point you don’t see that the truth-value of a moral claim is irrelevant in context of perspectivism then you truly are dumber than I thought..

Because the conventional use of “objective morality” is the universal and undeniable notion that murder is always wrong.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:31 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:22 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:11 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:00 pm

You are grasping at straws now.

I get it yet you don’t agree. I am presenting you you with a hypothetical.

If it were a factual claim it would be both right and wrong.

Exactly like the Earth does and does not orbit the Sun.
1 I assume that by 'right and wrong' you mean 'true and false'. So we're back to your claim that all factual assertions are both true and false, depending on the context. I can't be bothered to hold your hand through that maze of canards again.

2 The OP question is precisely whether a moral assertion makes a factual claim with a truth-value. I don't care if the truth-value is true or false - or both or neither or indeterminate - or any other postmodernist absurdity by which you've been seduced. Just produce one that has a factual truth-value, and show why it does. Should be easy. Care to stump up?
Factual claims:
“Earth orbits the Sun” is true from a Heliocentric rspective.
“Earth doesn’t orbit the Sun” is true from a Baryocentric perspective.

You accepted both of the above as facts.

If the above doesn’t bother you then neither should these hypoyhetical factual claims:
“Murder is morally wrong” is true from a Moralist perspective.
“Murder is morally right” is true from an Immoralist perspective.

I don’t know how to simplify this any further so as to overcome your intellectual disability.

If at this point you don’t see that the truth-value of a moral claim is irrelevant in context of perspectivism then you truly are dumber than I thought..

Because the conventional use of “objective morality” is the universal and undeniable notion that murder is always wrong.
When the penny drops, I hope you have the grace to apologise for your abuse and acknowledge your mistake. Let me try to simplify the issue.

1 All assertions, factual and non-factual, are perspectival, contextual and conventional.

2 In context, a factual assertion has a truth-value because it makes a claim about a feature of reality that may not be the case.

3 If a moral assertion, such as 'murder is morally wrong' is factual, then it too has a truth-value because it makes a claim about a feature of reality that may not be the case.

4 So the issue is whether a moral assertion is factual and so has a truth-value at all. Until that is demonstrated, a hypothetical antecedent asserting its factuality and consequent truth-value begs the OP question, as does asserting 'the universal and undeniable notion that murder is always wrong'. What and where is the feature of reality that is the moral wrongness of murder?

5 Your claim that 'the truth-value of a moral claim is irrelevant in [the] context of perspectivism' assumes that a moral claim has a truth-value of any kind, which is the moot point and begs the question.

6 From the claim that truth is contextual, it doesn't follow that moral assertions have a truth-value. There's no logical connection between those two claims.

7 I await your demonstration that a moral assertion is factual and has a truth-value, in any context and from any perspective, and that therefore morality is objective. Pending that demonstration, I rest my case that morality isn't and can't be objective, and I've nothing more to say.

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

Re: Re:

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:05 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:31 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:22 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:11 pm

1 I assume that by 'right and wrong' you mean 'true and false'. So we're back to your claim that all factual assertions are both true and false, depending on the context. I can't be bothered to hold your hand through that maze of canards again.

2 The OP question is precisely whether a moral assertion makes a factual claim with a truth-value. I don't care if the truth-value is true or false - or both or neither or indeterminate - or any other postmodernist absurdity by which you've been seduced. Just produce one that has a factual truth-value, and show why it does. Should be easy. Care to stump up?
Factual claims:
“Earth orbits the Sun” is true from a Heliocentric rspective.
“Earth doesn’t orbit the Sun” is true from a Baryocentric perspective.

You accepted both of the above as facts.

If the above doesn’t bother you then neither should these hypoyhetical factual claims:
“Murder is morally wrong” is true from a Moralist perspective.
“Murder is morally right” is true from an Immoralist perspective.

I don’t know how to simplify this any further so as to overcome your intellectual disability.

If at this point you don’t see that the truth-value of a moral claim is irrelevant in context of perspectivism then you truly are dumber than I thought..

Because the conventional use of “objective morality” is the universal and undeniable notion that murder is always wrong.
When the penny drops, I hope you have the grace to apologise for your abuse and acknowledge your mistake. Let me try to simplify the issue.

1 All assertions, factual and non-factual, are perspectival, contextual and conventional.

2 In context, a factual assertion has a truth-value because it makes a claim about a feature of reality that may not be the case.

3 If a moral assertion, such as 'murder is morally wrong' is factual, then it too has a truth-value because it makes a claim about a feature of reality that may not be the case.

4 So the issue is whether a moral assertion is factual and so has a truth-value at all. Until that is demonstrated, a hypothetical antecedent asserting its factuality and consequent truth-value begs the OP question, as does asserting 'the universal and undeniable notion that murder is always wrong'. What and where is the feature of reality that is the moral wrongness of murder?

5 Your claim that 'the truth-value of a moral claim is irrelevant in [the] context of perspectivism' assumes that a moral claim has a truth-value of any kind, which is the moot point and begs the question.

6 From the claim that truth is contextual, it doesn't follow that moral assertions have a truth-value. There's no logical connection between those two claims.

7 I await your demonstration that a moral assertion is factual and has a truth-value, in any context and from any perspective, and that therefore morality is objective. Pending that demonstration, I rest my case that morality isn't and can't be objective, and I've nothing more to say.
It doesn’t matter if “objective morality” has truth value if said “truth value” changes by merely shifting one’s perspective!

I am X meters tall. There is no perspective from which this number changes! Therefore it is objective.

There is a perspective from which the Earth does, and a perspective from which the Earth doesn’t orbit the Sun! Therefore the claim is subjective.

Your very conception of “objectivity” is incoherent nonsense.

Which is par for the course for foundationalism.

When you aconowledged that Earth both orbits the Sun and doesn’t - you tossed the law of non-contradiction out the window.

Your ignorance is borderline negligence.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:23 am

Blah, blah, blah, again.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Peter Holmes » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:25 am

Blah, blah, blah one last time, I hope.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:05 am

Logik wrote:

'It doesn’t matter if “objective morality” has truth value if said “truth value” changes by merely shifting one’s perspective!

I am X meters tall. There is no perspective from which this number changes! Therefore it is objective.

There is a perspective from which the Earth does, and a perspective from which the Earth doesn’t orbit the Sun! Therefore the claim is subjective.

Your very conception of “objectivity” is incoherent nonsense.

Which is par for the course for foundationalism.

When you aconowledged that Earth both orbits the Sun and doesn’t - you tossed the law of non-contradiction out the window.

Your ignorance is borderline negligence.'


I'm newly puzzled by the incoherence of your argument. I don't know what you mean by the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' and their cognates. I don't know if you think there can be any such things as truth, facts and objectivity - and from what perspective you reject them, if you do. I don't know if you accept or reject the rules of classical logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - and in either case, on what grounds. And I don't know if you think morality can be objective (factual).

I don't think my incomprehension of your position is a result of negligence - but perhaps it is. Or it could be the result of your having no idea what you're talking about. If there's a chance you could lay out your case as simply and concisely as possibly - perhaps as a series of statements, or even premises and a conclusion - I'd like to try again.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:36 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:05 am
I'm newly puzzled by the incoherence of your argument. I don't know what you mean by the words 'truth', 'fact' and 'objectivity' and their cognates. I don't know if you think there can be any such things as truth, facts and objectivity - and from what perspective you reject them, if you do. I don't know if you accept or reject the rules of classical logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - and in either case, on what grounds. And I don't know if you think morality can be objective (factual).

I don't think my incomprehension of your position is a result of negligence - but perhaps it is. Or it could be the result of your having no idea what you're talking about. If there's a chance you could lay out your case as simply and concisely as possibly - perhaps as a series of statements, or even premises and a conclusion - I'd like to try again.
I don't know if I can help you with a definition - Wittgenstein himself recognised that words are imprecise and my argument is all about precision!
I can help you with an example to help you draw a distinction.

The truth-value of "Earth orbits the Sun" is dependent on perspective. If I shift my perspective a greater truth emerges - baryocentrism!
The truth value of "Logik is 1.87 meters tall" is independent of perspective. A greater truth about my height does not emerge no matter how much I shift my perspective.

If the truth-value of any claim is perspective-dependent it cannot be said that it is objective.
If objectivity is perspective-dependent - nobody cares about such a conception of morality.

Objective morality is about answering one question: Is murdering another human being wrong?

It's a question with a boolean answer. Yes or no. True or false.

Further. What I mean by Truth (with a capital T) is a Darwinian, not a Newtonian conception.For dead Newtonians can't acquire neither Darwinian nor Newtonian truths.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Peter Holmes and 4 guests