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: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:32 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:22 pm
'Here is an objective moral fact: Peter Holmes does not want to be kicked in the testicles.'

That I don't want to be kicked in the testicles is a fact - a true factual assertion. It isn't a moral assertion of any kind. You are confused.
So it is not true that we shouldn’t kick you in the testicles?

I am pretty sure that the way I've used “true” is in accordance with our linguistic practices, but hey - your testicles, your call.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:42 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:32 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:22 pm
Logik wrote:

'Here is an objective moral fact: Peter Holmes does not want to be kicked in the testicles.'

That I don't want to be kicked in the testicles is a fact - a true factual assertion. It isn't a moral assertion of any kind. You are confused.

A moral assertion might be: it is wrong to kick people in the testicles. Moral assertions contain words such as 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'should' and 'ought to'.

Frankly, I can't believe you're as mixed up as this. No wonder you're so at sea in this discussion.
So it is not true that we shouldn’t kick you in the testicles?

I am pretty sure that is a valid use of “true”, but hey - your testicles, your call.
This is pathetic. Do you intend to engage seriously in this discussion? If not, I wonder why you're bothering. Are you just a troll?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:04 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:42 pm
This is pathetic. Do you intend to engage seriously in this discussion?
It was a serious question.

According to you "Getting kicked in the testicles is painful." is an objective fact.
According to you "You do not want to get kicked in the testicles" is an objective fact.

Also according to you "You should avoid getting kicked in the testicles." has no factual truth value.

If you show me some doxastic commitment I will concede defeat.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:13 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:04 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:42 pm
This is pathetic. Do you intend to engage seriously in this discussion?
It was a serious question.

According to you "Getting kicked in the testicles is painful." is an objective fact.
According to you "You do not want to get kicked in the testicles" is an objective fact.

Also according to you "You should avoid getting kicked in the testicles." has no factual truth value.

If you show me some doxastic commitment I will concede defeat.
Please be careful. The expression 'objective fact' is in effect a tautology. And your analysis is faulty.

Getting kicked in the testicles may not be painful, for any number of reasons.

That I don't want to get kicked in the testicles is a fact.

That someone should avoid getting kicked in the testicles is a judgement - a matter of opinion. A masochist may disagree, and there's no fact of the matter. But it isn't a moral assertion: 'it is morally wrong to get kicked in the testicles' makes no sense. Why should it be morally wrong?

An expression containing the word 'should' isn't always a moral assertion. How basic does this have to get?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:38 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:13 pm
A masochist may disagree, and there's no fact of the matter.
Like a baryocentrist may disagree with a heliocentrist? Much irony!

Was it not you who insisted that facts are true within a particular context and perspective? You aren't a masochist, are you? So from your context and perspective is the sentence "I should avoid getting kicked in the testicles" true or not?

I notice you are avoiding an answer here... I wonder why.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:13 pm
But it isn't a moral assertion: 'it is morally wrong to get kicked in the testicles' makes no sense. Why should it be morally wrong?

An expression containing the word 'should' isn't always a moral assertion. How basic does this have to get?
Now you have definitely crossed into the realm of linguistic prescriptivism!

The phrase "morally wrong" does not need to appear in the sentence for it to become a moral assertion.

"One should not murder" is the exact same sentiment as "It is wrong to murder".
"One should not kick others in the testicles" is exactly the same sentiment as "it is wrong to kick people in the testicles".

Objective morality is the socially prescribed behavioural norms you agree and adhere to.

That people by and large behave in accordance and adherence with these moral norms is an objective fact.

It is not a linguistic notion. It is a behaviouristic one.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:24 pm

You're obviously finding this intellectually challenging, and it's boring having to correct you every time.

Provide what you think is a moral fact and show why it's a fact. If you can't, your belief in objective morality is unjustified.

I'll keep posting this if you insist on replying with more ill-thought out rubbish.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:29 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:24 pm
You're obviously finding this intellectually challenging, and it's boring having to correct you every time.

Provide what you think is a moral fact and show why it's a fact. If you can't, your belief in objective morality is unjustified.

I'll keep posting this if you insist on replying with more ill-thought out rubbish.
It's not at all challenging for me - I've just had to lower myself to your level of comprehension as you seem to have an early-onset Alzheimer’s.

“Peter Holmes should avoid getting kicked in the testicles.” Is a true moral claim.

Why is it a fact? Because from your perspective/context it is a true claim about a feature of reality. That feature being your testicles.

Please state explicitly whether you reject the truth-value of the above, as it seems to me that you are avoiding commitment on this issue.

I’ll keep posting this until we establish your doxastic commitment.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:04 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:24 pm
You're obviously finding this intellectually challenging, and it's boring having to correct you every time.

Provide what you think is a moral fact and show why it's a fact. If you can't, your belief in objective morality is unjustified.

I'll keep posting this if you insist on replying with more ill-thought out rubbish.
It's not at all challenging for me - I've just had to lower myself to your level of comprehension as you seem to have an early-onset Alzheimer’s.

“Peter Holmes should avoid getting kicked in the testicles.” Is a true moral claim.

Why is it a fact? Because from your perspective/context it is a true claim about a feature of reality. That feature being your testicles.

Please state explicitly whether you reject the truth-value of the above, as it seems to me that you are avoiding commitment on this issue.

I’ll keep posting this until we establish your doxastic commitment.
Whether we should avoid getting kicked in the testicles IS NOT a moral matter. Whether it's morally wrong to kick people in the testicles IS a moral matter.

If you believe morality is objective, provide an example of what you think is a moral fact and, without begging the question, show why it correctly describes a feature of reality.

For example, If you think 'it is morally wrong to kick people in the testicles' is a fact, please show what and where the wrongness of kicking people in the testicles is - what feature of reality it correctly describes.

It may be unwise to kick people in the testicles, but why does that make it morally wrong to do so? Have a really really deep think about that. Never know - perhaps the penny will drop.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:59 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:04 am
Whether we should avoid getting kicked in the testicles IS NOT a moral matter. Whether it's morally wrong to kick people in the testicles IS a moral matter.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So you are a linguistic prescriptivist after all. The above two express the exact same human sentiment.

Morality is about asking and answering questions like this:
* Should I kick Peter Holmes in the testicles?
* Should I stab Peter Holmes in the jugular?
* Should I steal Peter Holmes' wallet?

The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'!

Nobody gives a damn if you give testicle-kicking, jugular-stabbing or wallet-thieving the linguistic classification of "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad", "appropriate" or "inappropriate" as long as you don't go around DOING it!

As long as you answer the question above in the negative then we are in tacit agreement about the morality of testicle-kicking, jugular-stabbings wallet-thieving!

Philosophers and their linguistic obsessions :roll: :roll: :roll:

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:28 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:59 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:04 am
Whether we should avoid getting kicked in the testicles IS NOT a moral matter. Whether it's morally wrong to kick people in the testicles IS a moral matter.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So you are a linguistic prescriptivist after all. The above two express the exact same human sentiment.

Should I kick Peter Holmes in the testicles? The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'!

Nobody gives a damn if you think kicking people in the testicles is "right" or "wrong".

As long as you don't go around kicking people in the testicles - as long as you answer the question above in the negative, then we are in tacit agreement about the morality of testicle-kicking!
No, you misunderstand yet again. If testicle-kicking confuses you, try this: is it morally right or wrong to avoid being killed? Is that a moral question at all? I hope even you can see that it isn't. But whether it's right or wrong TO KILL SOMEONE is, obviously, a moral question. FFS THINK ABOUT IT.

You and I may agree that it's (morally) wrong to harm other people. But why does that mean it's a FACT that it's wrong to harm other people? Suppose you and I (and everyone else) agreed that it's RIGHT to harm other people. Would that make it a FACT that it's morally right to do so? THINK ABOUT IT. Try actually thinking outside your tiny box.

What and where is the moral wrongness of harming other people? Focus on answering that question.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:31 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:28 am
is it morally right or wrong to avoid being killed? Is that a moral question at all?
I don't understand what you are asking.

Is 7 greener than cat?
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:28 am
I hope even you can see that it isn't. But whether it's right or wrong TO KILL SOMEONE is, obviously, a moral question. FFS THINK ABOUT IT.
I don't see how it's any different from the question: Should I kill Peter Holmes?

If you think "Is it wrong to kill Peter Holmes?" is a different question, then, as before, I have no idea what you are asking.

Explain it.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:28 am
You and I may agree that it's (morally) wrong to harm other people. But why does that mean it's a FACT that it's wrong to harm other people? Suppose you and I (and everyone else) agreed that it's RIGHT to harm other people. Would that make it a FACT that it's morally right to do so? THINK ABOUT IT.
If we all agreed to it - then it's a fact.
Like we all agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun even though it doesn't?
Didn't you argue that even if Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun we could later say that we were mistaken?

We could all agree that murder is right, then later we can say that we were mistaken.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:28 am
Try actually thinking outside your tiny box.
That's rich, coming from a linguistic prescriptivist!
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:28 am
What and where is the moral wrongness of harming other people? Focus on answering that question.
What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? 42!

Ask stupid questions - you get stupid answers!
Last edited by Logik on Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:47 am

1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

You call my questions stupid because you can't answer them coherently and refuse to think through their implications. Kudos.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:55 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:47 am
1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.
Prescriptivism.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:47 am
You call my questions stupid because you can't answer them coherently and refuse to think through their implications. Kudos.
No. It's stupid question because you lack fundamental understanding of Mathematics, logic and decision theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
A decision problem has only two possible outputs (yes or no) on any input.
In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a decision problem is a problem that can be posed as a yes-no question of the input values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
In mathematics and computer science, the Entscheidungsproblem (pronounced [ɛntˈʃaɪ̯dʊŋspʁoˌbleːm], German for "decision problem") is a challenge posed by David Hilbert in 1928.[1] The problem asks for an algorithm that takes as input a statement of a first-order logic (possibly with a finite number of axioms beyond the usual axioms of first-order logic) and answers "Yes" or "No" according to whether the statement is universally valid, i.e., valid in every structure satisfying the axioms.
Should I kill Peter Holmes?
decision-theory.png
decision-theory.png (18.13 KiB) Viewed 208 times
Is murder wrong?
decision-theory.png
decision-theory.png (18.13 KiB) Viewed 208 times
Does Earth revolve around the Sun?
decision-theory.png
decision-theory.png (18.13 KiB) Viewed 208 times
Last edited by Logik on Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:58 am

You are forgiven for being so ignorant. Making it to atheism is only the first step in learning to think for yourself.

You have a long way to go - don't get discouraged.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:08 am

Moral judgements and decisions have nothing to do with logic and mathematics, just as they have nothing to do with incompleteness - your previous ridiculous punt. Category error.

1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

Provide an example of what you call a moral fact, and show why it correctly describes a feature of reality.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests