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

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sun May 26, 2019 12:07 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 9:26 am
Apart from the last point. A rule such as 'be kind' is an imperative, not a declarative, so it can't have a truth-value. It makes no sense to say a command is true or false. That's not its function.
This simply begs a question: What is the function of 'truth' ?

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sun May 26, 2019 1:01 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 12:07 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 9:26 am
Apart from the last point. A rule such as 'be kind' is an imperative, not a declarative, so it can't have a truth-value. It makes no sense to say a command is true or false. That's not its function.
This simply begs a question: What is the function of 'truth' ?
Look it up. The philosophy of truth is a steamy cavern down the rabbit hole where metaphysicians furkle over misfiring questions such as 'what is the function of truth'?

Or just cut to the chase and make your point.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sun May 26, 2019 1:02 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:01 pm
Or just cut to the chase and make your point.
I made it. Morality is an epistemic problem.

The claims "sky is blue" and "murder is wrong" carry equal epistemic weight.
Last edited by Univalence on Sun May 26, 2019 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sun May 26, 2019 1:03 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:01 pm
where metaphysicians furkle over misfiring questions such as 'what is the function of truth'?
Only an idiot-philosopher would say that.

Engineers who work on Artificial Intelligence genuinely ask the question "what is the function of knowledge"?

What would a mechanical mind use "knowledge" and "truth" for?

It's obvious why you are using "metaphysician" as a pejorative. You don't know that Logic is metaphysics. Rather ironic for somebody attempting to make "logical" arguments...

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sun May 26, 2019 2:00 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:02 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:01 pm
Or just cut to the chase and make your point.
I made it. Morality is an epistemic problem.

The claims "sky is blue" and "murder is wrong" carry equal epistemic weight.
If 'the sky here today' is a knowledge-claim, it can be verified or falsified by checking if the sky here today is blue - given the way we use those words. And this is because the claim is about a feature of reality.

If 'murder is wrong' is a knowledge-claim, please explain what can be checked to verify or falsify it. Facts about what people believe or have believed since 1300, or about a decline in the murder rate, don't explain why murder is wrong, just as counter-factuals about people believing murder is right, or about a rise in the murder rate, wouldn't explain why murder is right.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sun May 26, 2019 2:16 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 2:00 pm
Univalence wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:02 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:01 pm
Or just cut to the chase and make your point.
I made it. Morality is an epistemic problem.

The claims "sky is blue" and "murder is wrong" carry equal epistemic weight.
If 'the sky here today' is a knowledge-claim, it can be verified or falsified by checking if the sky here today is blue - given the way we use those words. And this is because the claim is about a feature of reality.

If 'murder is wrong' is a knowledge-claim, please explain what can be checked to verify or falsify it. Facts about what people believe or have believed since 1300, or about a decline in the murder rate, don't explain why murder is wrong, just as counter-factuals about people believing murder is right, or about a rise in the murder rate, wouldn't explain why murder is right.
Let me pursue this.

Previously, you seemed to claim that what people believe is morally right or wrong is indeed (as a matter of fact) morally right or wrong. So that, according to you, before 1300 (?), murder was morally right. Indeed, murdering out-tribers was considered morally acceptable and even commendable in the past.

But, as I remember, you also said that murder has always been morally wrong. And that seems to be a contradiction. And if murder has always been morally wrong, then what people believe is irrelevant anyway, which also contradicts your other claim.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sun May 26, 2019 2:32 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 2:00 pm
If 'the sky here today' is a knowledge-claim, it can be verified or falsified by checking if the sky here today is blue - given the way we use those words.
No, it cannot be verified.

How would you verify or falsify that I use the word "blue" the same way as you use the word "blue"?

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sun May 26, 2019 2:37 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 2:16 pm
Previously, you seemed to claim that what people believe is morally right or wrong is indeed (as a matter of fact) morally right or wrong. So that, according to you, before 1300 (?), murder was morally right. Indeed, murdering out-tribers was considered morally acceptable and even commendable in the past.
Cherry-picking. It may have been commendable and acceptable in some fringes of humanity, but it never was broadly or generally accepted throughout humanity.

Do you know how statistical distributions work? I am talking about the median. You are talking about the outliers.

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 2:16 pm
But, as I remember, you also said that murder has always been morally wrong. And that seems to be a contradiction. And if murder has always been morally wrong, then what people believe is irrelevant anyway, which also contradicts your other claim.
This is a strawman. It resembles nothing of my argument.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sun May 26, 2019 3:05 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 2:37 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 2:16 pm
Previously, you seemed to claim that what people believe is morally right or wrong is indeed (as a matter of fact) morally right or wrong. So that, according to you, before 1300 (?), murder was morally right. Indeed, murdering out-tribers was considered morally acceptable and even commendable in the past.
Cherry-picking. It may have been commendable and acceptable in some fringes of humanity, but it never was broadly or generally accepted throughout humanity.

Do you know how statistical distributions work? I am talking about the median. You are talking about the outliers.

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 2:16 pm
But, as I remember, you also said that murder has always been morally wrong. And that seems to be a contradiction. And if murder has always been morally wrong, then what people believe is irrelevant anyway, which also contradicts your other claim.
This is a strawman. It resembles nothing of my argument.
This evasiveness is extraordinary. If, as you claim, the moral wrongness of murder is a fact, then what people believe about murder is completely irrelevant in this discussion, and your ridiculous statistical garbage just obfuscation.

I keep forgetting not to bother with you. I'm newly reminded why I needn't.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sun May 26, 2019 3:08 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 3:05 pm
This evasiveness is extraordinary. If, as you claim, the moral wrongness of murder is a fact, then what people believe about murder is completely irrelevant in this discussion,
Peter, pay attention to my words.

I do not BELIEVE that murder is wrong.
I KNOW that murder is wrong.

I am backed by 700 years of evidence when I say that most humans know that murder is wrong too, and one or 20 examples of tribes which know otherwise isn't going to change that.

The burden of disproof is on you.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 3:05 pm
and your ridiculous statistical garbage just obfuscation.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: "statistical garbage"

Probability theory is the logic of science.
You ought to learn some if you want to do Philosophy in 2019. After all - we live in the information age and it is well understood that Information theory and statistical mechanics correspond
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 3:05 pm
I keep forgetting not to bother with you. I'm newly reminded why I needn't.
Translation: "you broke my argument. I don't want to play with you anymore"

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sun May 26, 2019 4:41 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 3:08 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 3:05 pm
This evasiveness is extraordinary. If, as you claim, the moral wrongness of murder is a fact, then what people believe about murder is completely irrelevant in this discussion,
Peter, pay attention to my words.

I do not BELIEVE that murder is wrong.
I KNOW that murder is wrong.

I am backed by 700 years of evidence when I say that most humans know that murder is wrong too, and one or 20 examples of tribes which know otherwise isn't going to change that.

The burden of disproof is on you.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 3:05 pm
and your ridiculous statistical garbage just obfuscation.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: "statistical garbage"

Probability theory is the logic of science.
You ought to learn some if you want to do Philosophy in 2019. After all - we live in the information age and it is well understood that Information theory and statistical mechanics correspond
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 3:05 pm
I keep forgetting not to bother with you. I'm newly reminded why I needn't.
Translation: "you broke my argument. I don't want to play with you anymore"
No, the burden of proof is yours. You claim to know that murder is wrong, because it's a fact. And I've asked you to show how that claim can be and indeed is verified. I'm sure you're aware that appealing to what 'people' claim to know - statistically or not - is a bandwagon fallacy. So move on from that and provide the evidence that confirms the moral wrongness of murder.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sun May 26, 2019 5:02 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 4:41 pm
You claim to know that murder is wrong, because it's a fact.
Strawman. I have never made such a claim!
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 4:41 pm
And I've asked you to show how that claim can be and indeed is verified.
I told you how to verify it.

DO the math!
DO the statistical analysis on all the available data!

Quit arguing about it and DO THE WORK required to cure yourself from your ignorance.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 4:41 pm
I'm sure you're aware that appealing to what 'people' claim to know - statistically or not - is a bandwagon fallacy.
I am not appealing to what people claim to know. I am appealing to what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. In the REAL WORLD.
700 years.

That's how evidence works.
Last edited by Univalence on Sun May 26, 2019 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sun May 26, 2019 5:10 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 5:02 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 4:41 pm
No, the burden of proof is yours. You claim to know that murder is wrong, because it's a fact. And I've asked you to show how that claim can be and indeed is verified.
I told you how to verify it.

DO the math!
DO the statistical analysis on all the available data!

Quit arguing about it and DO THE WORK required to cure yourself from your ignorance.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 4:41 pm
I'm sure you're aware that appealing to what 'people' claim to know - statistically or not - is a bandwagon fallacy.
I am not appealing to what people claim to know. I am appealing to what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. In the REAL WORLD.
700 years.

My THEORY for explaining it is "people know that murder is wrong".
I conclude that you refuse to address your bandwagon fallacy. So there's nothing more I can say.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Sun May 26, 2019 5:12 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 5:10 pm
I conclude that you refuse to address your bandwagon fallacy. So there's nothing more I can say.
I conclude that you do not understand the bandwagon fallacy.

If people SAID that they have kidneys that isn't a bandwagon fallacy.
Because they actually DO have kidneys.

If people SAID that they have morality that isn't a bandwagon fallacy.
Because they actually DO have morality.

You are still trying to shed yourself from the burden of proof. But that isn't the greatest burden you struggle with.

The burden of your ignorance is worse.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sun May 26, 2019 6:01 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 5:12 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 5:10 pm
I conclude that you refuse to address your bandwagon fallacy. So there's nothing more I can say.
I conclude that you do not understand the bandwagon fallacy.

If people SAID that they have kidneys that isn't a bandwagon fallacy.
Because they actually DO have kidneys.

If people SAID that they have morality that isn't a bandwagon fallacy.
Because they actually DO have morality.

You are still trying to shed yourself from the burden of proof. But that isn't the greatest burden you struggle with.

The burden of your ignorance is worse.
Your kidneys example illustrates my point. The fact that people do have kidneys (or at least one) means that what they believe or claim to know about their possession of at least one kidney has no bearing on the truth of the assertion 'people have at least one kidney'. There is a fact of the matter, because there is a feature of reality.

Now please don't change the moral claim we've been discussing. It's not 'people have morality (or morals)'. Because that's a fact - or, at least, most people have and follow moral rules. (I'm sure you weren't being dishonest in making this substitution.)

The claim we're discussing is 'murder is wrong', which you maintain is a fact - a true factual assertion - a matter of knowledge. If it is, there must be something (analogous to kidneys) that verifies that claim, independent of judgement, belief or opinion. Please explain what that thing is. What is the thing - the wrongness of murder - that exists of which we can have knowledge? You say its an epistemic claim, so demonstrate its existence.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests