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: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu May 30, 2019 6:40 pm

Univalence wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:34 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:22 pm
So you think 'murder is wrong' is a fact, but that 'capital punishment is right if if it reduces the murder rate' is also a fact. So ' murder is wrong but murder can be right' is a fact - a true factual claim about a feature of reality, independent of opinion.
Capital punishment is not murder.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:22 pm
Who decides what is a morally right outcome? And is that decision a fact, or a judgement?
We do.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:22 pm
Talk to homosexuals about people who think there are moral facts, then applaud when they're thrown from tall buildings. Moral objectivism is an intellectual and moral abomination, and, as a morally self-promoting person, you should be ashamed of your ignorance.
Cherry picking.
'Capital punishment is not murder' Is that a fact or an opinion? Is it an epistemic problem? What can be 'known' that shows it's true?

And when you've failed to understand why you don't understand these questions, please fuck off.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Thu May 30, 2019 6:45 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:40 pm
'Capital punishment is not murder' Is that a fact or an opinion? Is it an epistemic problem? What can be 'known' that shows it's true?
It's an epistemic problem. Using statistical methods we can measure the effects various policies have on society.

What can be known is that the murder rate in nations WITH capital punishment is not measurably lower OR higher than countries WITHOUT capital punishment.
What can be known is that introducing capital punishment to a nation with high murder rates has no measurable effect on murder rates.
What can be known is that removing capital punishment from a nation's legal system has no measurable effect on murder rates.

What can be known is that capital punishment is statistically inconsequential.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:40 pm
And when you've failed to understand why you don't understand these questions, please fuck off.
You can't make that accusation. You aren't the epistemologist in this conversation. I am.

Your arguments do not carry any epistemic weight. They are just sterile and untestable philosophical word-play.
Last edited by Univalence on Thu May 30, 2019 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Thu May 30, 2019 6:50 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
But the expression 'objective morality' doesn't mean that at all. It means something completely different. It means that moral assertions, such as 'murder is wrong', are factually true, independent of judgement, belief or opinion. For example, William Lane Craig (a Christian apologist) claims that there are objective moral values, because something is morally right or wrong regardless of what anyone believes. And I think that is false - not because I don't think things are morally right or wrong (I think murder is morally wrong), but because their moral rightness or wrongness are not features of reality, and therefore not factual matters, independent of judgement, belief or opinion.
I agree.
Take an example. The moral claim 'capital punishment is right' is not a fact, for exactly the same reason that the claim 'capital punishment is wrong' is not a fact. There is nothing in reality - in the nature of capital punishment - that can settle the moral disagreement. There is no true or false, in the way that there is with factual claims, such as 'the earth is flat'.

I don't agree that there is a difference in kind between value judgements and other judgements. People once thought that Earth was flat. There is no fixed truth about any judgement . There is no fixed centre. Even Newton had to be relegated to a lesser position . You and I, Peter, hold to the same beliefs about the Earth and about values. And this is historical accident. We share the same culture .

Peter Holmes
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu May 30, 2019 7:00 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:50 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
But the expression 'objective morality' doesn't mean that at all. It means something completely different. It means that moral assertions, such as 'murder is wrong', are factually true, independent of judgement, belief or opinion. For example, William Lane Craig (a Christian apologist) claims that there are objective moral values, because something is morally right or wrong regardless of what anyone believes. And I think that is false - not because I don't think things are morally right or wrong (I think murder is morally wrong), but because their moral rightness or wrongness are not features of reality, and therefore not factual matters, independent of judgement, belief or opinion.
I agree.
Take an example. The moral claim 'capital punishment is right' is not a fact, for exactly the same reason that the claim 'capital punishment is wrong' is not a fact. There is nothing in reality - in the nature of capital punishment - that can settle the moral disagreement. There is no true or false, in the way that there is with factual claims, such as 'the earth is flat'.

I don't agree that there is a difference in kind between value judgements and other judgements. People once thought that Earth was flat. There is no fixed truth about any judgement . There is no fixed centre. Even Newton had to be relegated to a lesser position . You and I, Peter, hold to the same beliefs about the Earth and about values. And this is historical accident. We share the same culture .
When people thought the earth is flat, they were wrong, because it isn't. So factual assertions are different from value-judgements. Our acceptance or rejection of the truth of factual assertions is, of course, a subjective matter. But that has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertion.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu May 30, 2019 7:02 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 7:00 pm
Belinda wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:50 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
But the expression 'objective morality' doesn't mean that at all. It means something completely different. It means that moral assertions, such as 'murder is wrong', are factually true, independent of judgement, belief or opinion. For example, William Lane Craig (a Christian apologist) claims that there are objective moral values, because something is morally right or wrong regardless of what anyone believes. And I think that is false - not because I don't think things are morally right or wrong (I think murder is morally wrong), but because their moral rightness or wrongness are not features of reality, and therefore not factual matters, independent of judgement, belief or opinion.
I agree.
Take an example. The moral claim 'capital punishment is right' is not a fact, for exactly the same reason that the claim 'capital punishment is wrong' is not a fact. There is nothing in reality - in the nature of capital punishment - that can settle the moral disagreement. There is no true or false, in the way that there is with factual claims, such as 'the earth is flat'.

I don't agree that there is a difference in kind between value judgements and other judgements. People once thought that Earth was flat. There is no fixed truth about any judgement . There is no fixed centre. Even Newton had to be relegated to a lesser position . You and I, Peter, hold to the same beliefs about the Earth and about values. And this is historical accident. We share the same culture .
When people thought the earth is flat, they were wrong, because it isn't. So factual assertions are different from value-judgements. Our acceptance or rejection of the truth of factual assertions is, of course, a subjective matter. But that has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertions.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Thu May 30, 2019 7:09 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 7:02 pm
When people thought the earth is flat, they were wrong, because it isn't.
When people thought murder is right they were wrong because it isn't.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 7:02 pm
So factual assertions are different from value-judgements.
Still waiting for you to produce the argument by which you argued yourself into a position where "sky is blue" carries higher epistemic weight than "murder is wrong"...
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 7:02 pm
Our acceptance or rejection of the truth of factual assertions is, of course, a subjective matter. But that has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertions.
Then where does the concept of 'truth-value' come from if not epistemology?
HOW does one assert the truth-value of any statement without epistemology?

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Thu May 30, 2019 8:44 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
When people thought the earth is flat, they were wrong, because it isn't. So factual assertions are different from value-judgements. Our acceptance or rejection of the truth of factual assertions is, of course, a subjective matter. But that has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertion.
You are so sure that modern people know the Truth about the shape of Earth! You are mistaken that you or I or some professor of physics knows absolute and final truth. Nobody knows the absolute and final truth about the shape of Earth or about killing. Or anything else. There is no such thing as absolute and final truth. This is perhaps scary, not so?

Peter Holmes
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu May 30, 2019 9:22 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:44 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
When people thought the earth is flat, they were wrong, because it isn't. So factual assertions are different from value-judgements. Our acceptance or rejection of the truth of factual assertions is, of course, a subjective matter. But that has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertion.
You are so sure that modern people know the Truth about the shape of Earth! You are mistaken that you or I or some professor of physics knows absolute and final truth. Nobody knows the absolute and final truth about the shape of Earth or about killing. Or anything else. There is no such thing as absolute and final truth. This is perhaps scary, not so?
I didn't mention absolute or final truth, what ever they are. Truth isn't a thing of any kind, let alone absolute or final. That's a metaphysical delusion. Words can mean only what we use them to mean. And we use the word 'truth' and its cognates in different contexts, one of which is to talk about physical reality, such as to talk about the shape of the earth - which is what it is, how ever we talk about it.

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Thu May 30, 2019 9:31 pm

Peter Homes wrote:
I didn't mention absolute or final truth, what ever they are. Truth isn't a thing of any kind, let alone absolute or final. That's a metaphysical delusion. Words can mean only what we use them to mean. And we use the word 'truth' and its cognates in different contexts, one of which is to talk about physical reality, such as to talk about the shape of the earth - which is what it is, however we talk about it.
If truth isn't absolute of final, how do you know that the Earth isn't flat? What makes you believe that flat earth believers are wrong?
the shape of the earth - which is what it is, however we talk about it.
Nobody knows what it is. But you have claimed that the Earth is not flat. You cannot have it both ways. How do we know what we know?

Peter Holmes
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Thu May 30, 2019 9:39 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:31 pm
Peter Homes wrote:
I didn't mention absolute or final truth, what ever they are. Truth isn't a thing of any kind, let alone absolute or final. That's a metaphysical delusion. Words can mean only what we use them to mean. And we use the word 'truth' and its cognates in different contexts, one of which is to talk about physical reality, such as to talk about the shape of the earth - which is what it is, however we talk about it.
If truth isn't absolute of final, how do you know that the Earth isn't flat? What makes you believe that flat earth believers are wrong?
the shape of the earth - which is what it is, however we talk about it.
Nobody knows what it is. But you have claimed that the Earth is not flat. You cannot have it both ways. How do we know what we know?
All we have is the evidence. Do you think that we don't know that the earth approximates to an oblate spheroid? That it isn't flat? Are you a flat-earther?

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Thu May 30, 2019 9:41 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:22 pm
Words can mean only what we use them to mean.
So how do yo use the word "blue" when you claim that the "sky is blue" ?

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:39 pm
All we have is the evidence. Do you think that we don't know that the earth approximates to an oblate spheroid?
That's a poor approximation. Spheroids have no relief.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:39 pm
Are you a flat-earther?
Are you a spheroid-earther?

Peter Holmes
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri May 31, 2019 6:57 am

Univalence wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:39 pm
All we have is the evidence. Do you think that we don't know that the earth approximates to an oblate spheroid?
That's a poor approximation. Spheroids have no relief.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:39 pm
Are you a flat-earther?
Are you a spheroid-earther?
There's point in rehearsing this. You know my position.

If you think 'murder is wrong' makes a knowledge-claim, you need to show what it is that can be known, and why the assertion 'murder is wrong' describes it correctly, given the way we use those words. The burden of proof is yours, and so far you haven't met it.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Fri May 31, 2019 7:16 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 6:57 am
There's point in rehearsing this. You know my position.
The point is to get you to doubt. Especially your own positions. You demonstrate a clear lack of ability to do so.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 6:57 am
The burden of proof is yours, and so far you haven't met it.
Let me make this explicit for you. Science/empiricism/epistemology cannot prove anything. All it can do is present a theory then let falsification do its thing.

So, no - I don't burden myself with proof. Ever. Because I am choose to do science instead of philosophy. The only person I ever prove anything to is myself.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 6:57 am
If you think 'murder is wrong' makes a knowledge-claim, you need to show what it is that can be known, and why the assertion 'murder is wrong' describes it correctly, given the way we use those words.
What I think is that "murder is wrong" carries the same epistemic weight as "sky is blue".

You are the one who thinks otherwise. You have drawn a distinction without a difference.

1 distinction = 1 bit of evidence. Science.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri May 31, 2019 7:51 am

Univalence wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 7:16 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 6:57 am
There's point in rehearsing this. You know my position.
The point is to get you to doubt. Especially your own positions. You demonstrate a clear lack of ability to do so.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 6:57 am
The burden of proof is yours, and so far you haven't met it.
Let me make this explicit for you. Science/empiricism/epistemology cannot prove anything. All it can do is present a theory then let falsification do its thing.

So, no - I don't burden myself with proof. Ever. Because I am choose to do science instead of philosophy. The only person I ever prove anything to is myself.
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 6:57 am
If you think 'murder is wrong' makes a knowledge-claim, you need to show what it is that can be known, and why the assertion 'murder is wrong' describes it correctly, given the way we use those words.
What I think is that "murder is wrong" carries the same epistemic weight as "sky is blue".

You are the one who thinks otherwise. You have drawn a distinction without a difference.

1 distinction = 1 bit of evidence. Science.
You can repeat your claim about 'epistemic weight' as often as you like. We could keep doing this into eternity. Or you could explain why knowing that sky (here, today) is blue is the same thing as knowing that murder is wrong. It's your claim. Justify it. Or keep deflecting.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests