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

surreptitious57
Posts: 3810
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:22 am

Univalence wrote:
But practically - they are
A true fact must be non falsifiable by definition [ that is a fact ]
Any that are not cannot be true facts regardless of anything else
So science should not declare anything a fact unless it actually is

Still I know what you mean so where there is doubt then deny any fact that status

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:16 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:09 am
All distinctions are ultimately subjective because everything is mind dependent from our perspective
But the more rigorous ones are called objective to differentiate between them them and all the others
Precisely. Would you say 700 years of data, continuous downward trend in murders across continents, cultures and generations is empirically rigorous?

Or is it just a coincidence?

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Univalence » Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:51 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:16 am
A single photograph from space is all that is needed to falsify this and we already have those
What flat Earthers believe is irrelevant because they are wrong and demonstrably so as well
Sure. You can demonstrate that flat Earthers are "wrong". But can you demonstrate that you are "right"?
Because the exact same argument can be made against your position. What you believe is irrelevant too.

If string theory ever takes off then you are working in 11 (or 26) dimensions. What shape is the earth in 26D ?
But we don't even have to go that far. What shape is the Earth in 4D space-time?

Personally, I think flat-Earthers are just a bunch of bored contrarians, who have a fun project on their hands.
With enough commitment to the cause nothing stops them from coming up with an intersection between a hyperplane and a hypersphere

And that would make the Earth "flat". Mathematically anyway.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:18 pm

Univalence wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:51 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:16 am
A single photograph from space is all that is needed to falsify this and we already have those
What flat Earthers believe is irrelevant because they are wrong and demonstrably so as well
Sure. You can demonstrate that flat Earthers are "wrong". But can you demonstrate that you are "right"?
Because the exact same argument can be made against your position. What you believe is irrelevant too.

If string theory ever takes off then you are working in 11 (or 26) dimensions. What shape is the earth in 26D ?
But we don't even have to go that far. What shape is the Earth in 4D space-time?

Personally, I think flat-Earthers are just a bunch of bored contrarians, who have a fun project on their hands.
With enough commitment to the cause nothing stops them from coming up with an intersection between a hyperplane and a hypersphere

And that would make the Earth "flat". Mathematically anyway.
WOT

Systematic
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Systematic » Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:05 am

I think that morality is different based on your position. If you were a prince, then the ends might justify the means to establish power. But once power is established, the right is more about benefiting the community or letting the community enjoy its own benefits. If you were a commoner, the morality is about somehow finding a way not to be a masochist without destroying your fellow commoners. And fill me in on the gentry. I really don't know what they should be doing besides making sure that Paris gets to Juliet before Romeo. Actually, that would be better than rigging elections to make sure that the commoners have absolutely no recourse from poverty. I guess we'll just sell the poison when you need it.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:03 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am
It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.
This first paragraph is incorrect to assume that things are black or white. It's not Objectivists or subjectivists, it's that some things in our world are bound as objects and some are bound as subjects. Thus either objectvists or subjectivists is a false dichotomy, rather that it's that either objects or subjects is the true dichotomy in such a topic as this.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.
Total BS, all one has to do is ask if they'd prefer to be a slave to another, (equally human), as a master, or a master to another, (equally human), as a slave. And dependant upon the answers, conclude what is and is not moral, so as to be certain. Even if there are some case's of those possibly being subservient.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?
See above as it's been answered.

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.
You're beating a dead horse, spouting ridiculous notions that aren't defendable. (Because you don't understand the topic, and are being illogical because you don't understand that invalid premises always lead to false conclusions.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?
"I'll come over to your place and whip you with a Cat o' nine due to your obstinate behavior." (Now do you get it? Or shall you still feign ignorance?)

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?
See immediately above! (What a fuckin' maroon!)

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)
Again: "What a fuckin' maroon!"

Peter Holmes
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:03 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am
It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.
This first paragraph is incorrect to assume that things are black or white. It's not Objectivists or subjectivists, it's that some things in our world are bound as objects and some are bound as subjects. Thus either objectvists or subjectivists is a false dichotomy, rather that it's that either objects or subjects is the true dichotomy in such a topic as this.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.
Total BS, all one has to do is ask if they'd prefer to be a slave to another, (equally human), as a master, or a master to another, (equally human), as a slave. And dependant upon the answers, conclude what is and is not moral, so as to be certain. Even if there are some case's of those possibly being subservient.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?
See above as it's been answered.

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.
You're beating a dead horse, spouting ridiculous notions that aren't defendable. (Because you don't understand the topic, and are being illogical because you don't understand that invalid premises always lead to false conclusions.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?
"I'll come over to your place and whip you with a Cat o' nine due to your obstinate behavior." (Now do you get it? Or shall you still feign ignorance?)

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?
See immediately above! (What a fuckin' maroon!)

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)
Again: "What a fuckin' maroon!"
Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 6049
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:55 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:03 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am
It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.
This first paragraph is incorrect to assume that things are black or white. It's not Objectivists or subjectivists, it's that some things in our world are bound as objects and some are bound as subjects. Thus either objectvists or subjectivists is a false dichotomy, rather that it's that either objects or subjects is the true dichotomy in such a topic as this.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.
Total BS, all one has to do is ask if they'd prefer to be a slave to another, (equally human), as a master, or a master to another, (equally human), as a slave. And dependant upon the answers, conclude what is and is not moral, so as to be certain. Even if there are some case's of those possibly being subservient.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?
See above as it's been answered.

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.
You're beating a dead horse, spouting ridiculous notions that aren't defendable. (Because you don't understand the topic, and are being illogical because you don't understand that invalid premises always lead to false conclusions.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?
"I'll come over to your place and whip you with a Cat o' nine due to your obstinate behavior." (Now do you get it? Or shall you still feign ignorance?)

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?
See immediately above! (What a fuckin' maroon!)

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)
Again: "What a fuckin' maroon!"
Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.
FYI: maroon is the way that great existentialist, Bugs Bunny, pronounced moron.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:59 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:55 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:03 pm
Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.
FYI: maroon is the way that great existentialist, Bugs Bunny, pronounced moron.
Now that is a useful piece of information. My thanks.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 6049
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:02 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:59 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:55 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm

Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.
FYI: maroon is the way that great existentialist, Bugs Bunny, pronounced moron.
Now that is a useful piece of information. My thanks.
:thumbsup:

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:14 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:03 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am
It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.
This first paragraph is incorrect to assume that things are black or white. It's not Objectivists or subjectivists, it's that some things in our world are bound as objects and some are bound as subjects. Thus either objectvists or subjectivists is a false dichotomy, rather that it's that either objects or subjects is the true dichotomy in such a topic as this.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.
Total BS, all one has to do is ask if they'd prefer to be a slave to another, (equally human), as a master, or a master to another, (equally human), as a slave. And dependant upon the answers, conclude what is and is not moral, so as to be certain. Even if there are some case's of those possibly being subservient.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?
See above as it's been answered.

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.
You're beating a dead horse, spouting ridiculous notions that aren't defendable. (Because you don't understand the topic, and are being illogical because you don't understand that invalid premises always lead to false conclusions.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?
"I'll come over to your place and whip you with a Cat o' nine due to your obstinate behavior." (Now do you get it? Or shall you still feign ignorance?)

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?
See immediately above! (What a fuckin' maroon!)

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)
Again: "What a fuckin' maroon!"
Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.
To young to know of the loony toons? You know, Bugs Bunny! Just a more polite way of calling you a moron, you know G-Rated!

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:22 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:03 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am
It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.
This first paragraph is incorrect to assume that things are black or white. It's not Objectivists or subjectivists, it's that some things in our world are bound as objects and some are bound as subjects. Thus either objectvists or subjectivists is a false dichotomy, rather that it's that either objects or subjects is the true dichotomy in such a topic as this.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.
Total BS, all one has to do is ask if they'd prefer to be a slave to another, (equally human), as a master, or a master to another, (equally human), as a slave. And dependant upon the answers, conclude what is and is not moral, so as to be certain. Even if there are some case's of those possibly being subservient.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?
See above as it's been answered.

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.
You're beating a dead horse, spouting ridiculous notions that aren't defendable. (Because you don't understand the topic, and are being illogical because you don't understand that invalid premises always lead to false conclusions.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?
"I'll come over to your place and whip you with a Cat o' nine due to your obstinate behavior." (Now do you get it? Or shall you still feign ignorance?)

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?
See immediately above! (What a fuckin' maroon!)

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)
Again: "What a fuckin' maroon!"
Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.
That you can't see that it's sorted, a testament of your master race, right?

Fucking self suckers can't see past their own noses.

Is your head always up your ass? Slave!!!

I get so sick and tired of the clueless! Can you say, "Narcissist?"

Peter Holmes
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:23 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:14 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:03 pm
Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.
To young to know of the loony toons? You know, Bugs Bunny! Just a more polite way of calling you a moron, you know G-Rated!
I'll wait till you have something intelligent to say. Or even vaguely intelligible. But not with bated breath.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:29 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:23 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:14 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm

Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.
To young to know of the loony toons? You know, Bugs Bunny! Just a more polite way of calling you a moron, you know G-Rated!
I'll wait till you have something intelligent to say. Or even vaguely intelligible. But not with bated breath.
So you really believe that it was smart to talk of slavery that way? Really? You Neo-Nazi, you! Think about it! Throughout you sound like a slave owner wannabe! Really?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 6049
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:37 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:23 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:14 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:48 pm

Charming. Well. That's sorted it all out. By the way - I guess the word you mean is 'moron'.
To young to know of the loony toons? You know, Bugs Bunny! Just a more polite way of calling you a moron, you know G-Rated!
I'll wait till you have something intelligent to say. Or even vaguely intelligible. But not with bated breath.
D8CC4975-7906-48E9-8B29-E3BE16B11DAA.jpeg
D8CC4975-7906-48E9-8B29-E3BE16B11DAA.jpeg (44.88 KiB) Viewed 79 times

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests