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

Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:17 am All you've done is ask stupid questions.
I imagine what makes them "stupid" is that they undermine the foundations of your philosophy?

Or is there something else I am missing?
Harbal wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:17 am I was hoping you would be going on your own.
You were hoping I would do as you say. I was hoping you would do as you say too.

That would've been assertive, but you don't really possess much in the way of assertiveness...

I feel like I am repeating myself.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:25 am Or is there something else I am missing?
There certainly seems to be. My understanding is that this thread is about the nature of morality, whereas you seem to have got yourself obsessed with the definitions of "subjective" and "objective". I do not want to be accused of presuming to know what is going on in Peter Holmes's mind, but my interpretation of the issue is this: Does morality emanate from the individual; is it a product of his own sensibilities and opinions? If so, then for the purposes of this thread, we are calling it subjective. If, on the other hand, morality is some sort of entity that exists outside of, and independent from, the individual and his personal opinions, serving as a reference point from whence he gets his moral rule book, then, for the purposes of this thread, we are calling that objective. Is it really so difficult for you to play along with that, just for the purposes of this thread?
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 8:37 amSo, you are "not a fucking idiot" and you don't assign equal weight to these hypotheses, right?

A. This is red.
B. This is red.

Whoops! Too late.
uwot wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 am Oh please. There are 3 options...the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.
Gotta say Skepdick, given that nobody could be so stupid to conclude that from the full quote, I almost admire your utter shamelessness. For the benefit of anyone who missed it, here's what I actually said:
uwot wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 amOh please. There are 3 options: murder rates go up, they stay the same or they go down. You can stare at that until the cows come home but there will only ever be those 3 options, and you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.
That's 'have' rather than 'has', naturally, but I'll leave that typo in partly because hey, we all make mistakes, but mostly because Skepdick is such a steaming pile of hypocrisy I don't doubt he would accuse me of selective editing.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Once upon time...
uwot wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:16 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:01 pm...I'm hoping the question makes moral objectivists re-think their premise - recognise the mistake - and abandon it.
I admire your optimism.
Ah well, you tried Peter.
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:57 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 8:37 amSo, you are "not a fucking idiot" and you don't assign equal weight to these hypotheses, right?

A. This is red.
B. This is red.

Whoops! Too late.
uwot wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 am Oh please. There are 3 options...the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.
Gotta say Skepdick, given that nobody could be so stupid to conclude that from the full quote, I almost admire your utter shamelessness. For the benefit of anyone who missed it, here's what I actually said:
uwot wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 amOh please. There are 3 options: murder rates go up, they stay the same or they go down. You can stare at that until the cows come home but there will only ever be those 3 options, and you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.
That's 'have' rather than 'has', naturally, but I'll leave that typo in partly because hey, we all make mistakes, but mostly because Skepdick is such a steaming pile of hypocrisy I don't doubt he would accuse me of selective editing.
Keep digging!

There were three options, so you calculated the odds as 1 in 3.
If there were N options, you would've calculated the odds as 1 in N.

So all that's needed to dilute the weight of the evidence is to keep adding more options? Idiot.

What you are doing is precisely assigning equal weight to all hypotheses. It's called the principle of maximum entropy.

1 in N is the prior probability.

I am still waiting for you to tell me your posterior
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:46 am There certainly seems to be. My understanding is that this thread is about the nature of morality, whereas you seem to have got yourself obsessed with the definitions of "subjective" and "objective".
Your disagreement is with Peter, not with me.

"What is the nature of X?" is an ontological question, but Peter insists that morality has no ontological existence.
Harbal wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:46 am Does morality emanate from the individual; is it a product of his own sensibilities and opinions?
You can't have it both ways.

If you are going to ask an ontological question about morality, then it's fair to assume that you believe morality is ontological not merely abstract, else you might as well be asking "what's the nature of abstract nouns?"

So when you arrive at a coherent and empirically verifiable conception of "morality" let us know.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:13 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:46 am There certainly seems to be. My understanding is that this thread is about the nature of morality, whereas you seem to have got yourself obsessed with the definitions of "subjective" and "objective".
Your disagreement is with Peter, not with me.

"What is the nature of X?" is an ontological question, but Peter insists that morality has no ontological existence.
Harbal wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:46 am Does morality emanate from the individual; is it a product of his own sensibilities and opinions?
You can't have it both ways.

If you are going to ask an ontological question about morality, then it's fair to assume that you believe morality is ontological not merely abstract, else you might as well be asking "what's the nature of abstract nouns?"

So when you arrive at a coherent and empirically verifiable conception of "morality" let us know.
Skepdick, you are an imbecile.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1429
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 3:35 pm I understand you've said your say, Henry. But I thought this formulation of moral objectivism would suit you:

People own themselves (this fact), therefore it's morally wrong to enslave people (this moral judgement).

Isn't this the gist of your claim or argument? I'm puzzled.


I object to moral judgement.

A man belongs to himself (fact), therefore it's wrong to leash him (moral fact). The fact leads to the moral fact.

Again: so much depends on that red wheel barrow (the definition of person).

If personhood is only legalistic (bestowed by authority) then you may do with a man as you like. Leash him, kill him, cook him up for supper. Any objection is mere opinion.

If personhood refers to sumthin' intrinsic to the person then usin' a man is wrong and an objection to usin' him is not opinion but recognition of that sumthin'.
The definition of personhood has no bearing on this issue. Define it any way you like, and the assertion that acting contrary to someone's personhood is morally wrong remains a matter of judgement - not a fact.

Your argument amounts to this:

P1: If people own themselves, then it's morally wrong to enslave people.
P2: People own themselves.
C: Therefore, it's morally wrong to enslave people.

This is valid, but you merely assert the truth of P1, without establishing it. You want to call the consequent a moral fact, rather than a moral judgement - but that's precisely what we're arguing about. Why is it a fact? Why is it a factual claim at all, with a truth-value?
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:20 pm Skepdick, you are an imbecile.
If I were an imbecile I'd be a philosopher.

Luckily, I ended up a scientist.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

My mistake, you are that stupid. Seriously Skepdick, show us how you get this:
Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:06 pmThere were three options, so you calculated the odds as 1 in 3.
From this:
uwot wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 amOh please. There are 3 options: murder rates go up, they stay the same or they go down. You can stare at that until the cows come home but there will only ever be those 3 options, and you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:22 pm Luckily, I ended up a scientist.
You could be a cleaning lady for all anyone knows.
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:34 pm You could be a cleaning lady for all anyone knows.
Are you suggesting that cleaning ladies can't do science?

Not only are you an idiot, but you are an elitist p**** too!
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:33 pm My mistake, you are that stupid. Seriously Skepdick, show us how you get this:
Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:06 pmThere were three options, so you calculated the odds as 1 in 3.
From this:
uwot wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 amOh please. There are 3 options: murder rates go up, they stay the same or they go down. You can stare at that until the cows come home but there will only ever be those 3 options, and you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.
Dude. Must I get you a shovel?

The murder rate could've gone up.
The murder rate could've remained steady.
The murder rate could've gone down.

Or it could've gone up, up, up, down, down, down, down, up, up, down, down, down, up, down, up, down, down, down, up, down, up, down, down, up, up, up, down, down. Oh! Wait! That's what it ACTUALLY did!

When you abstract away time, you are ignoring the significance of your sample size, which is a function of your sampling frequency.

You are insisting that 1 in 3 odds calculated from 5 datapoints ( 5 hours ) is "exactly the same thing" as 1 in 3 odds calculated from 5000000 datapoints (500 years).

The entire notion of confidence intervals and sample sizes is foreign to you.

To use Harbal's vocabulary: imbecile.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon May 18, 2020 12:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:40 pm
Are you suggesting that cleaning ladies can't do science?
No, I'm suggesting that you probably can't.
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:43 pm No, I'm suggesting that you probably can't.
Probably? Heh! What does that word mean to you?

I can probably school you in probability theory too.

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712
Post Reply