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: 1429
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

So, here's what happens when a dickhead troll can't hack it when its stupidity is exposed.

'Fucking hilarious. Accusing me of confidence tricks while trying to pull wool over everybody's eyes.
All this talk about "truth", "facts, "opinions", "objectivity", "morality", "arguments", "illusions", "aesthetics" and "value judgments" is the kind of philosophical bullshit Peter is throwing into the debate to distract us from the point.

Either murdering Peter Holmes is wrong or it isn't.

If Peter Holmes thinks murdering him is wrong, then Peter Holmes should tell us us how he reasoned himself into that opinion.
If Peter Holmes doesn't think murdering him is wrong - he should say so.

Game over indeed. Try bullshit somebody else.'

Well. I say. Who let the ruffians in?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9382
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Peter Holmes cannot possibly hold an opinion that *murdering Peter Holmes is wrong,"

Post by henry quirk »

Sure he can. It's just an opinion, no different than an other opinion, ain't that right, Pete?









*though, as I think on it, it's not murder...murder is unjust killing...without a moral reality, notions of justice are just opinions, preference exercises...so, all Pete can say is it's wrong to kill me, cuz I won't like it.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1429
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: "Peter Holmes cannot possibly hold an opinion that *murdering Peter Holmes is wrong,"

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 pm Sure he can. It's just an opinion, no different than an other opinion, ain't that right, Pete?

*though, as I think on it, it's not murder...murder is unjust killing...without a moral reality, notions of justice are just opinions, preference exercises...so, all Pete can say is it's wrong to kill me, cuz I won't like it.
Tough, isn't it? A moral opinion is just a moral opinion. So justice is what we call justice. And moral rightness and wrongness are what we call moral rightness and wrongness. And over many centuries, we've had to argue about these things - because there are no moral facts - which is why moral opinions have changed. (Moral objectivists - shut your eyes and stop your ears. Inconvenient truths incoming.)

So in a couple hundred years, our vegan descendants may look back on us - their ancestors - and morally condemn us for our barbarous treatment of other animals. And they may say it's a moral fact that eating animals is wrong; how could we have been so wicked?

Moral objectivism is the bullshit sold by moral fascists who want to impose their morality on everyone else. And that's a fact.
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "Peter Holmes cannot possibly hold an opinion that *murdering Peter Holmes is wrong,"

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 pm Sure he can. It's just an opinion, no different than an other opinion, ain't that right, Pete?
If it's "just an opinion" why are you holding that particular one and not the other?

Surely you considered the alternative and you dismissed it, right? Surely you made a choice?

HOW did you choose your opinion? Reason or a coin toss?

On what grounds does Peter justify his claim that we OUGHT to respect his opinion with regards to not being murdered?
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:45 pm Well. I say. Who let the ruffians in?
OUGHT we keep the ruffians out?

Why should we care about your opinion?
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "Peter Holmes cannot possibly hold an opinion that *murdering Peter Holmes is wrong,"

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:06 pm Tough, isn't it? A moral opinion is just a moral opinion. So justice is what we call justice.
Yes Peter. And "wrong" is what we call "wrong"
And "blue" is what we call "blue"

And "round" is what we call "round".


If this linguistic object was called a triangle, then Earth would be triangular!
circle-png-circle-png-hd-1600 (1).png
circle-png-circle-png-hd-1600 (1).png (19.16 KiB) Viewed 381 times
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9382
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "Peter Holmes cannot possibly hold an opinion that *murdering Peter Holmes is wrong,"

Post by henry quirk »

So in a couple hundred years, our vegan descendants may look back on us - their ancestors - and morally condemn us for our barbarous treatment of other animals. And they may say it's a moral fact that eating animals is wrong; how could we have been so wicked?

Or: in a couple or three years, when slavery is mebbe re-instituted, we can call sit back secure that we ain't doin' nuthin' wrong. We gave the lesser races a shot, they blew it. Better all around that they are in their place.


Moral objectivism is the bullshit sold by moral fascists who want to impose their morality on everyone else. And that's a fact.

And: moral subjectivism is the absolute license to put a leash on a man's neck, to take a woman when and how you like, to take J. Swift's modest proposal seriously. Whatever the majority, or State, sez is acceptable, goes. And that there is also a fact.
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9382
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "Peter Holmes cannot possibly hold an opinion that *murdering Peter Holmes is wrong,"

Post by henry quirk »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:51 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 pm Sure he can. It's just an opinion, no different than an other opinion, ain't that right, Pete?
If it's "just an opinion" why are you holding that particular one and not the other?

Surely you considered the alternative and you dismissed it, right? Surely you made a choice?

HOW did you choose your opinion? Reason or a coin toss?

On what grounds does Peter justify his claim that we OUGHT to respect his opinion with regards to not being murdered?
I'm a moral realist, skep: Pete is the moral vacuum: ask him.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:30 pmThis was YOUR counter against murder rates decreasing. 3 options makes 1 in 3 odds.
Crikey Skepdick, are you still trying to peddle that nonsense? Here's a reminder:
uwot wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:57 am
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.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:30 pmNow there are two options. Any one of them could have been red. That's 1 in 2 odds.

Why do you feel so strongly about one over the other if the odds are equal?
Because one of them is red. The red one as it happens.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:30 pmIt's fucking obvious to me that your posterior probability is not 1/2. All I am asking is what evidence swayed you towards A.
It's red.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2381
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:27 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:25 pm Murder is wrong is definitively true. Murder is legally wrong. If it was not, then it is not murder

I'd never say it is objectively so, since that makes no sense, as without a frame of reference "objectivity" is meaningless. Objective and subjective cases are relative to the situation in which claims are being made.

As for murder, it is a category of killing. It's a shame God does not seem to know the difference: divinely verified versions have both word in different editions for the 6th commandment.

There is a very good reason I used "killing" since the idea that murder is definitely bad is a moot point in my example. Well I supposed you noticed. Shame you did not get the point.

The point is that if I call an act murder I have made a subjective judgement that an example of killing is a bad one. What is moot is whether or not my judgement is valid more widely.

Sometimes this is like banging your head against a wall.
Apart from the fact that you don't know the difference between murder (wrong), self-defence (right) and killing (neither wrong nor right) I agree with you, but that doesn't matter.
And this is why people say you are the guy that put the DICK into skepdick.
It is crystal clear that I know the meaning of murder and killing.
Your fallacy is twofold. First, is the trouble you seem to be be having with category. "Killing" is not neither right or wrong. Killing is BOTH right and wrong.

And the second might be more difficult for you to understand. Secondly, you are putting the cart before the horse by being led by a definition, rather than the fact. You are mistaking definitions with the natural relations between what is being argued.
The TYPE of killing we think is bad is called murder. You dipship.
Peter Holmes disagrees with your premise.
Therefore Peter Holmes cannot make the deduction that you have made.
I think he is capable of responding for himself
Peter Holmes cannot possibly hold an opinion that murdering Peter Holmes is wrong, because Peter Holmes can't reason himself into such a position inductively OR deductively. Or so he claims.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2381
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:27 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:14 pm Lest anyone be suckered by specious arguments -

The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions, which are typically linguistic expressions.

So if an assertion is not factual, it can't be true or false - it can't have what's called a truth-value. Here's an example.

'Bach's music is sublimely beautiful.'

This assertion expresses an opinion or value-judgement about Bach's music. We could emphasise the opinion or value-judgement by prefacing the assertion with 'It's true that...' or 'It's a fact that...' But the assertion remains an aesthetic value-judgement, with no factual truth-value. So those additions are merely emphatic.

Moral objectivists claim that moral assertions such as 'slavery is morally wrong' and 'eating animals is morally justifiable' are factual - so that they can be true or false. And to sell this false claim, they pick moral assertions that most of us strongly agree with. Here are some examples.

Torturing babies for fun is morally wrong.
Slavery is morally wrong.
Rape is morally wrong.
Murder is morally wrong.

And it's a powerful confidence trick, that easily suckers people. Of course I think that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong - so it must be true that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. So, yeah, moral assertions are factual - they can be true or false.

This is what the Dick has been doing here: selling a confidence trick - an illusion: Peter doesn't think the assertion 'murder is morally wrong' is a fact - a true factual assertion - so he doesn't think murder is morally wrong, and he should be happy to be murdered.

Yep. What can I say? Game over.
Fucking hilarious. Accusing me of confidence tricks while trying to pull wool over everybody's eyes.
All this talk about "truth", "facts, "opinions", "objectivity", "morality", "arguments", "illusions", "aesthetics" and "value judgments" is the kind of philosophical bullshit Peter is throwing into the debate to distract us from the point.

Either murdering Peter Holmes is wrong or it isn't.

If Peter Holmes thinks murdering him is wrong, then Peter Holmes should tell us us how he reasoned himself into that opinion.
If Peter Holmes doesn't think murdering him is wrong - he should say so.

Game over indeed. Try bullshit somebody else.
Misrepresenting PH is not going to get you anywhere.
You seem too dull to understand what he has just said.
Like a child you do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. God help you when you read a newspaper!
Now matter how you cut it "murder is bad" is still an opinion. Were I to have killed Hitler in Germany in 1944 I would have committed murder. Murder is defined as ILLEGAL killing; that is a FACT. I would argue that that particular murder would have been good. Not good for Hitler. Maybe not good for the German people. But good for the Allies. That is what is called an OPINION. this is subjective, obviously.
Now with, this, the MOST simple example can you not see how even murder is not bad or good?
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:10 pm Because one of them is red. The red one as it happens.

It's red.
Both of them are "red"!

One of them is RED
And the other one is RED

Which red do you mean?
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:11 pm And this is why people say you are the guy that put the DICK into skepdick.
I AM the guy who put the "DICK" into Skepdick. People don't need to say it.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:11 pm It is crystal clear that I know the meaning of murder and killing.
It's crystal clear that you can't tell the difference between then also.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:11 pm Your fallacy is twofold. First, is the trouble you seem to be be having with category. "Killing" is not neither right or wrong. Killing is BOTH right and wrong.
Oh, cute! You learned how to do contrapositives. You are still on my turf, dipshit.
Those are two "different perspectives" - can be represented by one and the same probability mass functions.

Welcome to epistemology.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:11 pm The TYPE of killing we think is bad is called murder. You dipship.
OBVIOUSLY. Dipshit. Isn't that PRECISELY what Peter is arguing! That within a particular framework of conventional language use we use words however we use words.

That is HOW we use the word "wrong" and its cognates!

But you are still too stupid to see that IF you can RECOGNIZE the difference between A and B then necessarily there is a detectable difference between A and B.

1 distinction = 1 bit of information.
Skepdick
Posts: 5275
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:22 pm Misrepresenting PH is not going to get you anywhere.
You seem too dull to understand what he has just said.
Like a child you do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. God help you when you read a newspaper!
Now matter how you cut it "murder is bad" is still an opinion. Were I to have killed Hitler in Germany in 1944 I would have committed murder. Murder is defined as ILLEGAL killing; that is a FACT. I would argue that that particular murder would have been good. Not good for Hitler. Maybe not good for the German people. But good for the Allies. That is what is called an OPINION. this is subjective, obviously.
Now with, this, the MOST simple example can you not see how even murder is not bad or good?
Idiot. It is a FACT that you hold an opinion.

It is also a FACT that your opinions lead you to actions.

If I can predict your opinions/actions then your opinions/actions are OBJECTIVE as far as the scientific framework is concerned.

That is HOW we test for "objectivity" empirically. That is what the word "objective" means within the empirical epistemology! Irrespective of the fucking definition.

You are so dumb you can't even think without a definition.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4932
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:23 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:58 am So, deduction doesn't work. A factual assertion can't entail a moral assertion. You can't get an ought from an is. Well - who knew?

I know - let's try induction. Perhaps a collection of facts can induce a moral conclusion.

For example, perhaps we can show by induction that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

Or perhaps we can show, by Bayesian analysis, the post probability that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

(Please. Wake up. Ffs.)
I agree with you 100% Peter.

There is absolutely no way for you to induce OR deduce that "Murdering me, Peter Holmes, is wrong."
There is absolutely no way you could possibly arrive at such conclusion and hold the opinion that you hold.

So lets murder you then. Commit to your opinions.

I want to be so woke!
Skepdick, we do not agree on many issues but wow!! this point is very philosophically solid.
This is a checkmate argument and Peter has no way out of this.
Your point has so much philosophical sense, yet those real ignorant dickheads in their ignorance condemned your point without solid counter argument.

If so wish, anyone all can murder Peter because he is insisting it is not morally wrong to kill another human.

If we are in a sovereign nation with severe penalties the one who murder Peter could only be in trouble if he did not commit the perfect murder, thus could end with a lifetime prison sentence or will be legally killed for it.
If anyone who think they can commit the perfect murder, they can go ahead an murder Peter.

Now if Peter lands on an isolated island not belonging to any sovereign nation, then, anyone on that island can kill him without any legal threat at all.

This is why we need a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with objective moral facts/truths as moral ought/standard that are independent of individual opinions and beliefs and are naturally in alignment within ALL humans regardless of where they are.

Within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, the individual is his own moral-defendant, defense lawyer, persecutor, jury, judge, correctional officer within his internal court [brain/mind].
The effective with moral laws applied within himself are those he has recognized and adopted himself which align with the universal moral facts justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

In this case, the moral fact/truth of an ought-not as effected internally is;
'No human ought to to kill another human'

In this case, it is morally wrong for any human to kill Peter because he is 'another human'.

If despite the above, Peter is killed due to other reasons, it is not a moral issue rather it will be an issue of Ethics [Applied] and deliberated separately.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply