Is morality objective or subjective?

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: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: pete

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:40 am pete's subjectivism doesn't remove the onus from the realist
I am being moral! Objective morality is intersubjectively negotiated.

I am respecting Pete's beliefs in this regard. If he believes wrongness doesn't exist - then I can't do ANYTHING to wrong him!

That's how self-determination works
The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[1][2] It states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8432
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: pete

Post by henry quirk »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:41 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:40 am pete's subjectivism doesn't remove the onus from the realist
I am being moral! Objective morality is intersubjectively negotiated.

I am respecting Pete's beliefs in this regard. If he believes wrongness doesn't exist - then I can't do ANYTHING to wrong him!

That's how self-determination works
The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[1][2] It states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference
that ain't how my morality works

g'night, skep
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: pete

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:52 am that ain't how my morality works
You don't allow others to self-determine the way in which they want to be treated?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4456
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:16 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:52 pm And that's the really hard thing for moral objectivists to grasp. Whatever reason we have to believe X is morally wrong, it could always be that X is not morally wrong, for some other reason. So 'X is morally wrong' can never be a fact. So there are no moral facts, and morality isn't and can't be objective.
As I had always maintained, your 'what is fact' is a traceable to the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivist.

Note again [the "thousand" times], the generally acceptable meaning of 'what is fact'.

Its ideological, you have been brainwashed to be ignorant and dogmatic, there are no moral facts from a rigid perspective.

Note the shift to this paradigm of 'what is a fact';
Wiki wrote:A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
In line with the above, why can't we have moral facts???
  • All FSK produce their respective facts.
    Since Morality has its own FSK,
    Therefore the Morality FSK has its respective moral facts.
  • Justified Scientific facts from its FSK has the highest standard of credibility at present.
    The Morality FSK has similar features of the Scientific FSK
    Therefore the justified moral facts from its FSK are expected to have a high degree of credibility.
I had claimed justified true moral facts [JTB-m] must be justified empirically and philosophically.
So, 'A fact is an occurrence in the real world' and is, generally speaking, 'independent of belief'.

This is obviously too narrow, because a fact can also be a state-of-affairs, which can only indirectly be called an occurrence. But otherwise, I accept and have always used this definition of a fact. However, we also use the word fact to mean 'a description of a state-of-affairs', which is why we think of facts as things that are true. And only factual assertions are true or false; a state-of-affairs can be neither. Reality is not linguistic.
First of, what is critical is the existence of reality which are represented by facts of reality.
However there are two claims of reality, i.e.
  • 1. Philosophical Realists claim reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
    2. Philosophical anti-realists claim reality is entangled with the human conditions
The above dichotomy is very Critical in the definition of what are the facts of reality.

A fact is an occurrence in the real world.-wiki
'Occurrence' is not narrow in this case. See the various meanings of 'occurrences', state, affairs.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/occurrence
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/state
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/affair

A state-of-affairs [a fact] is comprised of connected-occurrences [facts] within reality [of Realists' or Anti-Realists'].
Moral objectivists have yet to provide an example of a moral fact - a moral occurrence or state-of affairs in the real world that's independent of belief, or a description of such an occurrence or state-of-affairs that has the truth-value 'true'.
As I had argued above;
Therefore the Morality FSK produced its respective moral facts.

The Moral fact;
M1. No human ought to kill another, or,
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
is a state-of-affairs that is represented by an neural algorithm within the brain of every human.

The above neural algorithm is analogous to the state-of-affairs of
B1 'ALL humans ought to breathe else they die' or
M2 'No human ought to stop another from breathing till s/he die'

You cannot understand the similar principle between M1 and B1 because you are ignorant of the deeper state-of-affairs of the human conditions.
And that's because the very idea of a moral occurrence or state-of-affairs is incoherent. There are only occurrences and states-of-affairs about which we can make moral judgements. Objectivists then mistake those moral judgements for facts - but they can produce no evidence 'in the real world' to justify that claim.
Making 'moral' judgment is a state-of-affairs but it is not a moral fact [as defined] rather it is typical decision-making to take actions which are related to ethics.
When one make such a decision, there is a pre-existing overriding moral facts that one judged against.

The inherent moral fact [represented neurally] is;
M1. No human ought to kill another,
The moral agent then has to make a judgment whether to comply with the moral fact or not.

A competent moral agent do not have to make any explicit judgment nor decision to comply with the moral fact, but merely act spontaneously in alignment with the moral fact. In this case, there is no question of judgment at all - Just ACT!
Moral wrongness isn't a property of slavery 'independent of belief'. Nor is it a property of abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on. That's why there are opposed and yet rational beliefs about the morality of such things as abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on.

The stupidity of moral objectivism beggars belief.
Eating of animals is not a specific moral issue but it is related to other human issues.

Capital punishment is a moral issue related to the moral fact;
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
This moral fact can only be a GUIDE and never enforceable.
  • Analogy:
    It is a fact the North Pole exists in reality as the ultimate North of the Earth and is represented by the direction pointed by a compass needle.
    This fact of the North Pole can be a GUIDE.
    To go to the North Pole and a navigator in facing real obstacles can chart and vary his course East, West, South, North routes to adjust to various conditions, BUT, the net-resulting is always toward the overriding factual North in order to reach his objective.
Note the above analogy in comparison to Slavery,
Humanity had navigated the obstacles of the moral fact of slavery, i.e.
M3 - No human ought to enslaved another'
since >10,000 years ago [many generations] to the present,
to achieve the undenial moral progress in alignment with the moral facts [represented neurally] of slavery [chattel].
The moral fact as justified is fixed and independent of personal opinions and beliefs used as a GUIDE to align all humans to that fact.
There will be humans who will have the impulse for slavery against the inherent moral fact of slavery within them, but eventually the inherent moral sense will drive humans [future generations] towards the natural moral fact of slavery -M3.

If there are no moral facts as the STANDARD GUIDE or humans are not activated to realize what is inherent in them, then there will be no striving to reduce, prevent and eliminate chattel and all forms of slavery.
But that is not the case as proven with the undeniable natural moral progress of slavery from the hundreds of past generations to the present.

Get it?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 4:40 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:16 am As I had always maintained, your 'what is fact' is a traceable to the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivist.

Note again [the "thousand" times], the generally acceptable meaning of 'what is fact'.

Its ideological, you have been brainwashed to be ignorant and dogmatic, there are no moral facts from a rigid perspective.

Note the shift to this paradigm of 'what is a fact';



In line with the above, why can't we have moral facts???
  • All FSK produce their respective facts.
    Since Morality has its own FSK,
    Therefore the Morality FSK has its respective moral facts.
  • Justified Scientific facts from its FSK has the highest standard of credibility at present.
    The Morality FSK has similar features of the Scientific FSK
    Therefore the justified moral facts from its FSK are expected to have a high degree of credibility.
I had claimed justified true moral facts [JTB-m] must be justified empirically and philosophically.
So, 'A fact is an occurrence in the real world' and is, generally speaking, 'independent of belief'.

This is obviously too narrow, because a fact can also be a state-of-affairs, which can only indirectly be called an occurrence. But otherwise, I accept and have always used this definition of a fact. However, we also use the word fact to mean 'a description of a state-of-affairs', which is why we think of facts as things that are true. And only factual assertions are true or false; a state-of-affairs can be neither. Reality is not linguistic.
First of, what is critical is the existence of reality which are represented by facts of reality.
However there are two claims of reality, i.e.
  • 1. Philosophical Realists claim reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
    2. Philosophical anti-realists claim reality is entangled with the human conditions
The above dichotomy is very Critical in the definition of what are the facts of reality.

A fact is an occurrence in the real world.-wiki
'Occurrence' is not narrow in this case. See the various meanings of 'occurrences', state, affairs.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/occurrence
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/state
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/affair

A state-of-affairs [a fact] is comprised of connected-occurrences [facts] within reality [of Realists' or Anti-Realists'].
Moral objectivists have yet to provide an example of a moral fact - a moral occurrence or state-of affairs in the real world that's independent of belief, or a description of such an occurrence or state-of-affairs that has the truth-value 'true'.
As I had argued above;
Therefore the Morality FSK produced its respective moral facts.

The Moral fact;
M1. No human ought to kill another, or,
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
is a state-of-affairs that is represented by an neural algorithm within the brain of every human.

The above neural algorithm is analogous to the state-of-affairs of
B1 'ALL humans ought to breathe else they die' or
M2 'No human ought to stop another from breathing till s/he die'

You cannot understand the similar principle between M1 and B1 because you are ignorant of the deeper state-of-affairs of the human conditions.
And that's because the very idea of a moral occurrence or state-of-affairs is incoherent. There are only occurrences and states-of-affairs about which we can make moral judgements. Objectivists then mistake those moral judgements for facts - but they can produce no evidence 'in the real world' to justify that claim.
Making 'moral' judgment is a state-of-affairs but it is not a moral fact [as defined] rather it is typical decision-making to take actions which are related to ethics.
When one make such a decision, there is a pre-existing overriding moral facts that one judged against.

The inherent moral fact [represented neurally] is;
M1. No human ought to kill another,
The moral agent then has to make a judgment whether to comply with the moral fact or not.

A competent moral agent do not have to make any explicit judgment nor decision to comply with the moral fact, but merely act spontaneously in alignment with the moral fact. In this case, there is no question of judgment at all - Just ACT!
Moral wrongness isn't a property of slavery 'independent of belief'. Nor is it a property of abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on. That's why there are opposed and yet rational beliefs about the morality of such things as abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on.

The stupidity of moral objectivism beggars belief.
Eating of animals is not a specific moral issue but it is related to other human issues.

Capital punishment is a moral issue related to the moral fact;
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
This moral fact can only be a GUIDE and never enforceable.
  • Analogy:
    It is a fact the North Pole exists in reality as the ultimate North of the Earth and is represented by the direction pointed by a compass needle.
    This fact of the North Pole can be a GUIDE.
    To go to the North Pole and a navigator in facing real obstacles can chart and vary his course East, West, South, North routes to adjust to various conditions, BUT, the net-resulting is always toward the overriding factual North in order to reach his objective.
Note the above analogy in comparison to Slavery,
Humanity had navigated the obstacles of the moral fact of slavery, i.e.
M3 - No human ought to enslaved another'
since >10,000 years ago [many generations] to the present,
to achieve the undenial moral progress in alignment with the moral facts [represented neurally] of slavery [chattel].
The moral fact as justified is fixed and independent of personal opinions and beliefs used as a GUIDE to align all humans to that fact.
There will be humans who will have the impulse for slavery against the inherent moral fact of slavery within them, but eventually the inherent moral sense will drive humans [future generations] towards the natural moral fact of slavery -M3.

If there are no moral facts as the STANDARD GUIDE or humans are not activated to realize what is inherent in them, then there will be no striving to reduce, prevent and eliminate chattel and all forms of slavery.
But that is not the case as proven with the undeniable natural moral progress of slavery from the hundreds of past generations to the present.

Get it?
I think that the following is the stripped-down version of your argument.

Factual premise: The moral assertion 'No human ought to kill another human' is represented by a neural algorithm in the human brain. (Humans are programmed not to kill other humans.)

Moral conclusion: Therefore, 'No human ought to kill another human' is a fact - a moral fact. (It is morally wrong to kill another human.)

If this is what you think, then let's change the premise, as follows. (I assume you understand the purpose of a counter-factual.)

Factual premise: The moral assertion 'Humans ought to kill other humansr' is represented by a neural algorithm in the human brain. (Humans are programmed to kill other humans.)

Moral conclusion: Therefore, 'Humans ought to kill other humans' is a fact - a moral fact. (It is morally right to kill another human.)

Now I assume you reject this new moral conclusion, though I may be wrong. But if you do, then you must see that neural programming isn't what determines the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. If the second conclusion doesn't follow, then nor does the first, unless you commit the fallacy of special pleading.

For now, we can leave aside the truth of either factual premise. But, as it happens, there's plenty of evidence that we're programmed to kill in extreme self-defence, or defence of the family or social group - as are all other primates and many other species.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: pete

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:40 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:08 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:05 am

but: as you like
Peter actually believes that him wanting to not be murdered is not a fact.

If I am "wrong" about that then go ahead and correct the above.

Perhaps you mean I am "wrong" in the moral sense, but Peter doesn't believe in objective morality either, so lying to Peter cannot possibly be "wrong".
but I do

pete's subjectivism doesn't remove the onus from the realist

again: we're goin' circular

unless you gut sumthin' new to add: I'm done here
Here are three facts.

1 I believe there are no moral facts.

2 I don't want to be murdered.

3 I believe murder is morally wrong.

There's no contradiction between these facts. To say or imply that they amount to a contradiction is childish ner-ner-na-ner-ing.
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: pete

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:04 pm a thought isn't a real thing
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:26 am Here are three facts.

1 I believe there are no moral facts.

2 I don't want to be murdered.

3 I believe murder is morally wrong.

There's no contradiction between these facts. To say or imply that they amount to a contradiction is childish ner-ner-na-ner-ing.
The contradiction is obvious to anybody who isn't a total idiot. Perhaps that's why you can't see it?

First you insist that thoughts aren't real things.
Then you furnish facts about things that aren't real.

What are you going to try sell us next? Fact about God?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8432
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: pete

Post by henry quirk »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:54 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:52 am that ain't how my morality works
You don't allow others to self-determine the way in which they want to be treated?
nutshellin' it: my morality only prohibits me from abusin' folks; it doesn't obligate me to abuse 'em, even if they want to be abused
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

News for the intellectually challenged.

P1: The only kind of assertion that a moral assertion can contradict ('speak against') is another moral assertion.

P2: The assertion 'there are no moral facts' is not a moral assertion.

C: Therefore, the assertions 'there are no moral facts' and (for example) 'slavery is morally wrong' are not contradictory.
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:14 pm News for the intellectually challenged.

P1: The only kind of assertion that a moral assertion can contradict ('speak against') is another moral assertion.

P2: The assertion 'there are no moral facts' is not a moral assertion.

C: Therefore, the assertions 'there are no moral facts' and (for example) 'slavery is morally wrong' are not contradictory.
Newsflash for the idiot (Peter Holmes, in case you aren't clear).

Facts are about real things. Objective state of affairs (according to the idiot).
The thoughts in your head are not real (according to the idiot also)

The contradiction is in the factuality of non-existents.

Either it's a fact that you don't want to be murdered, or your desire to not be murdered does not exist. Which is it?
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: pete

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:43 pm nutshellin' it: my morality only prohibits me from abusin' folks; it doesn't obligate me to abuse 'em, even if they want to be abused
How exactly would you go about "abusing" somebody who has determined that abuse doesn't exist?

Rejecting their right to reject the existence of abuse is pretty abusive if you ask me.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Permanent challenge for moral objectivists, including intellectually challenged trolls.

Demonstrate, without begging the question, how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, and therefore how a moral assertion can logically contradict a factual assertion.

The rest of us are waiting. Permanently. Because it can't be done. Which is why moral objectivism is irrational.
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:35 pm Permanent challenge for moral objectivists, including intellectually challenged trolls.

Demonstrate, without begging the question, how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, and therefore how a moral assertion can logically contradict a factual assertion.

The rest of us are waiting. Permanently. Because it can't be done. Which is why moral objectivism is irrational.
Trivially.

According to Peter Holmes "Peter Holmes ought not get shot in the face" is not a moral fact.

If Peter Holmes is correct, then no contradiction will arise from shooting him in the face.

When should we science it?
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Permanent challenge for moral objectivists, including intellectually challenged trolls.

Demonstrate, without begging the question, how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, and therefore how a moral assertion can logically contradict a factual assertion.

The rest of us are waiting. Permanently. Because it can't be done. Which is why moral objectivism is irrational.
Skepdick
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:47 pm Permanent challenge for moral objectivists, including intellectually challenged trolls.

Demonstrate, without begging the question, how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, and therefore how a moral assertion can logically contradict a factual assertion.

The rest of us are waiting. Permanently. Because it can't be done. Which is why moral objectivism is irrational.
Permanent challenge to the idiot.

What does empirical factuality have to do with logical entailment?

I proposed the experiment to settle this. Lets shoot you in the face and see if a contradiction arises.

If no contradiction arises then you are right and I am wrong.
Post Reply