Is morality objective or subjective?
-
- Posts: 3900
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.
So our calling something a red circle doesn't mean redness and circles must exist as referents. Their existence or non-existence has nothing to do with language.
And our use of abstract nouns - such as 'morality', 'rightness' and 'wrongness' - does not require the existence of abstract things as their supposed referents. The existence of moral rightness and wrongness is an ontological claim which incurs a burden of proof.
To demand to know what we're talking about when we use the word 'morality' - if that word doesn't denote a thing of some kind that exists somehow - is to be operating with a particularly crude correspondence theory of meaning and truth - to be, in short, a deluded metaphysician.
The way out is to recognise that meaning is use, and nowhere else.
So our calling something a red circle doesn't mean redness and circles must exist as referents. Their existence or non-existence has nothing to do with language.
And our use of abstract nouns - such as 'morality', 'rightness' and 'wrongness' - does not require the existence of abstract things as their supposed referents. The existence of moral rightness and wrongness is an ontological claim which incurs a burden of proof.
To demand to know what we're talking about when we use the word 'morality' - if that word doesn't denote a thing of some kind that exists somehow - is to be operating with a particularly crude correspondence theory of meaning and truth - to be, in short, a deluded metaphysician.
The way out is to recognise that meaning is use, and nowhere else.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
You are using the word "morality". If it's meaningful then you must know HOW and WHY you are using that word.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:15 pm There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.
So our calling something a red circle doesn't mean redness and circles must exist as referents. Their existence or non-existence has nothing to do with language.
And our use of abstract nouns - such as 'morality', 'rightness' and 'wrongness' - does not require the existence of abstract things as their supposed referents. The existence of moral rightness and wrongness is an ontological claim which incurs a burden of proof.
To demand to know what we're talking about when we use the word 'morality' - if that word doesn't denote a thing of some kind that exists somehow - is to be operating with a particularly crude correspondence theory of meaning and truth - to be, in short, a deluded metaphysician.
The way out is to recognise that meaning is use, and nowhere else.
Tell us.
Are you trying to convince me that you are using the words that you are using unintentionally? I'll believe you if you say so.
-
- Posts: 3900
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
We can explain the ways we use words in various ways, which twere tedious to rehearse. And if the explanation is linguistic, the ways we use the words in the explanation can be explained, and so on.
How else did and do we learn the uses of words? How does someone puzzled by the use of words express that puzzlement in the form of a question? Is that an example of metaphysically-induced philosophical idiocy?
Explanations come to an end. And we don't ususally fear circularity or infinite regress in the artificial way philosophers do when they're doing philosophy.
How else did and do we learn the uses of words? How does someone puzzled by the use of words express that puzzlement in the form of a question? Is that an example of metaphysically-induced philosophical idiocy?
Explanations come to an end. And we don't ususally fear circularity or infinite regress in the artificial way philosophers do when they're doing philosophy.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Ahhh. The abstract "we" again. I am not asking you how WE use the word "morality".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:13 am We can explain the ways we use words in various ways, which twere tedious to rehearse. And if the explanation is linguistic, the ways we use the words in the explanation can be explained, and so on.
I am asking you how YOU use the word "morality".
Explain it!
Retard. I know very well how I use the word "morality". I am asking how YOU use that word.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:13 am How else did and do we learn the uses of words? How does someone puzzled by the use of words express that puzzlement in the form of a question? Is that an example of metaphysically-induced philosophical idiocy?
I am asking you that so that we can establish whether we use it differently.
Because IF we are using this word differently, then we mean different things when we use the word "morality".
And it's not entirely impossible that we mean different things when we use the word "meaning". Maybe we should check?
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
Perhaps you don't fear infinite regress, but you sure fear explaining - your explanation hasn't even started.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:13 am Explanations come to an end. And we don't ususally fear circularity or infinite regress in the artificial way philosophers do when they're doing philosophy.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
And at any rate if we've got some fetish for more or less trying to recreate the stuff about linguistics from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (or Quine's Word and Object, or whatever we're taken with) on a message board, we should probably (a) start a fresh thread about it, and (b) actually make a point/forward some thesis about something specific that's in dispute.
-
- Posts: 3900
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
1 Wittgenstein didn't write specifically about linguistics. But his later ideas have a direct bearing on my OP question because, as we've seen, the discussion quickly becomes one about theories of truth and knowledge. So I make no apology for introducing his way of thinking - which isn't to have 'some fetish for more or less trying to recreate the stuff'.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:35 am And at any rate if we've got some fetish for more or less trying to recreate the stuff about linguistics from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (or Quine's Word and Object, or whatever we're taken with) on a message board, we should probably (a) start a fresh thread about it, and (b) actually make a point/forward some thesis about something specific that's in dispute.
2 Quine's approach is tangential to Wittgenstein's and, arguably, opposed to it - as PMS Hacker has demonstrated.
3 If you want a thesis - I've been developing one - and stating it more or less formally - with regard to moral objectivism all through this and related discussions. But I've done all I can now. Tomorrow to fresh woods and pastures new.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Nothing is in dispute.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:35 am And at any rate if we've got some fetish for more or less trying to recreate the stuff about linguistics from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (or Quine's Word and Object, or whatever we're taken with) on a message board, we should probably (a) start a fresh thread about it, and (b) actually make a point/forward some thesis about something specific that's in dispute.
The point is that there is no point. That's Philosophy. In every context you are missing a Why? Intentionality.
WITTGENSTEIN: I won’t say anything which anyone can dispute. Or if anyone does dispute it, I will let that point drop and pass on to say something else.
TURING: I understand but I don’t agree that it is simply a question of giving new meanings to words.
WITTGENSTEIN: Turing doesn’t object to anything I say. He agrees with every word.
TURING: I see your point.
WITTGENSTEIN: I don’t have a point.
-
- Posts: 3900
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
There is a moral reason for showing why morality isn't objective - that there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.
People who think there are moral facts always think their own moral opinions are facts, and can therefore feel justified in imposing those moral opinions on everyone else, if they have the power to do so. I'm right, you're wrong; you're weak, I'm strong.
People who think there are moral facts always think their own moral opinions are facts, and can therefore feel justified in imposing those moral opinions on everyone else, if they have the power to do so. I'm right, you're wrong; you're weak, I'm strong.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Indeed. History has shown that the people have struggled against the moral objectivity of tyrrany since the dawn of civilisation.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:41 pm There is a moral reason for showing why morality isn't objective - that there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.
People who think there are moral facts always think their own moral opinions are facts, and can therefore feel justified in imposing those moral opinions on everyone else, if they have the power to do so. I'm right, you're wrong; you're weak, I'm strong.
The UNDHR si the result of this struggle.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Yep, as a moral realist, I wanna impose my morality on everyone: the tyranny of bein' able to do as you choose exceptin' for enslavin', murderin', rapin', and stealin'.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:41 pm There is a moral reason for showing why morality isn't objective - that there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.
People who think there are moral facts always think their own moral opinions are facts, and can therefore feel justified in imposing those moral opinions on everyone else, if they have the power to do so. I'm right, you're wrong; you're weak, I'm strong.
What a stinker I am.
-
- Posts: 3900
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I assume you think you're not a stinker, and that your regime would be beneficent.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:12 pmYep, as a moral realist, I wanna impose my morality on everyone: the tyranny of bein' able to do as you choose exceptin' for enslavin', murderin', rapin', and stealin'.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:41 pm There is a moral reason for showing why morality isn't objective - that there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.
People who think there are moral facts always think their own moral opinions are facts, and can therefore feel justified in imposing those moral opinions on everyone else, if they have the power to do so. I'm right, you're wrong; you're weak, I'm strong.
What a stinker I am.
But I chose my words carefully: moral objectivists 'can feel justified ...'
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Geee! "Moral subjectivists" struggled against tyranny?
Almost as if tyranny is objectively wrong!
Or were you meant to say that your "struggle against tyranny" amounted to nothing other than you imposing your will on other people you disagreed with?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I assume you think...your regime would be beneficent.
My regime...that's funny...you made a funny...
Yep, my regime would be beneficent for those who respect individual life, liberty, and property...not so much for those who don't.
My regime...that's funny...you made a funny...
Yep, my regime would be beneficent for those who respect individual life, liberty, and property...not so much for those who don't.
-
- Posts: 3900
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
And under my regime, respect for liberty would include women's control over their bodies and fertility. And respect for property would include ending the theft of surplus value from workers by capitalists. Unequal outcomes mean unequal opportunities in life, liberty and the acquisition of property.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:09 am I assume you think...your regime would be beneficent.
My regime...that's funny...you made a funny...
Yep, my regime would be beneficent for those who respect individual life, liberty, and property...not so much for those who don't.
-
- Posts: 12935
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
PH: And under my regime,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:43 amAnd under my regime, respect for liberty would include women's control over their bodies and fertility. And respect for property would include ending the theft of surplus value from workers by capitalists. Unequal outcomes mean unequal opportunities in life, liberty and the acquisition of property.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:09 am I assume you think...your regime would be beneficent.
My regime...that's funny...you made a funny...
Yep, my regime would be beneficent for those who respect individual life, liberty, and property...not so much for those who don't.
Who will give the F... to YOUR 'moral' maxims when it is so personal and subjective to only yourself.
At least with Henry's moral realism, there is some semblance of universality among moral realists thus objective, albeit ultimately intersubjective co-shared truth of moral reality.