I use the word 'we' to refer to English speakers, from whom you and I learned how to speak and understand English.Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 8:22 amWhat, EXACTLY, are you ASSUMING I am confused about?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pmPerhaps I can clear up your confusion.Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:13 am
Is that an objective statement, or is that just your own subjective viewpoint, which is just you expressing your own beliefs, judgments, or opinions?
If it is the latter, then it therefore could be false, wrong, and/or incorrect, correct?
But if it is the former, then what, EXACTLY, makes that one an objective statement?
Can opinions be wrong?
If yes, then EVERY thing you write and say here are just your opinions, right?
Absolutely EVERY is relative, to the observer.
And, when, and IF, you ever SEE what 'objective' is relative to, EXACTLY, then you will SEE how 'morality' can be VERY objective.
Also, it is NOT action, which is morally wrong or right. It is the mis/behavior that 'you', adult human beings, do, which is morally wrong/right. Which, by the way, is an objective, and IRREFUTABLE, Fact.
When one has arrived at an IRREFUTABLE Fact, then they have also reached objectivity, itself.1. Who, EXACTLY, is the 'we', which 'you' are referring to here?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 1 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So facts are a given.
2. "So, facts are a given", does NOT logically, soundly and validly follow from, "What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts".
3. How, EXACTLY, do those of 'you', who are in that 'we', form the opinion of what is ACTUALLY 'independent from opinion, when considering facts?
4. Who formed the opinion that "nothing can make morality objective", when considering the fact if ANY thing could make morality objective or NOT?
5. When we were considering the facts we concluded that there is some thing that can ACTUALLY make morality objective, which, by the way, could be considered 'independent from opinion'.
6. So, now, which 'we' has arrived at the correct conclusion? The 'we' that 'you' refer to, or, the 'we' that 'I' refer to?
So, in other words what you call a 'fact' and what you call 'reality' are your opinions, correct?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality - such as a tree in the garden, or the way we use the word tree - or a description of such a feature of reality that is true, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.
If no, then WHY NOT?And what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth, and what we call is a truth is that there is some thing that can and ACTUALLY does make morality objective.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 3 What we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth.From thee Truly objective perspective this is VERY, VERY True. But, considering YOUR CLAIM is just YOUR OPINION, then there is a HUGE court of which to appeal to. Which, by the way, 'you' are be JUDGED, RIGHT NOW, HERE.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm And, as with all the ways we use signs, there is no other court of appeal.So, according to YOUR "logic" here, the opinion that "nothing can make morality objective is true", remains an opinion, even if it is held by EVERY one, correct?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 4 An opinion, such as the opinion that the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, remains an opinion, even if it's held by everyone. But a fact - such as that water is H2O - remains a fact, even if no one acknowledges it. And that's the difference between facts and opinions.
If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT? And, what IS correct, EXACTLY?
Also, and again according to YOUR "logic" here, the fact that 'there ACTUALLY is some thing that can and does make morality objective, remains a fact, even if you or NO one else acknowledges it, correct?
If this is NOT correct, then WHY NOT? And, what IS correct, EXACTLY?
There are probably countless OTHER so-called "lines of arguments" for moral objectivity that so-called "detonates themselves", but I have NOT use ANY of them, so there was NO need to use this 'line of thinking', and DETRACTION, here.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:33 pm 5 If there are no such things as the things we call facts, then there are no moral facts. So this line of argument for moral objectivity detonates itself.
By the way, you have NOT YET provided an argument that is sound and valid for YOUR BELIEF, OPINION, and CLAIM that "there is nothing that can make morality objective.
Now, I asked you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you have OBVIOUSLY chose to IGNORE COMPLETELY, for reasons that will also become just as OBVIOUS. But, until you answer those questions, and the ones I posed to you this time in this reply, Honestly, you are NOT doing "yourself" any favors here.
Either you can back up and support YOUR CLAIMS by being ABLE to answer ALL CLARIFYING and CHALLENGING questions posed to you, or you CAN NOT. So far it is only the latter you have SHOWN here.
I've explained how I think we use the words truth, fact, objectivity, and so on. If you disagree with my explanations, please explain how you use these words.
My problem is that, to me, your questions show that you haven't understood or thought through the implications of what I'm saying.
So, for me, it'd be better if you set out your premises and conclusion - rather than just ask questions - so that I/we can see if your argument is valid and sound.
For example - is this this one of your premises? : 'There are no facts, but only opinions'. If so, I can easily show you why this premise detonates itself.