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: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Moral ego-fascist: 'There are moral facts, and I know what they are. But you're free to accept or reject them.'

Fucking moron.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:23 am Moral ego-fascist: 'There are moral facts, and I know what they are. But you're free to accept or reject them.'

Fucking moron.
Fascists use murder as a political tool for rooting out ideological dissent.

Is that why you reject the wrongness of murder?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:26 am What and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist?

If the mind is a physical thing, what evidence is there for its existence?

If the mind is a non-physical thing, what evidence is there for its existence? How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How can a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

Oh dear. 'Of course the mind exists 'as real'. But. Erm. Oh dear.'
Well, I don't think one has to commit to substance claims. You have subjective experiences. Where are they? What are they? What is conscious and what isn't? What's the mechanism?
And do you withhold judgment on whether other people have subjective experiences?
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Tue Jun 06, 2023 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:33 am Well, I don't think one has to commit to substance claims. You have subjective experiences. Where are they?
And do you withhold judgment on whether other people have subjective experiences?
Quine solved all of that nonsense.

What exists? Everything.
What doesn't exist? Nothing. It's an empty category/set/bag. No examples of a nothing can be provided.

If you are talking about it you are ontologically committed to it.
If you have nothing in mind - shut up about it.

Queue the usual sophistry re: talking about "nothing".

Grelling-Nelson paradox
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Elsewhere, VA has opeed: Hume - moral facts are in human nature.

1 Whether or not Hume (or anyone else) thought/thinks there are moral facts in human nature may be interesting. But it has no bearing whatsoever on whether there are in fact moral facts in human nature. An argument from authority - A thought/thinks B is the case; therefore, B is the case - is always fallacious.

2 VA's argument isn't about morality at all. Here's a stripped down summary:

Premise: It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.
Conclusion: Therefore doing X and not doing Y are moral facts in human nature.

Notice - neither the premise nor the conclusion is a moral assertion. So there's no reason to call X and Y - or doing X and Y - moral facts. They're just putative facts about human motivation. So here's the structure of VA's mistake:

P1 Action X is to the net detriment of the individual and society.
P2 It's in human nature not to do action X.
C Therefore, it's in human nature not to act to the net detriment of the individual and society.

Again, notice that there's no mention of morality, rightness or wrongness, good or evil, should or ought. So this is not a moral argument. The assumption that acting to the net detriment of the individual and society is morally wrong or - as VA prefers - 'evil', is a matter of opinion that this argument doesn't establish.

And VA does this for a simple reason. He wants to demonstrate the existence of moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. But his evidence and argument don't do this, so the moral assumption has to be disguised and, as it were, smuggled in. It goes like this:

1 It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.
2 Action X is morally right/good/non-evil, and action Y is morally wrong/bad/evil.

There's no logical connection whatsoever between these two assertions. To repeat: non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12358
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:53 pm Elsewhere, VA has opeed: Hume - moral facts are in human nature.

1 Whether or not Hume (or anyone else) thought/thinks there are moral facts in human nature may be interesting. But it has no bearing whatsoever on whether there are in fact moral facts in human nature. An argument from authority - A thought/thinks B is the case; therefore, B is the case - is always fallacious.

2 VA's argument isn't about morality at all. Here's a stripped down summary:

Premise: It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.
Conclusion: Therefore doing X and not doing Y are moral facts in human nature.

Notice - neither the premise nor the conclusion is a moral assertion. So there's no reason to call X and Y - or doing X and Y - moral facts. They're just putative facts about human motivation. So here's the structure of VA's mistake:

P1 Action X is to the net detriment of the individual and society.
P2 It's in human nature not to do action X.
C Therefore, it's in human nature not to act to the net detriment of the individual and society.

Again, notice that there's no mention of morality, rightness or wrongness, good or evil, should or ought. So this is not a moral argument. The assumption that acting to the net detriment of the individual and society is morally wrong or - as VA prefers - 'evil', is a matter of opinion that this argument doesn't establish.

And VA does this for a simple reason. He wants to demonstrate the existence of moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. But his evidence and argument don't do this, so the moral assumption has to be disguised and, as it were, smuggled in. It goes like this:

1 It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.
2 Action X is morally right/good/non-evil, and action Y is morally wrong/bad/evil.

There's no logical connection whatsoever between these two assertions. To repeat: non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.
Your above is very rhetorical to suit your biasness, i.e. a crazy Strawman.
I NEVER refer to actions at all.

Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.

1. Human nature exists as a real human-based fact [biological and anthropological FSK]
2. It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.
3. Morality is an innate part of human nature.
4. Morality is the elimination and modulation of Evil to enable its related Good.
5. Since 3, there are moral [3] facts [1].

Re Hume, I argued as follows;
viewtopic.php?p=647068#p647068

"It lies in yourself, not in the object." is stated by Hume.

Hume was countering those [theists in particular] who believe that moral facts exist independent to the human conditions like external objects and Plato's real Ideas out there.

Hume asserted, nope! "It lies in yourself, not in the object."
Because it lies in yourself, i.e. as sentiments [sympathy], feelings, they cannot be objective moral facts.

But I argue, these moral sentiments are supported by physical neural correlates and algorithms in the brain verifiable by the scientific FSK; when inputted within a moral FSK, they emerged as objective moral facts, thus morality is objective.

Hume claimed morality is grounded on sympathy [empathy].
There is now a clue that empathy is related to physical mirror neurons in the brain.
This clue lead us to the inference that mirror neurons contribute as one element of an neural algorithm [involving other parts of the brain] that contribute to empathy - an element of morality.
Because mirror-neurons are factual, it leads to .. there are objective moral facts within a human-based moral FSK [model].
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:14 am Your above is very rhetorical to suit your biasness, i.e. a crazy Strawman.
I NEVER refer to actions at all.
Au contraire, you refer to murder and also more generally to the reduction of evil acts.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:14 am 1. Human nature exists as a real human-based fact [biological and anthropological FSK]
2. It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.
3. Morality is an innate part of human nature.
4. Morality is the elimination and modulation of Evil to enable its related Good.
5. Since 3, there are moral [3] facts [1].
No. Triple no. Leaving aside the much-disputed claim that there is such a thing as human nature - the illegitimate leap from 2 to 3/4 in the above is precisely what I'm talking about.

Suppose this premise is true: It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.

And suppose your description of morality is correct: the elimination and modulation of evil to enable its related good. (And suppose we agree on what counts as evil.)

There's nothing in your argument to show that doing X and not doing Y leads to the elimination and modulation of evil to enable its related good. You merely assume the connection is clear.

You begin with a moral belief, judgement or opinion. You then assume it and forget the assumption to construct a bogus argument for moral objectivity.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:14 am 1. Human nature exists as a real human-based fact [biological and anthropological FSK]
2. It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.
3. Morality is an innate part of human nature.
4. Morality is the elimination and modulation of Evil to enable its related Good.
5. Since 3, there are moral [3] facts [1].
No. Triple no. Leaving aside the much-disputed claim that there is such a thing as human nature - the illegitimate leap from 2 to 3/4 in the above is precisely what I'm talking about.

Suppose this premise is true: It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.

And suppose your description of morality is correct: the elimination and modulation of evil to enable its related good. (And suppose we agree on what counts as evil.)

There's nothing in your argument to show that doing X and not doing Y leads to the elimination and modulation of evil to enable its related good. You merely assume the connection is clear.

You begin with a moral belief, judgement or opinion. You then assume it and forget the assumption to construct a bogus argument for moral objectivity.
Why are you still pretending that you actually give a damn about sound/valid arguments?

I gave you a sound/valid argument and you still rejected it.

You've been engaging on bad faith and lying all along about the rules you are playing by.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12358
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:14 am 1. Human nature exists as a real human-based fact [biological and anthropological FSK]
2. It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.
3. Morality is an innate part of human nature.
4. Morality is the elimination and modulation of Evil to enable its related Good.
5. Since 3, there are moral [3] facts [1].
No. Triple no. Leaving aside the much-disputed claim that there is such a thing as human nature - the illegitimate leap from 2 to 3/4 in the above is precisely what I'm talking about.

Suppose this premise is true: It's in human nature to do X and not do Y.

And suppose your description of morality is correct: the elimination and modulation of evil to enable its related good. (And suppose we agree on what counts as evil.)

There's nothing in your argument to show that doing X and not doing Y leads to the elimination and modulation of evil to enable its related good. You merely assume the connection is clear.

You begin with a moral belief, judgement or opinion. You then assume it and forget the assumption to construct a bogus argument for moral objectivity.
I have already discussed the point in detail elsewhere, thus I did not repeat them.

Note I discussed the human based moral fact from a moral FSK, re there is an oughtness-not-to-kill-humans analogy to the oughtness-to-breathe.
Such an oughtness is represented by physical neural correlates and the related neural algorithm.
These are the objective moral facts supervened upon the physical neural correlates and life-forces just as the embodied mind is supervened upon the physical brain and the body.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Elsewhere, I suggested we use the term 'human-body-independent' instead of 'mind-independent', since we physicalists agree that the mind isn't a separate, non-physical thing. Here's VA's unsurprising response:

'Nah, I prefer to use the term 'mind-independent' which is the common usage and usual to type; you are the only exceptional one. I suggest you interpret my 'mind-independent' as 'human-body-independent' which implied including the brain, mind and body.'

Point is, VA's variant of anti-realism depends on substance-dualism: reality isn't and can't be independent from the human mind. If, instead of 'mind', we substitute what we're actually referring to - 'the human body', the absurdity of so-called anti-realism is obvious: 'reality isn't and can't be independent from the human body'.

In other words, VA wants to both deny and affirm substance-dualism. It's farcical.

And the completely unjustified anthropocentrism - only humans have minds - goes without saying.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:45 am Elsewhere, I suggested we use the term 'human-body-independent' instead of 'mind-independent', since we physicalists agree that the mind isn't a separate, non-physical thing. Here's VA's unsurprising response:

'Nah, I prefer to use the term 'mind-independent' which is the common usage and usual to type; you are the only exceptional one. I suggest you interpret my 'mind-independent' as 'human-body-independent' which implied including the brain, mind and body.'

Point is, VA's variant of anti-realism depends on substance-dualism: reality isn't and can't be independent from the human mind. If, instead of 'mind', we substitute what we're actually referring to - 'the human body', the absurdity of so-called anti-realism is obvious: 'reality isn't and can't be independent from the human body'.

In other words, VA wants to both deny and affirm substance-dualism. It's farcical.

And the completely unjustified anthropocentrism - only humans have minds - goes without saying.
Speaking of dependents...

You don't have to do philosophy in order to be alive; but you do have to be alive in order to do philosophy.

Non-existent philosophers have no use for morals, truth, knowledge or philosophy.

The rejection of anthropocentrism is the crux of philosophical idiocy. That's why it's called the fucking Humanities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

So, the cure for humanity's intellectual and moral problems is anthropocentrism.

'Anthropocentric. Adjective. regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals:'

What a fucking morally imbecilic moron.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:16 pm So, the cure for humanity's intellectual and moral problems is anthropocentrism.

'Anthropocentric. Adjective. regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals:'

What a fucking morally imbecilic moron.
Sorry, whose intellectual and moral problems are you trying to cure while rejecting anthropocentrism?

I didn't quite catch that.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:26 am What and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist?

If the mind is a physical thing, what evidence is there for its existence?

If the mind is a non-physical thing, what evidence is there for its existence? How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How can a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

Oh dear. 'Of course the mind exists 'as real'. But. Erm. Oh dear.'
Well, I don't think one has to commit to substance claims. You have subjective experiences. Where are they? What are they? What is conscious and what isn't? What's the mechanism?
And do you withhold judgment on whether other people have subjective experiences?
Thanks for these questions. What puzzles me is why your questions make it difficult to answer my questions about non-physical things and causes.

Why does 'having experiences' - not sure why 'subjective' clarifies - lead to questions about what and where those experiences are, as though there is or can be no physical, natural explanation? Do you want evidence for the existence of 'an experience', as another wants evidence for the existence of 'reality'?

I agree with you that what we call 'the physical', and our understanding of its nature, has changed radically - and probably will change in the future. And I agree it's rational to keep an open mind about the possibility of non-physical things and causes, such as fairies and gods - or minds. So it's a 'pending evidence', inductive matter.

What I'm unsure about is what 'I don't think one has to commit to substance claims' means.

(I apologise for not responding to your recent extended post about this. I can't seem to find it atm. What you say is very interesting.)
Post Reply