When I say "Morality is objective", I am saying "If all minds ceased to exist, morality would continue to exist". Thus, if you think the latter is silly, you also think the former is silly.
But now you're also adding that it's self-defeating.
I am merely informing everyone what I mean when I say "Morality is objective".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:08 amOntology. Epistemology. Is just a way to confuse yourself even further.
I have absolutely no idea what it means to say that minds are ontological.Are minds ontological? They sure are! Everything that exists is ontological.
If all it means is that minds exist, then yes, they are ontological, i.e. existent.
What do you mean by "objective morality"?But if objective morality exists only in ontological minds and ontological minds disappear - is morality still objective?
As I already told you, when I speak of "objective morality", I am talking about morality that would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist. As such, objective morality, in my sense of the term, cannot exist inside minds. Why? Because if X exists inside minds, then by removing all minds, you also remove everything inside them, which also means, you remove X.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:08 amIn the ontological sense, to say that a thing is "objective" is to say that it is mind-independent, i.e. that it exists independently of minds. That, in turn, can mean one of the following:
Minds do exist. Where exactly did you get the idea that I am saying, explicitly or implicitly, that minds do not exist? What you're responding to is merely a definition of the term "objective" as I use it.Q.E.D the confusion has already settled indeed.
You appear to be saying that minds are NOT objective e.g that your mind doesn't exist ontologically.
What a peculiar mindset.
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:08 amSure, if minds ceased to exist, there would be no mind to ask questions and no mind to care about answers.
But how exactly is that relevant to the topic at hand?
Yes, my mind is imagining its non-existence. My mind does not have to cease to exist in order to imagine its non-existence.How is it not relevant?!?
Your thought experiment entails a scenario where minds cease to exist. So your mind imagines its own non-existence? How? As your mind disappears - the thought experiment disappears with it!
Your conception of "objectivity" as mind-independence is a non-starter.
We're discussing what's possible in this universe. The claim that I am making is that it's impossible for morality to cease to exist at all ( let alone when a set of conditions are met, e.g. when all minds are removed from existence. )Sure. But the moment you imagine a universe without your mind in it - you are talking about some other, imaginary universe, not this universe.
This universe has your mind in it. The one you are talking about doesn't.
As I said in the OP, the universe isn't merely defined by what's actual ( i.e. what was, what is and what will be. ) It's also defined by what's possible within it and what's not.
So when minds disappear, it becomes possible for things to not be identical to themselves?I am using them exactly as you are using them. If minds disappear - laws disappear.
That's the only part, actually.That's not my position.
I agree with the first part (if minds ceased to exist morality would also cease to exist - yes.)
It's a definitional premise. It merely states how I'm using the term "objective" within the context of this thread. When I say "objective", I don't mean "existent". I mean "mind-independent". And by "mind-independent", I mean "that which would continue to exist if all minds were removed from existence".But I disagree with the premise that the objectivity of morality requires mind-independence.
I also disagree with the insinuation that minds; and the contents thereof are not objective.
In this sense, minds aren't objective. They aren't mind-independent. They wouldn't continue to exist if all minds ceased to exist. But note that, to say that minds aren't objective -- in this sense of the word, of course -- isn't to say that they aren't existent.
Similarly, to say that morality isn't objective in this sense of the word isn't to say that morality isn't objective in some other sense of the word ( e.g. in the sense of being existent. )
You're merely misunderstanding what I'm saying.That's just the usual philosophical mental muddle.