What could make morality objective?
-
- Posts: 3904
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Moral ego-fascist: 'There are moral facts, and I know what they are. But you're free to accept or reject them.'
Fucking moron.
Fucking moron.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Fascists use murder as a political tool for rooting out ideological dissent.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.
Is that why you reject the wrongness of murder?
-
- Posts: 6827
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
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?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.'
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.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Quine solved all of that nonsense.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?
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
-
- Posts: 3904
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 12959
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Your above is very rhetorical to suit your biasness, i.e. a crazy Strawman.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.
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].
-
- Posts: 6827
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Au contraire, you refer to murder and also more generally to the reduction of evil acts.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.
-
- Posts: 3904
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
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.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].
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.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Why are you still pretending that you actually give a damn about sound/valid arguments?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:55 amNo. 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.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].
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 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.
-
- Posts: 12959
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
I have already discussed the point in detail elsewhere, thus I did not repeat them.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:55 amNo. 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.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].
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3904
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
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.
'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.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Speaking of dependents...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.
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
-
- Posts: 3904
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
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.
'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.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Sorry, whose intellectual and moral problems are you trying to cure while rejecting anthropocentrism?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.
I didn't quite catch that.
-
- Posts: 3904
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Thanks for these questions. What puzzles me is why your questions make it difficult to answer my questions about non-physical things and causes.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:33 amWell, 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?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.'
And do you withhold judgment on whether other people have subjective experiences?
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.)