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

Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:53 am 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'?
Why does anything lead to this question?

Why do certain things require evidence while others don't?
Why do certain things require explanations while reality doesn't?

Sure seems like a double standard.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
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 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.
You are deceptive and rhetorical as usual;

Note
anthropocentric
1. regarding the human being as the central fact of the universe.
2. assuming human beings to be the final aim and end of the universe.
3. viewing and interpreting everything only in terms of human experience and values. Compare biocentric (def. 1).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anthropocentric

Why do you refer to meaning 1 when there are other meanings?

Matured intellectuals will give consideration to the "Principle of Charity" and in the context of the discussion so far, the appropriate meaning should be 3, even then, I would not take such a meaning too seriously but rather prefer to explain the point in detail.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
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 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.
Note I have presented the Embodied Mind OP and confirmed I do not accept substance-dualism leading to a soul that survive physical death.

But the emergence of the embodied mind [of life forces] of out a physical body is very critical.
As I had stated, a physical body can refer to that of a corpse or cadaver.
On the other hand, the concept of mind [more wider than the brain] not the human-body had been a contributive factor to the progress of humanity.

Note also;
PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40071

If you want to bring in anthropocentric, see my post above.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:53 am Thanks for these questions. What puzzles me is why your questions make it difficult to answer my questions about non-physical things and causes.
I think questions about what consciousness and experiencing are are hard to answer, period. I don't think one is committed to dualism if one thinks mind and brain are not the same, let alone that they are very useful ways of talking about real things.
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?
I added 'subjective' and while not happy with the redundancy, the idea is to make sure we are not only talking about having lived through, but all the qualia that go along with that.
Do you want evidence for the existence of 'an experience', as another wants evidence for the existence of 'reality'?
Not in this discussion. I asked where as a literal question. Where is the experiencing taking place? I can't remember if you equate mind with brain, or think that mind is a made up idea for what is really brain, but that's where I am probing. Are you saying that experiencing is happening in the brain? Where are dreams, thoughts emotions, those things that get posited in minds? The brain, the body, within the body in and around the body? If it's really a physical thing, where is it? I am not saying there is no answer to that. I am interested in your answer, and then more questions will come up.
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.
But that wasn't my point in saying it is expanding. You brought up substances. That if you are positing minds, then it is a dualism and something non-material. I think that's all meaningless, this substance talk, first because the word physical has no meaning. It just means, stuff we consider real. So, to just to expectations of dualism makes no sense to me. I think I said something about an aspect of what gets called the physical as one option.

I also pointed out that everything that we think 'physical' means is derived from qualia. We used to have these neat categories, with spiritual or transcendent things being immaterial - but that last term actually had some kind of meaning. Neutrinos, massless particles, things not just particles in superposition are all considered physical but they most certainly, if described to a medieval theologian have sounded like immaterial things.

The utterly metaphorical terms are baggage from old battles and old dualisms. I am not saying there is a monism, not that there is no dualism. I don't think that's really meaningful.
What I'm unsure about is what 'I don't think one has to commit to substance claims' means.
I hope the above gives some sense this.
(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.)
No worries.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:12 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:53 am Thanks for these questions. What puzzles me is why your questions make it difficult to answer my questions about non-physical things and causes.
I think questions about what consciousness and experiencing are are hard to answer, period.
But suppose we explain what we mean by the word consciousness by saying it's 'awareness of our selves and our environment'? The next questions could be 'But what is awareness?' Is an amoeba aware of its self and its environment? Or a hamster? Where does awareness/consciousness kick in? Is there a tip-over point in neural development? Do dogs have minds, and if not, why not?

And we can play the same game with 'experience' and 'experiencing'. Point is: why are questions about consciousness, experiencing - mind, knowledge, truth, identity, intention, will, etc, etc - hard to answer? Why not apply the Razor?: there's no reason to think of these nouns as names of things that therefore may or may not exist, and that, if they do exist, can be described.

Suppose these 'things' are mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention? We use nouns to name things, but the meaning of a noun is not the thing it names. And abstract nouns (misleading name) need not be names of things at all. So the supposedly tough questions - what are mind and consciousness, and so on? - are profoundly misleading misfirings.

I don't think one is committed to dualism if one thinks mind and brain are not the same, let alone that they are very useful ways of talking about real things.
Okay. But I think this (commendable) demystification of the mind radically changes the mind-dependence/mind-independence distinction.
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?
I added 'subjective' and while not happy with the redundancy, the idea is to make sure we are not only talking about having lived through, but all the qualia that go along with that.
'Quale: a quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person.' Sorry - I don't understand your point here - but it may not be important.
Do you want evidence for the existence of 'an experience', as another wants evidence for the existence of 'reality'?
Not in this discussion. I asked where as a literal question. Where is the experiencing taking place? I can't remember if you equate mind with brain, or think that mind is a made up idea for what is really brain, but that's where I am probing. Are you saying that experiencing is happening in the brain? Where are dreams, thoughts emotions, those things that get posited in minds? The brain, the body, within the body in and around the body? If it's really a physical thing, where is it? I am not saying there is no answer to that. I am interested in your answer, and then more questions will come up.
Again, it seems to me these questions arise from a misconception. If 'having an experience' is a physical thing, it must have a physical location. Or try another philosophical question: what and where is knowledge? In the brain? Or is it also in muscle memory? Or can it be in books and librairies? Or try: what and where is information?

The mistake is always the same: think a noun is the name of something; ask what and where that thing is; if it has no physical identity, conclude it must be non-physical; call it a Form, or a universal, or a concept, or an abstraction; finally, invent a place where such things exist - such as the mind.
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.
But that wasn't my point in saying it is expanding. You brought up substances. That if you are positing minds, then it is a dualism and something non-material. I think that's all meaningless, this substance talk, first because the word physical has no meaning. It just means, stuff we consider real. So, to just to expectations of dualism makes no sense to me. I think I said something about an aspect of what gets called the physical as one option.
But why does the word 'physical' have no meaning? Why is 'stuff that we consider real' not an explanation? And suppose we use 'real' to mean 'consisting of energy or the form of energy we call matter', or 'consisting of the stuff studied by physicists and other natural scientists'. Doesn't the term 'non-physical' then have at least a reasonably clear use? Signs can mean only what we use them to mean - and explanations come to an end.

I also pointed out that everything that we think 'physical' means is derived from qualia. We used to have these neat categories, with spiritual or transcendent things being immaterial - but that last term actually had some kind of meaning. Neutrinos, massless particles, things not just particles in superposition are all considered physical but they most certainly, if described to a medieval theologian have sounded like immaterial things.
I suggest that 'is derived from qualia' is a rather peculiar philosophical way of explaining the physical. Isn't it revamped empiricism? But anyway, word-use often changes; the meaning of a name is not the thing it names; and things don't name (just as they don't describe) themselves. And this applies to 'the physical'.

The utterly metaphorical terms are baggage from old battles and old dualisms.
Yes. The problem of labels and their baggage. And my point is that, if we recognise this, we can't rationally carry on talking about mind-dependence and mind-independence - which is what VA and others want to do - in the context of subjectivity and objectivity.
I am not saying there is a monism, not that there is no dualism. I don't think that's really meaningful.
What I'm unsure about is what 'I don't think one has to commit to substance claims' means.
I hope the above gives some sense this.
(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.)
No worries.
More to be said on all this, I'm sure. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 10:48 am But suppose we explain what we mean by the word consciousness by saying it's 'awareness of our selves and our environment'? The next questions could be 'But what is awareness?'
Suppose you explained what you mean by the word explain by saying it's makingan idea clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts.. The next question would be "But what is clarity?"
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 10:48 am But suppose we explain what we mean by the word consciousness by saying it's 'awareness of our selves and our environment'? The next questions could be 'But what is awareness?' Is an amoeba aware of its self and its environment? Or a hamster? Where does awareness/consciousness kick in? Is there a tip-over point in neural development? Do dogs have minds, and if not, why not?

And we can play the same game with 'experience' and 'experiencing'. Point is: why are questions about consciousness, experiencing - mind, knowledge, truth, identity, intention, will, etc, etc - hard to answer? Why not apply the Razor?: there's no reason to think of these nouns as names of things that therefore may or may not exist, and that, if they do exist, can be described.

Suppose these 'things' are mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention? We use nouns to name things, but the meaning of a noun is not the thing it names. And abstract nouns (misleading name) need not be names of things at all. So the supposedly tough questions - what are mind and consciousness, and so on? - are profoundly misleading misfirings.
As I had claimed there are two senses to reality, i.e.

1. The human-based FSK sense of reality,
2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

You are finding certain question hard to answer because you are grounding your points and arguments based on an illusion re 2 above, i.e. a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, or a state of affairs.

Re 1, what is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK; at present, the most credible, reliable and objective FSK is the scientific-FSK which is the standard [100/100] all other FSKs are rated upon.

Comparatively, the theistic FSK based on faith is rated at 1/100.
In the case of your FSK re philosophical realism of mind-independence it would be rated at 5/100. [just in case, 'mind' here is not that of substance-dualism].

With the human-based FSK, we can handle any question about consciousness, experiencing - mind, knowledge, truth, identity, intention, will, etc. etc. by determining their specific FSK and rating them in term of their credibility, reliability and objectivity; from there we can deliberate on their utilities to humanity.

The term 'consciousness' is dealt with the following FSKs, philosophy of mind [soft and hard] religion, spirituality, altered states of consciousness, cognitive science, involving fields such as psychology, linguistics, anthropology,[6] neuropsychology and neuroscience.

As long as we are aware of the reliability, credibility and objective of each of the above specific human-based FSK, there is no reason to reject them outright; the theistic FSK, despite it very low objectivity in reality, has tremendous salvific values to the majority of humans at present. Other FSKs with varying degrees of objectivity will have varying degrees of utilities to humanity at present.

You with your grounding on an illusion and dogmatically clinging* to it is rejecting whatever perspectives that do not conform to your ideology, i.e. philosophical realism - the typical primal 'resistance to change' as a defense mechanism.
* dogmatically clinging as driven by an evolutionary default that generate terrible cognitive dissonances for non-acceptance.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA has now adopted talk of 'life forces' activating the human brain to produce the emergent human mind, from which reality isn't and can't be independent. And this all means there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

Where to begin?
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 9:52 am VA has now adopted talk of 'life forces' activating the human brain to produce the emergent human mind, from which reality isn't and can't be independent. And this all means there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

Where to begin?
He could just have said 5 years ago that "okay morality is subjective, but I think Islam is a really bad subjective morality, therefore.."
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 9:59 am He could just have said 5 years ago that "okay morality is subjective, but I think Islam is a really bad subjective morality, therefore.."
If you have a system in which you can rank "subjective" moralities against each other in terms of their "subjective real badness" you can obtain a total ordering.

e.g least really bad to most really bad.

This is Mathematically obvious. If you can compare numbers to each other - you can sort them in order of smallest to largest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order

From there onwards it's very little to be done about people who insist that 2 is less than 1.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

According to VA, I'm a philosophical realist, clinging to an outmoded illusion. But here's VA's silly argument.

Premise: Humans can perceive, know and describe reality only in human ways.
Conclusion: Therefore,
1 - humans can never know reality-in-itself - Kant's teasing 'noumenon'; or
2 - there is no such thing as reality-in-itself - Kant's teasing 'noumenon'.

VA either doesn't or can't afford to recognise that neither conclusion follows from the premise.

VA insists that realism has to be absolutist or essentialist - which is false. Philosophical realism does not entail belief in the existence of reality-in-itself - or even that such a term has any coherent meaning whatsoever.

VA's philosophical anti-realism is as conceptually incoherent as the straw man realism he can't do without. And philosophical antirealism is a tired, outmoded fashion from the last half of the 20th century.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with moral objectivity - which is a contradiction in terms.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 5:40 pm According to VA, I'm a philosophical realist, clinging to an outmoded illusion. But here's VA's silly argument.
There are many types of realism.
You cannot deny you are a philosophical realist.
Premise: Humans can perceive, know and describe reality only in human ways.
Conclusion: Therefore,
1 - humans can never know reality-in-itself - Kant's teasing 'noumenon'; or
2 - there is no such thing as reality-in-itself - Kant's teasing 'noumenon'.

VA either doesn't or can't afford to recognise that neither conclusion follows from the premise.
Strawman - the ">millionth" times.

I NEVER claimed there is no such thing as reality-in-itself [noumenon] because it cannot be known.

I deliberately posted Kant's chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena to give you an idea why the noumenon is illusory is claimed as positively real in your sense of reality, i.e. philosophical realism.
If you are an average person, you have to read it at least 10 times to grasp what Kant intended to convey.
Suggest you take it seriously, if you understand [not necessary agree] Kant's in this chapter, I guarantee your thinking skills would have increased by one notch.
VA insists that [philosophical]-realism has to be absolutist or essentialist - which is false. Philosophical realism does not entail belief in the existence of reality-in-itself - or even that such a term has any coherent meaning whatsoever.
Since there are many types of realism, I have to be specific, i.e. your realism is that of philosophical-realism or p-realism.
Your definition of fact as a feature of reality is that which is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affair, independent of the human-body-brain-mind, i.e. opinions, beliefs, and judgments.
This is obviously referencing the reality in itself or thing-in-itself that is independent to the human-body-brain-mind in accordance to your sense of reality.
Show me where I am wrong?
VA's philosophical anti-realism is as conceptually incoherent as the straw man realism he can't do without. And philosophical antirealism is a tired, outmoded fashion from the last half of the 20th century.
My anti-p-realism is that of the Kantian type which is grounded on the human-based scientific-FSK.
You don't agree with the human-based scientific reality, truths and facts?
Show me why this is not realistic nor tenable?
And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with moral objectivity - which is a contradiction in terms.
My principle is this [repeated a 'million' times];
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
The human-based scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective at present.
The human-based moral FSK has near equivalence objectivity to the scientific-FSK because almost all of its critical inputs are from the scientific FSK.
Thus the human-based moral FSK enables the realization and emergence of objective moral facts which is subsequently perceive, known and described, then applied as a guide only.
Therefore the human-based FSK morality is highly objective.

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?p=487529#p487529
just edited it to include the above last para.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 9:52 am VA has now adopted talk of 'life forces' activating the human brain to produce the emergent human mind, from which reality isn't and can't be independent. And this all means there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

Where to begin?
You are so ignorant?

I have been reminding you, you cannot ignored the 13.7 billions years of conditions that is embedded in the human brain, body and mind that conditioned what is reality upon a human based FSK.

It began with the forces from the Big Bang that is imputed during abiogenesis from molecules, atoms, and particles that embedded as life-forces i.e. forces that drive living beings which enable the emergence of nervous system, brain and the mind to top it up; the mind is evident in human beings.

What are objective moral facts are the physical neural algorithm in the brain and the software that contribute to morality [as essential of human nature] as conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK.

No living forces, i.e. a corpse meant no active nervous system, brain and mind.
How do you counter that?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 5:11 am Reality...[is]...conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
False. Yes, we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. But no, reality is not 'conditioned upon' (?) what humans perceive, know and describe. That is a grossly unscientific and anthropocentric claim for which there's no evidence whatsoever.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 7:01 am False. Yes, we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. But no, reality is not 'conditioned upon' (?) what humans perceive, know and describe. That is a grossly unscientific and anthropocentric claim for which there's no evidence whatsoever.
Outside of an anthropocentric context what the hell is "evidence" ?!?
Post Reply