Is morality objective or subjective?

[FlashDangerpants]

You've invoked an objective moral espression in your attempted syllogism: "is wrong."

But you're not an objectivist, so this isn't a syllogism that can possibly represent your view. You need to put in the term that you believe will warrant the value judgment, not merely borrow a concept from the objectivism in which you do not believe.

Try again, if you would. But this time, put in the name of the dynamic you think actually warrants the prohibition, rather than relying on a stock term you deny can exist. Check the "boo" version, and you'll see how it should work.

I made a statement that uses normal language in the normal way

But it is normal, then for people to believe in objective morality. For "is wrong," means "exists as wrong." If something already "exists as" or "exists in the state of being" wrong before you arrive, then it's objective, not subjective.

So if you're prepared to give away the whole game of ever justifying subjectivism, right at the first gate, you can insist on your usage. But if you're not prepared simply to concede my rightness about moral objectivism, you should revise.

I have been engaging you on the matter of Frege-Geach because it is a technical philosophical question that you have been misrepresenting. That's about the limit of what I am currently interested in.

[Immanuel Can]

I made a statement that uses normal language in the normal way

But it is normal, then for people to believe in objective morality. For "is wrong," means "exists as wrong." If something already "exists as" or "exists in the state of being" wrong before you arrive, then it's objective, not subjective.

So if you're prepared to give away the whole game of ever justifying subjectivism, right at the first gate, you can insist on your usage. But if you're not prepared simply to concede my rightness about moral objectivism, you should revise.

I have been engaging you on the matter of Frege-Geach...

And I've been telling you to read the PN article. You won't, so that's a dead end. And in any case, I've pointed out to you that the task doesn't change merely because you insist on changing the name of the task. So that's a dead end again.

So do it, if you can. And if you can't...well, that'll be obvious.

[FlashDangerpants]

I didn't learn about Frege-Geach a few days ago from a 500 word essay in PN.

It really has zero effect what nomenclature the author uses. The problem he poses remains. He could have called it "the Wimble-Wobble" problem, and it would look exactly the same.

Here's a 10 minute video about the Frege-Geach problem. It skips some stuff such as compositionality, but it's fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wg1l7_ldf4

It is absolutlely only a problem for non-cognitivism which I have already explained for you several times.

• It is so because it is entirely dependent on the reduction of moral properties to emotional states, opinions, judgments etc (the definitive move that makes a theory non-cognitive). Again, I have explained that several times.

• The bit where you say that "stealing is wrong" is exactly the same as "boo stealing" is Frege's Principle of Identity Substitution, this would be true with any name for the argument and the argument would be called a 'Fregean argument' irrespective of its name because of this.

So you see, I am not a non-cog, therefore I don't perform a reduction of meaning when I say "lies are usually wrong" to "I normally frown when people lie".

[Immanuel Can]

It is absolutlely only a problem for non-cognitivism which I have already explained for you several times.

That would only be true if you agree that all morality is nothing but pure fiction. If you think that morality is any kind of real thing...that is, that you can talk meaningfully about it at all, then you've got to do the syllogism.

So let's see it.

[Harbal]

It is absolutlely only a problem for non-cognitivism which I have already explained for you several times.

That would only be true if you agree that all morality is nothing but pure fiction. If you think that morality is any kind of real thing...that is, that you can talk meaningfully about it at all, then you've got to do the syllogism.

So let's see it.

God makes you say the strangest things, IC.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is absolutlely only a problem for non-cognitivism which I have already explained for you several times.

That would only be true if you agree that all morality is nothing but pure fiction. If you think that morality is any kind of real thing...that is, that you can talk meaningfully about it at all, then you've got to do the syllogism.

So let's see it.

Please, I'm begging you now, please just watch this very short intro to the workings of Frege-Geach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wg1l7_ldf4

[FlashDangerpants]

It is absolutlely only a problem for non-cognitivism which I have already explained for you several times.

That would only be true if you agree that all morality is nothing but pure fiction. If you think that morality is any kind of real thing...that is, that you can talk meaningfully about it at all, then you've got to do the syllogism.

So let's see it.

God makes you say the strangest things, IC.

I've seen so many people on this forum suggest that IC is really smart but those rhetorical tricks he uses are an honesty problem. But I just don't see this evidence of him being smart. I think he uses those tricks to cover up confusion more than anything else.

[Harbal]

many people on this forum suggest that IC is really smart but those rhetorical tricks he uses are an honesty problem.

I can only assume that God is prepared to overlook it under the circumstances.

[Atla]

If you think that morality is any kind of real thing...that is, that you can talk meaningfully about it at all, then you've got to do the syllogism.

Now I'm slightly curious, aside from non-cognitivism (whatever the hell that even means, I'm definitely not one of those), what's the issue with moral syllogisms? I saw this one:

P1: Killing is wrong.
P2: If killing is wrong, then getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

What's the problem with it? Well aside from P2 being unnecessary.

P: Killing is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you think that morality is any kind of real thing...that is, that you can talk meaningfully about it at all, then you've got to do the syllogism.

Now I'm slightly curious, aside from non-cognitivism (whatever the hell that even means, I'm definitely not one of those), what's the issue with moral syllogisms? I saw this one:

P1: Killing is wrong.
P2: If killing is wrong, then getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

What's the problem with it? Well aside from P2 being unnecessary.

P: Killing is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

There is no issue for anyone else. For a non-cog P1 doesn't mean killing is wrong, it means boo to killing, because the expression is merely a reference to an internal state of dissaproval. But in P2, you can't have 'IF boo killing' because the conditional operation is cognitive and thus the P2 cannot convert to a non-cog boo statement.

So that means there is a difference between P1 "killing is wrong" and the P2 "killing is wrong" becasue only one of them can perform a Fregean conversion to "boo killing".

The only reason to bother structuring a syllogism of that format is to assert two contexts for "killing is wrong", with one being available for non-cognition and the other meaningless without cognition. It's a trap that the non-cog has to fall into but anyone else won't even notice.

[Atla]

If you think that morality is any kind of real thing...that is, that you can talk meaningfully about it at all, then you've got to do the syllogism.

Now I'm slightly curious, aside from non-cognitivism (whatever the hell that even means, I'm definitely not one of those), what's the issue with moral syllogisms? I saw this one:

P1: Killing is wrong.
P2: If killing is wrong, then getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

What's the problem with it? Well aside from P2 being unnecessary.

P: Killing is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

There is no issue for anyone else. For a non-cog P1 doesn't mean killing is wrong, it means boo to killing, because the expression is merely a reference to an internal state of dissaproval. But in P2, you can't have 'IF boo killing' because the conditional operation is cognitive and thus the P2 cannot convert to a non-cog boo statement.

So that means there is a difference between P1 "killing is wrong" and the P2 "killing is wrong" becasue only one of them can perform a Fregean conversion to "boo killing".

The only reason to bother structuring a syllogism of that format is to assert two contexts for "killing is wrong", with one being available for non-cognition and the other meaningless without cognition. It's a trap that the non-cog has to fall into but anyone else won't even notice.

Why can't we cognize that whenever we hear of killing, we say BOO? Isn't "IF" a non-moral cognition, so it goes?

[Harbal]

Do we have any record of a "non-cognitivist" ever trying to use that syllogism in support of his opinion that getting his brother to kill would be wrong? If not, then who exactly is being criticised for it?

[FlashDangerpants]

Now I'm slightly curious, aside from non-cognitivism (whatever the hell that even means, I'm definitely not one of those), what's the issue with moral syllogisms? I saw this one:

P1: Killing is wrong.
P2: If killing is wrong, then getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

What's the problem with it? Well aside from P2 being unnecessary.

P: Killing is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

There is no issue for anyone else. For a non-cog P1 doesn't mean killing is wrong, it means boo to killing, because the expression is merely a reference to an internal state of dissaproval. But in P2, you can't have 'IF boo killing' because the conditional operation is cognitive and thus the P2 cannot convert to a non-cog boo statement.

So that means there is a difference between P1 "killing is wrong" and the P2 "killing is wrong" becasue only one of them can perform a Fregean conversion to "boo killing".

The only reason to bother structuring a syllogism of that format is to assert two contexts for "killing is wrong", with one being available for non-cognition and the other meaningless without cognition. It's a trap that the non-cog has to fall into but anyone else won't even notice.

Why can't we cognize that whenever we hear of killing, we say BOO? Isn't "IF" a non-moral cognition, so it goes?

You're thinking of "boo" as a word. Think of it as a howl or a screech.

[Atla]

Do we have any record of a "non-cognitivist" ever trying to use that syllogism in support of his opinion that getting his brother to kill would be wrong? If not, then who exactly is being criticised for it?

I'm probably just completely misunderstanding this stuff, but it's like there's a group of people who say: "Hey look at me, I'm speaking nonsense: sfduáéigfhfdsihgsfdgk bdkjsgn dfsééldjmsfgljdsfl".

And then others come and say: but "sfduáéigfhfdsihgsfdgk bdkjsgn dfsééldjmsfgljdsfl" is nonsense! GOTCHA now fools! You didn't see that one coming did you.

[Atla]

There is no issue for anyone else. For a non-cog P1 doesn't mean killing is wrong, it means boo to killing, because the expression is merely a reference to an internal state of dissaproval. But in P2, you can't have 'IF boo killing' because the conditional operation is cognitive and thus the P2 cannot convert to a non-cog boo statement.

So that means there is a difference between P1 "killing is wrong" and the P2 "killing is wrong" becasue only one of them can perform a Fregean conversion to "boo killing".

The only reason to bother structuring a syllogism of that format is to assert two contexts for "killing is wrong", with one being available for non-cognition and the other meaningless without cognition. It's a trap that the non-cog has to fall into but anyone else won't even notice.

Why can't we cognize that whenever we hear of killing, we say BOO? Isn't "IF" a non-moral cognition, so it goes?

You're thinking of "boo" as a word. Think of it as a howl or a screech.

I did.. (I mean think of it as a howl, but imo you can totally cognize a howl via "IF")