Is morality objective or subjective?

[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.

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

Watch my indifference.

[FlashDangerpants]

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

Now you're confusing me. When you say "whenever we hear of killing, we say BOO" are you talking about Boo as some sort of name for killing?

[Atla]

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

Now you're confusing me. When you say "whenever we hear of killing, we say BOO" are you talking about Boo as some sort of name for killing?

No, we make a howling sound.
So if I get my brother to kill, I once again make a howling sound.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

If you know the rules of logic, you know that every syllogism has to have three terms: at least two premises, and one conclusion. The reasons for that are fairly easy to explain, but I'll assume you know them and won't be so pedantic as to "give you a refresher," which would probably be obnoxious.

But the problem is actually manifest in both. It's the term "wrong." "Wrong" is a term of moral condemnation or moral prohibition; it implies, "Do not do that." But any such term raises the question, "Why not?" And neither the above syllogism or the above enthymeme (at the risk of sounding pedantic, that's a term for a syllogism lacking one explicit premise), has justification for using the condemnatory term, "wrong."

"Is wrong," means, "objectively exists as wrong." That means it implies moral objectivism. But what we're looking for is alternatives to moral objectivism, so we need a better term for the completion of that premise, one that explicitly reflects the basis upon which we are grounding our moral prohibition.

[FlashDangerpants]

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

Watch my indifference.

You have failed to understand it then and your failure is probably permanent.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Now you're confusing me. When you say "whenever we hear of killing, we say BOO" are you talking about Boo as some sort of name for killing?

No, we make a howling sound.
So if I get my brother to kill, I once again make a howling sound.

You're onto what the problem is with Flash's view. Flash doesn't get it, yet. Keep trying, though. You may be able to get through.

[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?

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.

No, I don't really get it, either. I think the point they are making is that if killing is wrong, then it follows that getting someone else to kill would also be wrong, but if it is just your personal opinion that killing is wrong, it doesn't follow that getting someone else to kill would be wrong. It might be something like that, or it could be nothing like that, who cares?

[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.

If you know the rules of logic, you know that every syllogism has to have three terms: at least two premises, and one conclusion. The reasons for that are fairly easy to explain, but I'll assume you know them and won't be so pedantic as to "give you a refresher," which would probably be obnoxious.

But the problem is actually manifest in both. It's the term "wrong." "Wrong" is a term of moral condemnation or moral prohibition; it implies, "Do not do that." But any such term raises the question, "Why not?" And neither the above syllogism or the above enthymeme (at the risk of sounding pedantic, that's a term for a syllogism lacking one explicit premise), has justification for using the condemnatory term, "wrong."

"Is wrong," means, "objectively exists as wrong." That means it implies moral objectivism. But what we're looking for is alternatives to moral objectivism, so we need a better term for the completion of that premise, one that explicitly reflects the basis upon which we are grounding our moral prohibition.

No, "wrong" either implies moral objectivism or subjectivism.

A syllogism has to have three terms, but you've only written two, because P2 is unnecessary/redundant.

[FlashDangerpants]

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

Now you're confusing me. When you say "whenever we hear of killing, we say BOO" are you talking about Boo as some sort of name for killing?

No, we make a howling sound.
So if I get my brother to kill, I once again make a howling sound.

Yeah, that's just weird and nothing to do with the point I'm afraid. You aren't even bothering to express a disapproval so there is nowhere to go with this.

[FlashDangerpants]

We came so close to some philosophy happening here.

[Atla]

Now you're confusing me. When you say "whenever we hear of killing, we say BOO" are you talking about Boo as some sort of name for killing?

No, we make a howling sound.
So if I get my brother to kill, I once again make a howling sound.

Yeah, that's just weird and nothing to do with the point I'm afraid. You aren't even bothering to express a disapproval so there is nowhere to go with this.

Disapproval about what? Go where? I don't understand. That's the point no?

[FlashDangerpants]

No, we make a howling sound.
So if I get my brother to kill, I once again make a howling sound.

Yeah, that's just weird and nothing to do with the point I'm afraid. You aren't even bothering to express a disapproval so there is nowhere to go with this.

Disapproval about what? Go where? I don't understand. That's the point no?

I'm going to let you troll IC for a while now.

[Immanuel Can]

No, "wrong" either implies moral objectivism or subjectivism.

Sorry...linguistically, that's exactly what it means: "exists" [in state X.] That's what "be" means.

A syllogism has to have three terms, but you've only written two, because P2 is unnecessary/redundant.

It's not actually redundant. It's what's called a "hypothetical syllogism," if you want to look it up. The rules are as follows.

The first Premise has to contain an "if." (Or other hypothetical marker. But, as in this case, the "if" can be the second premise; it won't change anything.)
The second premise has to affirm that the hypothetical condition (the "if") in the first premise is, in fact, the case.
The third premise is the conclusion deduced from the two.

It works like,

"If your house is on fire, you'll need a new one."
"Look, your house is now on fire."
You'll need a new one.

But if the second premise were: "Look, your house is NOT on fire," then the same conclusion would simply not follow.

Sorry to do the explanation. I though maybe you'd run into this before.

[Atla]

I really don't get it. When the premise of moral non-cognitivism is that we aren't expressing moral stuff because there's no such thing, then of course we also won't express moral stuff after a syllogism. We weren't anywhere morally before, and we aren't anywhere morally after.

[FlashDangerpants]

I really don't get it. When the premise of moral non-cognitivism is that we aren't expressing moral stuff because there's no such thing, then of course we also won't express moral stuff after a syllogism. We weren't anywhere morally before, and we aren't anywhere morally after.

Oh my, you weren't kidding.

You've misunderstood. Under a non-cog description, you still get to use all the moral words you are used to using, none of that goes away at all. And you are still expressing approval, and disapproval exactly as before. But it's not considered cognisable, which means that strictly in terms of what they communicate, they are on a par with a grunt or a frown.

The non cognitivist doesn't expect you to give up any of your daily life activities for the sake of this theory, he believes he is adequately describing what you experience as morality in your everyday life and that you don't need any extra assumptions about assertibiity of moral truth to have your daily moral activities and arguments.

When he says that 'killing is wrong' is the same as 'killing' while frowning, the frown completely, fully, and interchangeably expresses exactly the same content as the 'is wrong' part, not the 'killing' part.