Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:01 am
There is no such thing as objectivity is additive or multiplicitive.
I said 'metaphorically.' One irrational, illogical step eliminates the objectivity of the conclusion. The steps that are objective are still objective. The conclusion is not. Christian morality is the conclusion of a process that contains non-objective steps.
What is objective [in degrees] is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
The above syllogism should be considered within the human-based-logical FSK.
3 and 4 do not follow from 2.
As such the syllogism in not valid.
Well, of course. That was the whole point.
Since it is not valid, it does not comply with the rules of the human-based FSK [classical logic in this case].
As such the question of objectivity for the above 'argument' is a non-starter.
Precisely. But if there was a bat God worshipping tribe, then it would be, according to you, to some degree objective. It would be a logical argument and conclusion in that tribe's FSK.
You tell me things in your response that were clearly a part of my argument. My argument only makes sense IF the bat God argument is illogical. That was the entire point.
And note that you binarily dismiss it as not-objective. Even though the first two assertions are correct. But that doesn't matter because degree of objectivity is not additive. Oh, it has two good steps and two bad ones, it's 50% objective. Or whatever % you assign. No, the problematic steps lead to a completely non-objective conclusion.
What is objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
For any conclusion to be considered as objective, it must be logically valid within the conditions of the specific FSK.
Sure and in the batGod workshipping tribes they have an intersubjective set of beliefs based on their FSKs. But that doesn't lead to an objective, to some degree, conclusion.
Christianity's morality is conditioned within a human-based Christian FSK [with its constitution, the Gospels and 2 billion believers].
Christianity moral element 'Thou Shall not Kill' is objective because it is grounded on its constitution.
And there you go again giving it a binary label. It's objective, period, according to you.
The degree % of objectivity of this specific moral element 'Thou Shall not Kill' is rated on the objectivity of the specific FSK.
Because the objective human-based Christian FSK is grounded on an illusory God, its objectivity is negligible in contrast to the human-based scientific FSK as the standard.
You're just repeating yourself.
I can rate the FSK's in terms of subjectivity, i.e. the scientific FSK subjectivity is the standard at 0.001% while the Christianity moral FSK is at 99.999%.
Yes, anyone can make up numbers.
Since the opposite of subjectivity is objectivity, we can substitute 'objectivity' to the above in reverse order.
The point is the focus of the issue is 'objectivity' this is why I use objectivity as the focus on the continuum. It is not an issue to use 'subjectivity' as the continuum if necessary.
The title of the thread is silly. It presents it in binary terms, not in degree terms. Further the argument doesn't hold just as it doesn't in the BatGod argument.
Steps may be rational/objective/logical but these are utterly undermined by other steps. Not partially undermined, but utterly undermined.
If you use hundreds of steps in a long argument all based on the most recent and confirmed science, but then after all these steps you have one ludicrous subjective step (or one at the beginning), despite the presence of all these steps and only one ludicrous step, the entire conclusion is undermined and is not objective AT ALL.
And at no point, nowhere in your post, did you show that you understood the point I made. You did not address the issue.
You repeated yourself. I appreciate that you did not link to other threads you started that would also have not dealt with the argument.
And then tangentially, if you are saying that objectivity is intersubjectivity then
Since the opposite of subjectivity is objectivity
which you stated above
MUST BE FALSE.
You cannot arrive att objectivity via its opposite and subjectivity is a part of all the subjectivities that make up intersubjectvity.
Their relationship, given your own position (and mine also actually) means that they cannot possibly be opposites.