Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

So you said that you use science to corroborate your beliefs about creation.

And now you trash science.

Must make sense to someone.

Ultimately, all knowledge is a social construction.

It's "created" by humans for human consumption because it performs a social function.

It serves a purpose.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

[Will Bouwman]

Well, as Polanyi, who's Science, Faith and Society you cite approvingly said, all knowledge is personal.

Scientific knowledge, of course: that's what he's speaking of.

Perhaps you have forgotten what we are talking about presently:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Do you have any objective source other than the Bible to corroborate this?

Science. Observation. Spiritual experience. Reason. Mathematics. Archaeology.

If your appreciation of Polanyi extends to agreement, you can't claim science as an objective source of evidence that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

How you interpret what you see is entirely subjective.

That's very different from what Polanyi argued.

I'm not suggesting he did argue that.

Spiritual experience is obviously personal.

Yes, quite so. But not less reliable because of that.

Reliable or not, it certainly isn't objective. See above.

Reason starts with personal premises.

Of course. Reason is the disciplining by logic of empirical observations and theoretical beliefs. But what of that? It's part of the package. You wouldn't want to advocate going without reason, would you?

You would have to choose very personal premises to conclude that I might.

Mathematics doesn't prove anything except more mathematics,

You'll find that's not true at all, I'm afraid.

You're right that math is a closed system of symbols: and that might lead you to suggest what you do. But you're quite wrong to suppose that the deductions yielded by math have such an irrelevant relation to the empirical world. If what you were saying were true...

It's not what I am saying; that's "you just riffing off what you (erroneously) suppose" I mean.

And math tells us with absolute certainty that there had to be a cosmic beginning.

No it doesn't.

...and archaeology shows comprehensively that the Biblical account of creation is true.

I think you meant to express doubt or cynicism about the archaological findings. But that's unwarranted. Perhaps you had some specific finding in mind? Or perhaps you meant that when archaeology shows that the events God told us about really happened, that it wouldn't count, for some reason?

Yup, missed out the not. We've done evolution to death and there is no reason to suppose we will ever agree. This I attribute to you very personally selecting the few instances of error and one of fraud to reason towards your personal wish. No doubt you see it differently.
So, back to your list: Science isn't objective. Observation isn't objective. Spiritual experience isn't objective. There are rules anyone can apply to reason and maths, but the variables you punch in are not objective. And archaeology isn't objective. You only have your personal reasons for believing that your god created the heavens and the Earth. You might be right, but the weight of evidence suggests you are not.

[phyllo]

Ultimately, all knowledge is a social construction.

It's "created" by humans for human consumption because it performs a social function.

That seems obviously false. Especially when it comes to science, which has knowledge without any apparent social function.

[phyllo]

That's your aim, perhaps, but mine revolves more around philosophers, using the tools at their disposal, exploring the extent to which, re those like Kant, they can discern what is categorically and imperatively moral or immoral pertaining to sex.

Yeah, that's really demonstrated by your interactions on these sites.

You don't explore anything. You don't discuss any tools of philosophy.

When was the last time you talked about Kant and his writings with anyone? Twenty years ago?

I asking how Kant would deal with some problem and then ignoring all the responses and asking more questions doesn't count as talking about him.

[Immanuel Can]

If your appreciation of Polanyi extends to agreement, you can't claim science as an objective source of evidence that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

If you are thinking that, then I have to point out that you haven't understood Polanyi. I do recommend you read him, rather than just assuming he fits among the sort of postmodern skeptical take on science that you seem to think. He's not arguing what you suppose, at all. He's much more sophisticated and on-point than the cruder skeptics you seem to be channelling.

How you interpret what you see is entirely subjective.

That's very different from what Polanyi argued.

I'm not suggesting he did argue that.

Odd. It seems exactly what your claim above would suggest.

Spiritual experience is obviously personal.

Yes, quite so. But not less reliable because of that.

Reliable or not, it certainly isn't objective.

Oh, sure it is. It's always objectively true whether or not one had an experience of X or Y.

Now, it's not the kind of objective thing one can transfer to another, but then, you didn't ask me how YOU know, but how I know. And personal experience is certainly one part of knowing things. But it's far from the only part.

Reason starts with personal premises.

Of course. Reason is the disciplining by logic of empirical observations and theoretical beliefs. But what of that? It's part of the package. You wouldn't want to advocate going without reason, would you?

You would have to choose very personal premises to conclude that I might.

I wasn't insulting you, Will. I was only pointing out that criticisms of reason have their limits. First of all, it's obviously disastrous to depart from it unthinkingly, obviously. And secondly, it's really impossible: one cannot even criticize reason without using reason to do it.

And math tells us with absolute certainty that there had to be a cosmic beginning.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. But you have to understand the argument. You seem unfamilar with the impossibility of an actual infinite regress. But mathematics, all by itself, demonstrates it absolutely. You can look it up, if you're interested.

So, back to your list: Science isn't objective.

You'll need to explain that claim. Science deals with the objective world. There's no such thing as "a science of the subjective."

Observation isn't objective.

No, but it's essential to science and to reason. And it's essential.

Spiritual experience isn't objective.

It's objectively real, or it's not.

There are rules anyone can apply to reason and maths, but the variables you punch in are not objective.

The proof against infinite regress doesn't depend on any particular numbers. You can perform it with every sequence.

And archaeology isn't objective.

No, it isnt completely objective. It does depend on "objects," of course, but it also contains a large measure of induction. The historical events it attempts to describe are objective, of course.

You only have your personal reasons for believing that your god created the heavens and the Earth.

No, I DO have personal reasons, but I also have the entire list above: scientific, observational, logical, mathematical, spiritual and moral reasons, among others. You really ought to acquaint yourself better with the whole field of apologetics, perhaps, Will. If I can say this nicely, without offense, you don't seem at all to know what's in there, or how any of it works. If you did, I think you'd be a lot more convinced, or at least more nuanced in any criticisms you offered, perhaps.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Bollocks. You don't understand the how a deductive argument works. I recommend a logic 101 course or simple text. Here's your invalid and unsound argument.

P1 X is a moral issue.
P2 To reduce the incidence of X is to resolve this moral issue.
C Therefore, in the case of X, morality is objective.

The missing moral premise is: X is morally wrong/bad/wicked. And the fact that you offer this ridiculous argument demonstrates your philosophical and logical incompetence.

Strawman again - the '>million' times

My argument [non-syllogistic] is this;

• 1. What is objective is a resultant from a human-based FSERC [grounded on a collective of humans]. [argued elsewhere]
  
  2. X is a confirmed scientific fact via the scientific FSERC, thus objective. [biology, neuroscience, psychology]
  
  3. When X [scientific fact] is inputted into a moral FSERC [1] it follows as an objective moral fact.
  
  4. Therefore X [originally a scientific fact] is an objective moral fact [i.e. a moral issue].

In the above 4 follows from 3, 2 and I i.e. deductive.

You keep constructing strawman[s] because you cannot understand [not agree with] my argument; plus because you are trapped in an ideology from an evolutionary default, i.e. very primal and primitive thinking.

1 You say this is non-syllogistic, but that the conclusion is deductive. Make your mind up.

I take it to be syllogistic as with the typical three-lines argument.
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

My argument above is deductive, i.e. the conclusion follows from all the premises presented.

2 Your P1 is false, so the argument is unsound. End of story.

Handwaving is not a valid counter.
Why it is false? You should at least leave some clues if not a full counter.
Your rejection of a FSK from the fundamental FSERC exposed your ignorance and shallow thinking.

3 Your P3 is laughable. 'A scientific fact 'inputted' a moral 'FSERC' is outputted as a moral fact.'

You are laughing at your own ignorance.
Here is an example of how a non-moral fact when inputted into a moral FSERC generate a moral fact.

I have posted examples [somewhere -got to search] how one FSERC fact when inputted into another contribute to generate a fact in another FSERC fact.
Here is one example ..
Another example, is the weather-FSERC-facts are generated from majority of inputs from the scientific FSERC, re physics and chemistry.

The term 'science-based' facts is very common to support that a FSERC-fact is based on inputs from science, e.g. science-based nutrition, science-based sports, body-building, and so on.

4 The terms 'moral fact' and 'moral issue' are not synonymous.

OK, agree.

I mean moral facts as moral elements within a moral FSERC.

[Immanuel Can]

Ultimately, all knowledge is a social construction.

It's "created" by humans for human consumption because it performs a social function.

That seems obviously false. Especially when it comes to science, which has knowledge without any apparent social function.

You'll notice that the definition "social construction" also is the definition for "propaganda." The proposed definition doesn't even suppose truth. So it's not a very good one, as you point out.

There is, however, one grain of truth in that definition: namely, that "knowledge" when considered apart from "objective fact," is a human attempt to explain facts observed in the objective world, rather than being "objective" in the sense of sterile, detached, pure of human bias, and so forth. "Knowledge," if by that we mean "human understanding of things," is indeed put together by human beings. But that's a very different admission from saying it's "constructed" in an absolute sense, as in "made up out of nothing," or "nothing but bias and propaganda." As even Kant knew, it's not 100% made-up, but rather a human attempt to make sense of objective happenings and phenomena experienced by people who observe the real world. And there is such a thing as the real world, too.

Human knowing is limited by its relevance to that real world: for somebody who simply "made up" his beliefs has lost all contact with the real world -- and in no legitimate sense can his mad ravings be classified as "knowledge" at all, since they've lost all reference to truth.

So we might attempt to make more complete his definition by saying something like, "Knowledge is the human attempt to construct a correct model of things and phenomena in the real and objective world." But it's not merely "a social construction." It's a response to the real, and the real constrains it.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is an example of how a non-moral fact when inputted into a moral FSERC generate a moral fact.

I have posted examples [somewhere -got to search] how one FSERC fact when inputted into another contribute to generate a fact in another FSERC fact.
Here is one example ..
Another example, is the weather-FSERC-facts are generated from majority of inputs from the scientific FSERC, re physics and chemistry.

That one factual discourse and practice can produce data and conclusions that inform another factual discourse and practice is obviously true.

But morality does not constitute a factual discourse and practice. The issue is this: are there moral facts, so that morality is objective? And your useless answer is: morality is objective - because we can feed non-moral premises into a morality machine, and out come moral conclusions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an example of how a non-moral fact when inputted into a moral FSERC generate a moral fact.

I have posted examples [somewhere -got to search] how one FSERC fact when inputted into another contribute to generate a fact in another FSERC fact.
Here is one example ..
Another example, is the weather-FSERC-facts are generated from majority of inputs from the scientific FSERC, re physics and chemistry.

That one factual discourse and practice can produce data and conclusions that inform another factual discourse and practice is obviously true.

But morality does not constitute a factual discourse and practice. The issue is this: are there moral facts, so that morality is objective? And your useless answer is: morality is objective - because we can feed non-moral premises into a morality machine, and out come moral conclusions.

You are really lost in philosophy.

The Major branches of philosophy are epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

With philosophy we cannot be too loose, but it is critical to establish objectivity for the above major branches of philosophy so it will not be a free for all.

In order to establish objectivity within the above branches of philosophy, there is a need to deliberate and work them within their respective Framework and System of Knowledge then FSC and FSERC.
Thus we have a main Framework and System and their subs for epistemology, logic, and accordingly for ethics [morality] and metaphysics.
Within epistemology the most credible and objective FSERC is the scientific FSERC while others are of lesser degrees in contrast to the scientific FSERC.

There are tons of issues related to morality, the question is thus, can we reduce them to something objective i.e. objective moral facts.

Now, obviously whatever is associated with moral opinions, beliefs and judgments, the ought to, etc. cannot be objective moral facts.
But there are moral issues which can be reducible to biological and psychological facts which are then concluded as objective moral facts within the established moral FSERC.

Hume went close with his matter of moral fact, i.e. 'sympathy' but could not go further due to the limited knowledge in his time.
The Limit of Hume's Knowledge
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34693
At present, we have advanced knowledge and thus could go further than Hume to establish what are objective moral facts.

Why you cannot go further to establish moral objectivity is due to your clinging to primitive and primal views as driven by an evolutionary default, thus grounding your sense of objectivity on an illusion.
Then you rely on your illusion to counter my more realistic argument?

[FlashDangerpants]

The Major branches of philosophy are epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

With philosophy we cannot be too loose, but it is critical to establish objectivity for the above major branches of philosophy so it will not be a free for all.

The ought-to-is move.... there must be moral objectivity because there ought not to be a "free for all".

Usually it's only Immanuel Can who plays that card.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is an example of how a non-moral fact when inputted into a moral FSERC generate a moral fact.

I have posted examples [somewhere -got to search] how one FSERC fact when inputted into another contribute to generate a fact in another FSERC fact.
Here is one example ..
Another example, is the weather-FSERC-facts are generated from majority of inputs from the scientific FSERC, re physics and chemistry.

That one factual discourse and practice can produce data and conclusions that inform another factual discourse and practice is obviously true.

But morality does not constitute a factual discourse and practice. The issue is this: are there moral facts, so that morality is objective? And your useless answer is: morality is objective - because we can feed non-moral premises into a morality machine, and out come moral conclusions.

You are really lost in philosophy.

The Major branches of philosophy are epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

With philosophy we cannot be too loose, but it is critical to establish objectivity for the above major branches of philosophy so it will not be a free for all.

So here's your argument: for philosophy to be serious, it must be objective - it must deal with facts.

The only facts that philosophy deals with are facts about the ways we do or could use certain abstract nouns, such as knowledge (epistemology), goodness (ethics and morality), being or existence (metaphysics).

Logic deals with language, so it's not an exclusively philosophical concern. But, of course, there are loads of other abstract nouns that can be grist to the mill: truth, identity, beauty, mind, consciousness, and so on.

The reason why philosophy has got precisely nowhere since it began - we're still arguing about the supposed things supposedly named by these abstract nouns - is because they're not things that may or may not exist, and that can be described objectively if they do. They're fictions or myths. Or Platonic forms.

Famously, to paraphrase: western philosophy has been an extended commentary on Plato. That nails it. We've been hamstering in the wheel that Plato set a-spinning.

No good dismissing Platonic forms, if we then continuing arguing about what knowledge and goodness really are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That one factual discourse and practice can produce data and conclusions that inform another factual discourse and practice is obviously true.

But morality does not constitute a factual discourse and practice. The issue is this: are there moral facts, so that morality is objective? And your useless answer is: morality is objective - because we can feed non-moral premises into a morality machine, and out come moral conclusions.

You are really lost in philosophy.

The Major branches of philosophy are epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

With philosophy we cannot be too loose, but it is critical to establish objectivity for the above major branches of philosophy so it will not be a free for all.

So here's your argument: for philosophy to be serious, it must be objective - it must deal with facts.

The only facts that philosophy deals with are facts about the ways we do or could use certain abstract nouns, such as knowledge (epistemology), goodness (ethics and morality), being or existence (metaphysics).

Logic deals with language, so it's not an exclusively philosophical concern. But, of course, there are loads of other abstract nouns that can be grist to the mill: truth, identity, beauty, mind, consciousness, and so on.

The reason why philosophy has got precisely nowhere since it began - we're still arguing about the supposed things supposedly named by these abstract nouns - is because they're not things that may or may not exist, and that can be described objectively if they do. They're fictions or myths. Or Platonic forms.

Famously, to paraphrase: western philosophy has been an extended commentary on Plato. That nails it. We've been hamstering in the wheel that Plato set a-spinning.

No good dismissing Platonic forms, if we then continuing arguing about what knowledge and goodness really are.

The term 'philosophy' is now a very loose term.
What you are hinging on is the bastardized form of philosophy.

The origin definition of philosophy is actually inherent in all humans, i.e. the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking.

Whatever of reality we are dealing with must be confined within its relevant framework and system, regardless of whether it is a concrete or abstract noun.
These Framework and System will have varying degrees of credibility and objectivity which can be assessed based on a set of criteria, of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard [100/100].

So when we assess the Platonic FSK, it would be 10/100 in contrast to the gold standard due to the lack of reliance on empirical evidences.

Thus, whatever is claimed as reality, facts, knowledge or objective it has to have its specific human-based FSK and from there it can be contrasted with the gold standard.

Therefore, from the above, every thing will be covered and its credibility and objective can be assessed and rated.

Your claim of 'what is fact' is a personal subjective claim and cannot be placed within any Framework and System, thus it is very subjective and cannot be assessed and rated at all.

I kept asking you for your references and the specific FSK, i.e. its is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein [earlier, later], Armstrong, linguistic, Analytic ???.
You are unable to support your claim so what you keep postulating is your personal opinion, thus cannot be objective, i.e. meaningless.

[Peter Holmes]

You are really lost in philosophy.


With philosophy we cannot be too loose, but it is critical to establish objectivity for the above major branches of philosophy so it will not be a free for all.

So here's your argument: for philosophy to be serious, it must be objective - it must deal with facts.

The only facts that philosophy deals with are facts about the ways we do or could use certain abstract nouns, such as knowledge (epistemology), goodness (ethics and morality), being or existence (metaphysics).

Logic deals with language, so it's not an exclusively philosophical concern. But, of course, there are loads of other abstract nouns that can be grist to the mill: truth, identity, beauty, mind, consciousness, and so on.

The reason why philosophy has got precisely nowhere since it began - we're still arguing about the supposed things supposedly named by these abstract nouns - is because they're not things that may or may not exist, and that can be described objectively if they do. They're fictions or myths. Or Platonic forms.

Famously, to paraphrase: western philosophy has been an extended commentary on Plato. That nails it. We've been hamstering in the wheel that Plato set a-spinning.

No good dismissing Platonic forms, if we then continuing arguing about what knowledge and goodness really are.

The term 'philosophy' is now a very loose term.
What you are hinging on is the bastardized form of philosophy.

The origin definition of philosophy is actually inherent in all humans, i.e. the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking.

Whatever of reality we are dealing with must be confined within its relevant framework and system, regardless of whether it is a concrete or abstract noun.
These Framework and System will have varying degrees of credibility and objectivity which can be assessed based on a set of criteria, of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard [100/100].

So when we assess the Platonic FSK, it would be 10/100 in contrast to the gold standard due to the lack of reliance on empirical evidences.

Thus, whatever is claimed as reality, facts, knowledge or objective it has to have its specific human-based FSK and from there it can be contrasted with the gold standard.

Therefore, from the above, every thing will be covered and its credibility and objective can be assessed and rated.

Your claim of 'what is fact' is a personal subjective claim and cannot be placed within any Framework and System, thus it is very subjective and cannot be assessed and rated at all.

I kept asking you for your references and the specific FSK, i.e. its is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Armstrong, linguistic, ???.
You are unable to support your claim so what you keep postulating is your personal opinion.

No, I propose a premise that entails a conclusion. There are no so-called abstract things - forms or (to update the myth) concepts - so philosophy - 'the love of wisdom from knowledge and critical thinking' - doesn't and can't deal with them.

Instead, it deals with the ways we do or could use some so-called abstract nouns, their cognates and related words. De-dazzle any philosophical question or 'problem', and you'll see that's what it's about. (Other discourses deal with reality outside language, such as the natural sciences.)

Happy to be disabused by anyone here who has even one counter example.

A dog chasing its tail needs to re-think the premise.

[Skepdick]

That seems obviously false. Especially when it comes to science, which has knowledge without any apparent social function.

That seems obviously incoherent.

If it has no social function - why do a bunch of social creatures DO science?
Why do a bunch of social creatures manufacture scientific knowledge?

From an investor's point of view - it seems like a waste of time.

[iambiguous]

That's your aim, perhaps, but mine revolves more around philosophers, using the tools at their disposal, exploring the extent to which, re those like Kant, they can discern what is categorically and imperatively moral or immoral pertaining to sex.

Yeah, that's really demonstrated by your interactions on these sites.

You don't explore anything. You don't discuss any tools of philosophy.

When was the last time you talked about Kant and his writings with anyone? Twenty years ago?

I asking how Kant would deal with some problem and then ignoring all the responses and asking more questions doesn't count as talking about him.

Well, that didn't take long, did it? He's back in Stooge mode. Making me the issue.



Unless, of course, he's right?!