What could make morality objective?
-
- Posts: 3904
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
We can describe the colour we call red, or the animal we call a dog, in any number of different ways - using other names (nouns), such as light, frequency, mammal, and snout. But none of those names is a description. And names, like clause elements, don't have truth-value. Obviously.
In this context, the only things that can have truth-value are declarative clauses: such-and-such is the case. And we can't define or describe a thing or a property into or out of existence. So the 'that's-how-we-use-these-words' argument for objectivity is, simply, invalid. It amounts to 'saying it's so makes it so' or 'things are the way(s) we say they are'.
We say this colour is red; therefore, this colour is red.
We say water is H2O; therefore, water is H2O.
We say abortion is/is not morally wrong; therefore, abortion is/is not morally wrong.
In different ways, each of these arguments is invalid. Each mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. But though 'redness' and the chemical constitution of water are features of reality (facts) that just are the case, how ever we (arbitrarily) name them, moral wrongness isn't, and we can't 'say it' into existence.
In this context, the only things that can have truth-value are declarative clauses: such-and-such is the case. And we can't define or describe a thing or a property into or out of existence. So the 'that's-how-we-use-these-words' argument for objectivity is, simply, invalid. It amounts to 'saying it's so makes it so' or 'things are the way(s) we say they are'.
We say this colour is red; therefore, this colour is red.
We say water is H2O; therefore, water is H2O.
We say abortion is/is not morally wrong; therefore, abortion is/is not morally wrong.
In different ways, each of these arguments is invalid. Each mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. But though 'redness' and the chemical constitution of water are features of reality (facts) that just are the case, how ever we (arbitrarily) name them, moral wrongness isn't, and we can't 'say it' into existence.
Re: What could make morality objective?
So you are going to appeal to other concepts like "light" and "frequency" to describe the concept of "red" ?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am We can describe the colour we call red, or the animal we call a dog, in any number of different ways - using other names (nouns), such as light, frequency, mammal, and snout. But none of those names is a description. And names, like clause elements, don't have truth-value. Obviously.
What are you going to use to describe "light" and "frequency" ?
What are you going to use to describe electromagnetism?
What are you going to use to describe the Mathematical concepts you are appealing to underneath all that?
Re: What could make morality objective?
YeahPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am In this context, the only things that can have truth-value are declarative clauses: such-and-such is the case.
I declare that it's true that this color is "blue".
Re: What could make morality objective?
It's hilarious watching Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes make the exact mistake he keeps warning us about.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:27 am Each mistakes what we say about things for the way things are.
Says water is H2O.
Pretends water was always H2O even before we said so about it.
Mistakes water for being what we say it is.
So desperate to be a realist he'll even promote his own words/concepts to ontological status.
Re: What could make morality objective?
What you are BOTH MISSING is that 'they' CAN BE different linguistic operations, but NOT necessarily so.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:13 amNo, they aren't. Not when we are dealing with connotation.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:41 am Naming and describing are different linguistic operations.
So, INSTEAD of ARGUING or FIGHTING OVER whether 'they' ARE, or NOT, you BOTH COULD and WOULD ACCEPT and AGREE WITH that 'naming and describing' CAN BE different linguistic operations.
And, the reason WHY you BOTH COULD and WOULD AGREE WITH 'this' is because 'this' is IRREFUTABLY True.
SEE, HOW EASY and SIMPLE 'things' REALLY CAN BE? There REALLY IS NO need for ARGUING, DISAGREEING, FIGHTING, NOR even DEBATING absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL here.
Unless, OF COURSE, 'you', "skepdick", BELIEVE and/or DISAGREE that 'naming' and 'describing' could NEVER be different linguistic operations.
YES. And
YES.
Re: What could make morality objective?
you can wonder this, but the answer is still 'No'.
There is only One 'thing', well that I know of, that makes ALL 'things', including 'morality', 'objective', and it is NOT 'disinterest'.
In fact it could be said 'objectivity' is found with the EXACT OPPOSITE.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Is 'selection', itself, what ACTUALLY occurs and happens WITH 'desire'?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 amThe disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
I would suggest that just about ALL 'desire' that comes about in childhood arrives BEFORE 'selection' could ever take place.
BUT, HOW to 'select' the correct thing to 'desire' is best done just 'FULLY consciously'. Which, by the way, is a Truly SIMPLE and EASY 'thing' to do, that is; once one LEARNS HOW TO, AND LEARNS what IS ACTUALLY GOOD and Right, and what IS NOT, in Life.
Last edited by Age on Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What could make morality objective?
And 'they' will ALWAYS be UNMET, to you, while you CONTINUE WITH your UNPROVEN BELIEF here. This is BECAUSE your BELIEF here will NOT allow and let you SEE what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:39 am Saying that moral rightness and wrongness are physical properties is like saying that justice and injustice are physical properties. And the burden of proof (test) is with the claimant - unmet so far, to my knowledge.
But if, instead, the claim is that these are abstract or non-physical properties, the burden of proof (test) is also with the claimant - unmet so far, to my knowledge.
What an 'abstract thing' IS, EXACTLY, is a 'though', and, OBVIOUSLY, WHERE 'thought' exist IS WITHIN human bodies.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:39 am What and where is an abstract or non-physical thing or property, and in what way does it exist?
AGAIN, IN 'thought' ALONE.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:39 am Counter question: 'What and where are, say, tallness and shortness?'
In other words WHY think that 'thought', itself, is a non-physical property?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:39 am Response: 'Why think that tallness and shortness are non-physical properties?
There is, after all, NO ACTUAL PROOF for 'this'.
Re: What could make morality objective?
WHO does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:40 amThe "how" of selection is really easy. Trivial in fact - we do it on regular basis with dumb computers.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 am The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
Most people I KNOW do NOT use computers MUCH to 'select' 'things' in their lives.
BUT once one LEARNS, and thus ALSO KNOWS, AS WELL what is EXACTLY 'Correct' in Life, then there is absolutely NO use for ANY 'computer', other than the human brain, OF COURSE, to do ANY 'selecting', OBVIOUSLY.
And, it is MUCH SIMPLER and EASIER WITHOUT ANY of those types of computers, which, REALLY, do just GET IN THE WAY.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:40 am In a declarative query language it's as easy as this:
Code: Select all
SELECT * FROM desires WHERE correct(desire)
Which is VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY DONE, and which relates DIRECTLY TO the Fact of HOW and WHY 'morality', itself, CAN BE 'objective'.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
If you are capable of having multiple desires, then you might at some point have encountered an issue where attainment of one desideratum renders the another unattainable. An example would be a desire one might have to own a cake, while another desire is to eat the cake.Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:59 amIs 'selection', itself, what ACTUALLY occurs and happens WITH 'desire'?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 amThe disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
I would suggest that just about ALL 'desire' that comes about in childhood arrives BEFORE 'selection' could ever take place.
BUT, HOW to 'select' the correct thing to 'desire' is best done just 'FULLY consciously'. Which, by the way, is a Truly SIMPLE and EASY 'thing' to do, that is; once one LEARNS HOW TO, AND LEARNS what IS ACTUALLY GOOD and Right, and what IS NOT, in Life.
In such circumstance one selects the favoured desire and lets the incompatible desire pass. This is a matter of selection.
Sadly I am not addressing the SIMPLE and EASY way to select the RIGHT tHINg tO WAnt and Desire and WIsH fOR because it seems that is impossible to describe. Although we do our have our greatest ever mind on the case.
Re: What could make morality objective?
How do the words 'free school lunch' transfer to or equate to the words 'nice lunch', EXACTLY?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 amThat's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 amYes, but maybe the correct thing to desire is got from chance not reasoning selection.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 am
The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
If there is a situation where one circumstance can be described as fair by a capitalist and unfair by a socialist then most of us are probably going to pick the second side. Consider free school lunches for instance, you gotta be a heartless dirtbag not to want all kids to have a nice lunch at school.
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is how a lot of adult human beings 'TRY' SO HARD to 'argue' for their BELIEF/VIEW, and will say just about ANY 'thing', but which is NOT LOGICALLY Correct.
But considering 'money' is just a WANT, and a DESIRE, created from GREED and SELFISHNESS, 'arguing' ABOUT 'monetary' issues is just as WORTHLESS and UNNECESSARY as what 'money', itself, IS, EXACTLY.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am Yet it's a weirdly controversial subject that is not resoved by calling Walker or Henry a dirtbag.
No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.
But this is ONLY because 'you', adult human beings, are GREEDY BEYOND ACTUAL REASONABLENESS and SENSIBILITY.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy.
BUT 'morality' being 'objective' is NOT 'indeterminable' AT ALL.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
Re: What could make morality objective?
The connection between the former and the latter is that in order to be good or efficient people we exercise notions of probability. Thus the veil of ignorance probably aids justice, and reasoned guesses probably aid justice.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:53 amHow did you get there from this?????
I wonder if what might make morality objective is an attitude of disinterest. 'Disinterest' in the sense of justice blindfolded, or the veil of ignorance.
You never make any sense.
For the decisions we must make, chance and reasoned choice are constants, however reason and knowledge weigh against the element of chance.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
That's gibberish.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:39 amThe connection between the former and the latter is that in order to be good or efficient people we exercise notions of probability. Thus the veil of ignorance probably aids justice, and reasoned guesses probably aid justice.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:53 amHow did you get there from this?????
I wonder if what might make morality objective is an attitude of disinterest. 'Disinterest' in the sense of justice blindfolded, or the veil of ignorance.
You never make any sense.
For the decisions we must make, chance and reasoned choice are constants, however reason and knowledge weigh against the element of chance.
Re: What could make morality objective?
WHERE does this PRESUMPTION, 'we can NOT know', come from, EXACTLY?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:58 pmChance is not mystical woo, chance is another name for 'we don't know and cannot know'.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 amThat's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?
If there is a situation where one circumstance can be described as fair by a capitalist and unfair by a socialist then most of us are probably going to pick the second side. Consider free school lunches for instance, you gotta be a heartless dirtbag not to want all kids to have a nice lunch at school. Yet it's a weirdly controversial subject that is not resoved by calling Walker or Henry a dirtbag.
No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.
The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
And, WHY do SOME people, in the days when this is being written, HOLD ONTO this PRESUMPTION and/or BELIEVE 'it' to be true?
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am A main gambit in the guessing game is scepticism. With scepticism we are less likely to fall into the arms of fanatics and conmen.
Re: What could make morality objective?
'Chance' on 'what', EXACTLY?Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:18 amI am trying to explain that being a good person is a mixture of chance and choice.
By the way, there is NOT an adult person who is a so-called 'good person'. So, WHERE are you getting your CLAIM from here, EXACTLY?