Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:20 pm If you don't use the concept of "betterness' then you can't make any decisions at all. Not just in morality but in everything.

The point is that "betterness" is not based entirely in your feelings.

Of what is "betteness" a property other than human judgements? There is nothing objectively better about life than death, or comfortable chairs than hot sharp rocks, we just like one of them more than the other so we make the normative judgement that it is "better".

Objective human judgements must be possible otherwise it would be impossible to do any science.

Scientific theory A is better than theory B.

That's a human judgement there and it's not subjective. Unless you want to go down that "science is subjective" path.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:48 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:20 pm If you don't use the concept of "betterness' then you can't make any decisions at all. Not just in morality but in everything.

The point is that "betterness" is not based entirely in your feelings.

Of what is "betteness" a property other than human judgements? There is nothing objectively better about life than death, or comfortable chairs than hot sharp rocks, we just like one of them more than the other so we make the normative judgement that it is "better".

Objective human judgements must be possible otherwise it would be impossible to do any science.

Scientific theory A is better than theory B.

That's a human judgement there and it's not subjective. Unless you want to go down that "science is subjective" path.

That's exactly why I asked you what the "betterness" is a property of. Surely you agree that the wavelength of light is a property of the light not a property of our beliefs about the light? That's the sort of of objectivity that makes science possible. Morals have no equivalent objective property that I know of.

That's why scientific theories can explain why giraffes are taller than lions, but not why they are nicer than lions.

That's exactly why I asked you what the "betterness" is a proprty of. Surely you agree that the wavelength of light is a property of the light not a property of our beliefs about the light? That's the sort of of objectivity that makes sicence possible. Morals have no equivalent objective property that I know of.

Light behaves in certain ways.

Humans behave in certain ways.

There are tangible consequences to the behavior of light.

There are tangible consequences to the behavior of humans.

How do you want to use the behavior of light?

How do you want to use the behavior of humans?

What are the goals? What are reasonable goals?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 8:08 pm

That's exactly why I asked you what the "betterness" is a proprty of. Surely you agree that the wavelength of light is a property of the light not a property of our beliefs about the light? That's the sort of of objectivity that makes sicence possible. Morals have no equivalent objective property that I know of.

Light behaves in certain ways.

Humans behave in certain ways.

There are tangible consequences to the behavior of light.

There are tangible consequences to the behavior of humans.

How do you want to use the behavior of light?

How do you want to use the behavior of humans?

What are the goals? What are reasonable goals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

You have nothing to say.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:08 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 5:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 9:23 pm
I neither said that, nor even implied it. In fact, I said the opposite: that I don't need any reference to Objective Moralizing to make the point.

Here's the point: what can Moral Subjectivism, even if we took it to be entirely true, teach anybody?

It's about group morals, if a group agrees on them. Or personal morals.

Then if the "group" of Nazis says, "Jews must be exterminated," that's "moral"? Or even if a "person" does?

And what if the "group" tells the "person" to kill Jews, and she refuses? Is she then "moral" (for sticking with her personal feeling) or "immoral" (for offending the group's command)?

You see, that just won't work.

"Jews must be exterminated" was immoral according to most people, and moral according to that group of Nazis.
If the "person" refused to kill on moral grounds, then she was immoral according to the Nazi group and moral according to her.

What doesn't work? You just keep repeating that subjective morality can't exist because it's not objective.

All organisms are reactive creatures, thus the outside world is a cause to all organisms. The relations of things in the outside world affect us and stir reactions to affect change in those relations. Morality is a sentiment/emotion about said relations of the outside world relative to our biological nature. This sentiment is subjective, a reaction in the form of judgment to change or inhibit the relations we find distasteful or dangerous. This stimulus itself is not objective in the sense that subject and object are never separated but are a relational complex that provides our emergent apparent reality, our subjective experience. Morality is subjective and is then expressed in the outside world as a biological extension of our biological nature or a biological EXPRESSION of our biological nature, the semantics are equal. Morality is a dynamic emotion, but the emotion is only objective in our world as creations that support the sentiment of compassion. The systems and structures created are not the emotion/compassion itself but vehicles of communication to society. So, no, there is no objectivity to our emotion-built structures and systems, those too are subjective properties just as our entire apparent reality is entirely subjective. We do not perceive the ultimate truth, we perceive the alterations of what is out there in our biology as apparent reality.

People are carbon blobs moving around in certain patterns.

No different than molecules of gas moving around in a chamber. Only more complex.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:08 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 5:38 am
It's about group morals, if a group agrees on them. Or personal morals.

Then if the "group" of Nazis says, "Jews must be exterminated," that's "moral"? Or even if a "person" does?

And what if the "group" tells the "person" to kill Jews, and she refuses? Is she then "moral" (for sticking with her personal feeling) or "immoral" (for offending the group's command)?

You see, that just won't work.

"Jews must be exterminated" was immoral according to most people, and moral according to that group of Nazis.

Right. So was it moral or immoral? We can't say.

If the "person" refused to kill on moral grounds, then she was immoral according to the Nazi group and moral according to her.

Right. So was she moral or immoral? We can't say.

You see? We have no moral information about either...and that's because of Subjectivism. It doesn't provide any moral insight.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:01 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:08 pm
Then if the "group" of Nazis says, "Jews must be exterminated," that's "moral"? Or even if a "person" does?

And what if the "group" tells the "person" to kill Jews, and she refuses? Is she then "moral" (for sticking with her personal feeling) or "immoral" (for offending the group's command)?

You see, that just won't work.

"Jews must be exterminated" was immoral according to most people, and moral according to that group of Nazis.

Right. So was it moral or immoral? We can't say.

If the "person" refused to kill on moral grounds, then she was immoral according to the Nazi group and moral according to her.

Right. So was she moral or immoral? We can't say.

You see? We have no moral information about either...and that's because of Subjectivism. It doesn't provide any moral insight.

Therefore after 20k+ comments, your best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality.

Such an argument may be acceptable from a kindergartner who doesn't know any better.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:01 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:01 pm
"Jews must be exterminated" was immoral according to most people, and moral according to that group of Nazis.

Right. So was it moral or immoral? We can't say.

If the "person" refused to kill on moral grounds, then she was immoral according to the Nazi group and moral according to her.

Right. So was she moral or immoral? We can't say.

You see? We have no moral information about either...and that's because of Subjectivism. It doesn't provide any moral insight.

Therefore after 20k+ comments, your best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality.

You're not reading. My argument is that Subjectivism doesn't work at all, even on its own terms. And that's regardless of whether or not objective morality is even possible.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:21 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:01 pm
Right. So was it moral or immoral? We can't say.

Right. So was she moral or immoral? We can't say.

You see? We have no moral information about either...and that's because of Subjectivism. It doesn't provide any moral insight.

Therefore after 20k+ comments, your best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality.

You're not reading. My argument is that Subjectivism doesn't work at all, even on its own terms. And that's regardless of whether or not objective morality is even possible.

I'm afraid it may be the case that you are actually honest this time. But your argument was, once again, that subjectivism doesn't give us any information on objectivist terms.

Just think about it, this would mean that after 10 years of arguing for objectivism and against subjectivism, you still have no idea what those words mean. Just stop for a second and marvel at this.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:21 pm My argument is that Subjectivism doesn't work at all,

If a person subjectively thinks that stealing is morally wrong, and that disinclines him from stealing, why do you describe that as not working? I think your idea of working morality is the sort that would enable you, for example, to tell others how they should behave.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:21 pm My argument is that Subjectivism doesn't work at all,

If a person subjectively thinks that stealing is morally wrong, and that disinclines him from stealing, why do you describe that as not working? I think your idea of working morality is the sort that would enable you, for example, to tell others how they should behave.

Because if one person subjectively thinks that stealing is morally wrong and another person subjectively thinks stealing is morally right, there is no way to determine who is correct.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:43 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:21 pm My argument is that Subjectivism doesn't work at all,

If a person subjectively thinks that stealing is morally wrong, and that disinclines him from stealing, why do you describe that as not working? I think your idea of working morality is the sort that would enable you, for example, to tell others how they should behave.

Because if one person subjectively thinks that stealing is morally wrong and another person subjectively thinks stealing is morally right, there is no way to determine who is correct.

I believe the purpose of morality is to modify our behaviour, which, in my experience, it does, therefore it works. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but it seems to be to do with something else.