Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:43 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 6:56 pm The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, so, how on earth could morality be objective unless the conscious subject created it outside himself/herself? Let stop beating this horse, its dead. Morality is a biological extension, an expression of humanity, the subjective meaning made objective in his outer world in behavioral norms, rules/laws, and institutions/churches/temples to make these subjective sentiments sacred, and to be used in the judgment of others.
In the ontological sense, the word "objective" means "existing independently of minds". To say that a thing exists independently of minds is to say that it would exist even if minds ceased to exist. The question of this thread, then, is "Would morality continue to exist if all minds ceased to exist?"
The first thing that needs to be done in order to answer that question is to understand what the word "morality" means.
The term "morality" means "the set of all laws that someone [an individual, a group of people or everyone] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal" If it actually meant something like "a set of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong held by someone", then morality would clearly be subjective, since beliefs exist within minds, and if something exists within a mind, removing all minds from existence would also remove that thing from existence. But is that what the word actually means?
We only know our apparent reality, our everyday reality on a subjective level, nothing we know of is independent of that subjectivity. All experience/knowledge/meaning is biologically dependent. The seed of morality is the identification of the self in you with the self in other organisms, with this identification there is an extended concept of the self, and this is where compassion for other-selves arises. Out of this common self-interest arises the sentiments of a formula for mutual self-interest called morality, and this sentiment remains subjective until the conscious subject then bestows these sentiments upon the world as behavioral norms, laws, rules, and institutions of law and of making those sentiments sacred, churches, temples etc. These than reflect back at all the common subjects the sentiments thought best as the common norm of self-interest.

Of course, you can use the word "morality" that way, and a lot of people already do, but in that case, you'd no longer have a word for what moral beliefs are attempting to represent. (Every belief, if it is a proper belief, is attempting to represent a portion of reality. Moral beliefs are no exception. If there is no portion of reality that moral beliefs are describing, they are not beliefs, but something else. A belief is a proposition held to be true by someone, and every proposition, in order to be a proposition, must consist of two parts: the described and the description. Remove one of these parts and you no longer have a proposition. )
Morality isn't a set of beliefs. It is a set of laws. And it isn't a set of any kind of laws. Societal laws (i.e. how societies behave, e.g. "When a resident of a modern-day country kills someone, he goes to jail" ) and personal laws (i.e. how individual people behave, e.g., "Peter never eats meat") are not moral laws. Moral laws are laws of the form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P or group of people G is D."

Given that morality is a set of laws, we need to ask the following questions:

1) What is a law?

2) Do laws exist?

3) Are laws ontologically objective? Is their existence independent of minds? If minds ceased to exist, would laws continue to exist?

Let's answer these questions one by one.

WHAT IS A LAW?

A law is a limit on what is possible. It is that which forces a portion of reality to be certain way in some or all situations. If there are no laws, i.e. if no laws exist, it means that everything is possible in every situation. If there are laws, i.e. if some of them exist, it means that certain things aren't possible in certain situations.

The simplest example of a law is the law of identity, "A = A". That statement is saying that every thing is identical to itself in all situations. It's saying that there is a law that prohibits all things in all situations from not being identical to themselves.

Another example is the mathematical law captured by the statement "2 + 2 = 4". That statement is saying that every set consisting of two sets of two elements is a set consisting of four elements. It's saying that there is a law that prohibits all sets consisting of two sets of two elements from being sets of one element, sets of two elements, sets of three elements, sets of five elements, etc.

Another example of a law is the causal law that is "If you press the light switch at point in time t, the light bulb will turn on in less than a second". That statement is saying that there is a law that prohibits the light bulb from not turning on when you press the light switch at point in time t.

Finally, there are moral laws. Moral laws are laws of the form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P or group of people G is D". An example of a moral law is "The best decision for a man, every man, in every situation is to choose to do only what his mind unanimously agrees it's the best thing to do". ( I understand that most people don't define the term "morality" this broadly. Most use it narrowly, to refer to social morality, i.e. to what's the right way to treat other living beings. Keep in mind that I define it a bit differently, to mean what's the right thing to do in general. )

DO LAWS EXIST?

Given that a law is a limit on what's possible, it follows that, if there are things that aren't possible in some or all situations, then there are laws. And if there are laws, then they exist.

To say that laws do not exist is to say that there are no laws, i.e. that there are no limits on what is possible. That, in turn, means that everything is possible in every situation.

I can assure you that literally everyone believes that we live in a world in which at least some of the things aren't possible. And if there are people who argue otherwise, which I'm sure there are, I can assure you that they are contradicting themselves.

The idea that laws exist is difficult to accept by some people. These tend to be people who think in terms of "If you can't touch something, it does not exist". They affirm the existence of nothing but physical objects. They have a tendency to bastardize highly abstract concepts by reducing them to the most similar concept they are familiar with. Pragmatists, for example, have done that with the concept of truth by reducing it to the concept of useful belief ( or to the concept of the limit of inquiry, as C. S. Peirce did. ) A number of physicists have done the same with the concept of past by reducing it to memories in the present. Others have done it by reducing the concept of time to "what clocks show". And so on. There are many examples. If you ask these people, laws either do not really exist, since they aren't physical objects, or they do, but they are not want we think they are, they are merely concepts inside our minds ( e.g. mental tools that we use to predict what's going to happen in the future. )

The fact of the matter is that the universe is not merely the sum of everything that was, everything that is and everything that will be. The universe does not merely refer to what is actual. It also refers to what is possible. And what is possible is determined by laws.

ARE LAWS ONTOLOGICALLY OBJECTIVE?

If minds ceased to exist, would laws continue to exist?

To answer that question, it's important to understand the difference between mutable and immutable things.

A mutable thing is a thing that can change. A thing that can change is a thing that can go through multiple stages of existence. The number of stages a mutable thing goes through is called its lifespan. A mutable thing, if it has a beginning, starts existing at one point in time, and if it has an end, it stops existing at another. Typically, a mutable thing occupies a portion of space at a single point in time at every stage of its existence. However, this is not a definitional requirement -- a mutable thing can occupy any number of moments at any stage of its existence. A mutable thing can exist in the same exact state at every stage of its existence, meaning, it does not have to change at all. But it has the capacity to do so. The state of a mutable thing at any stage of its existence, as well as its lifespan, can be determined, partially or completely, by other things. Physical objects, for example, are mutable things.

An immutable thing, on the other hand, is a thing that has no capacity for change at all. An immutable thing can exist at one or more points in time but it cannot go through more than one stage of its existence. The set of everything that was, that is and that will be is an example. That's the state of the universe at every single point in time. It's a thing that exists at more than one moment -- actually, at every single moment of existence -- but that goes through no more than one stage of its existence. The state of a physical object at a single point in time is another example. It's a thing that exists at a single point in time and a thing that goes through exactly one stage of its existence. The truth value of a proposition is yet another example. If a proposition is true on one day, it is true on all days. None of these things can change. As such, nothing can change them. If they exist, nothing can make them disappear from existence. They are, in a sense, permanent.

That said, if a law is an immutable law, it cannot cease to exist.

Are all laws immutable?

Absolutely not. There are mutable and immutable laws. Let me illustrate that with a very simple example.

Consider a universe that consists of exactly 3 points in time. At each point in time, nothing exists except for a light switch and a light bulb. At each point in time, the light switch can only be in one of the following two states: it can be "up" or it can be "down". Similarly, at each point in time, the light bulb can only be in one of the following two states: it can be "on" or it can be "off".

Let us say that the following laws apply:

1) Whenever the light switch is "up" at point in time 1, the light bulb is "on" at point in time 2.

2) Whenever the light switch is "down" at point in time 1, the light bulb is "off" at point in time 2.

3) Whenever the light switch is "up" at point in time 2, the light bulb is "off" at point in time 3,

4) Whenever the light switch is "down" at point in time 2, the light bulb is "on" at point in time 3.

The 4 laws that I just mentioned are immutable laws. They go through exactly one stage of their existence. They have no capacity to change. They are what they are.

However, if we said that 1) and 3) are two different stages of one and the same law, that law would be a mutable law. And in this particular case, it would be a law that changed ( since it went from "If up, then on" to "If up, then off". )

Are moral laws immutable laws?

A morality is a set of immutable laws, i.e. laws that cannot change. They either exist or they do not. If they exist, nothing can make them disappear from existence. Thus, if minds ceased to exist, moral laws would continue to exist.
[/quote]

I am afraid you have overwhelmed me, and I have answered the question of morality in its objective and/or subjective state as well as I can in the brief response above. My first paragraph.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

In addition to the ambiguity inherent in the phrase "There is a Goat" as listed above. ChatCPT also has the following to say.

The phrase "There is a Goat" can have a few possible meanings, depending on the context:

Literal meaning: The statement could be referring to the existence or presence of a goat in a specific location. For example, if someone says, "There is a goat in the backyard," it means that a goat is physically present in the backyard.

Descriptive meaning: It can be used to provide information about the surroundings or situation. For instance, if someone says, "In this village, there is a goat," it could imply that goats are a common sight or are frequently found in that particular village.

Allegorical or symbolic meaning: In certain contexts, the phrase might carry a metaphorical or symbolic significance. Goats are often associated with characteristics such as stubbornness, independence, or being a scapegoat. So, saying "There is a goat" could be a way of conveying a hidden meaning or alluding to certain qualities or situations.

Idiomatic meaning: Depending on the cultural or linguistic context, the phrase "There is a goat" might have a specific idiomatic meaning. Idioms are phrases that have a figurative meaning understood by native speakers of a language. Without further context, it is challenging to determine any specific idiomatic interpretation for this phrase.

In conclusion, the possible meanings of "There is a Goat" depend on the context in which it is used.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

There is only that which appears in the consciously subjective subject, goat, boat or moat, if it isn't subjective knowledge/experience it does not exist subjectively.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 5:24 amIn simple terms, when you claim that things in reality are absolutely independent of the human mind, there is an inevitable REALITY_GAP between you and the-thing-by-itself.
What do you mean by "reality gap"?
Note this;

Image

The REALITY-GAP [time-gap] can be represented by the blue-arrow above.

To a philosophical Realist [P-realist] the REAL candle in the picture exist as a mind-independent object from the human.
In this case, the REAL candle is separated from the person, as such there is no way the person will ever realize and know what the REAL candle really is.
As such there is a REALITY-GAP [like the blue-arrow] for the person, i.e. between the real-candle and the person.
What the person know as the candle is merely an inferred reality from his experiences.
There is NO WAY the person will EVER know what the supposed real independent candle is.

This is amplified by the perception of our Sun.
It takes about 9 minute for the light to reach the human person on Earth.
As such, no P-realist on Earth will ever know what is the real-Sun really is.
What the P-realists realize is merely the 9-minute old Sun and never the really-real independent Sun.

The Reality-Gap should be more obvious for the P-realist.
Note
Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?
viewtopic.php?t=40154
P-realists can perceive an independent Proxima Centauri in the sky which they suppose is really real, but in real time, the supposed real Proxima Centauri could have died and disappear.

Because of the Reality-Gap, the P-realist can never know and realize the real mind-independent thing out there.
What you have is merely a thought-object and not the real thing.
Therefore philosophical realism is never realistic.



As such, how can you ever be certain that there is an independent reality out there and what you know of it, is what it should be?
I know there is a tree in my garden even when I am not looking at it because it's been there for years. Each time I looked inside my garden, it was there. If you don't trust me, you can sit in front of it and watch what happens for a while. See whether or not it disappears at times. I can assure you that it never does. In fact, wouldn't that be kind of strange? A tree suddenly disappearing and then suddenly reappearing? That's not how things work in reality, isn't it? In order for a tree to disappear, it has to be broken down into one or more pieces and then someone or something has to move those pieces to another place. It's quite a bit of a process. There is nothing sudden about it.

Here's the important bit:

To say that portion of space P was occupied by thing T at some point in time t is to say that if a man observed that portion of reality P in its entirety ( i.e. from all relevant angles and distances ) that he would have observed thing T.

As such, when someone says that the tree in my garden did not exist at some point in time t when noone observed it, they are saying that, if someone observed the portion of reality it occupied at that point in time t, that they wouldn't have observed a tree.

Do you really believe that? I don't think so. I don't think there's a single anti-realist who does so. Yet, they call themselves anti-realists.
Yes, it is obvious, when I see a tree outside [t1], then go inside the house, and at t2 go outside, I will see the tree again.
But is the tree at t2 the same as the tree at t1. The tree at t2 will differ from the tree at t1 by difference is the number of molecules and atoms of oxygen, carbon dioxide, H20, etc.

The point is whatever you conclude on the above is based on humans who made the conclusion of "what is reality".
Therefore "what is reality" CANNOT be independent of humans, i.e. mind-independent.

The mind-independent reality that always exists even without humans is a mere speculation and can never be real.
Kant is an idealist, i.e. Transcendental Idealist;
Plato was an idealist too. But he wasn't an anti-realist.
My point is a realist can be an anti-realist depending on context.
There are many types of realists and anti-realists.
You are a philosophical realist [mind-independence] and at the same time an Empirical-Idealist, i.e. what you know of empirical things is confined to the mind.
I am not sure how you can be a moral objectivist from the philosophical realist sense, perhaps it is based on intuition.
Can you explain.
I will do so in a lengthy response to Popeye.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 4:58 am
Magnus Anderson wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 5:24 amIn simple terms, when you claim that things in reality are absolutely independent of the human mind, there is an inevitable REALITY_GAP between you and the-thing-by-itself.
What do you mean by "reality gap"?
Note this;

Image

The REALITY-GAP [time-gap] can be represented by the blue-arrow above.

To a philosophical Realist [P-realist] the REAL candle in the picture exist as a mind-independent object from the human.
In this case, the REAL candle is separated from the person, as such there is no way the person will ever realize and know what the REAL candle really is.
As such there is a REALITY-GAP [like the blue-arrow] for the person, i.e. between the real-candle and the person.
What the person know as the candle is merely an inferred reality from his experiences.
There is NO WAY the person will EVER know what the supposed real independent candle is.

This is amplified by the perception of our Sun.
It takes about 9 minute for the light to reach the human person on Earth.
As such, no P-realist on Earth will ever know what is the real-Sun really is.
What the P-realists realize is merely the 9-minute old Sun and never the really-real independent Sun.

The Reality-Gap should be more obvious for the P-realist.
Note
Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?
viewtopic.php?t=40154
P-realists can perceive an independent Proxima Centauri in the sky which they suppose is really real, but in real time, the supposed real Proxima Centauri could have died and disappear.

Because of the Reality-Gap, the P-realist can never know and realize the real mind-independent thing out there.
What you have is merely a thought-object and not the real thing.
Therefore philosophical realism is never realistic.



As such, how can you ever be certain that there is an independent reality out there and what you know of it, is what it should be?
I know there is a tree in my garden even when I am not looking at it because it's been there for years. Each time I looked inside my garden, it was there. If you don't trust me, you can sit in front of it and watch what happens for a while. See whether or not it disappears at times. I can assure you that it never does. In fact, wouldn't that be kind of strange? A tree suddenly disappearing and then suddenly reappearing? That's not how things work in reality, isn't it? In order for a tree to disappear, it has to be broken down into one or more pieces and then someone or something has to move those pieces to another place. It's quite a bit of a process. There is nothing sudden about it.

Here's the important bit:

To say that portion of space P was occupied by thing T at some point in time t is to say that if a man observed that portion of reality P in its entirety ( i.e. from all relevant angles and distances ) that he would have observed thing T.

As such, when someone says that the tree in my garden did not exist at some point in time t when noone observed it, they are saying that, if someone observed the portion of reality it occupied at that point in time t, that they wouldn't have observed a tree.

Do you really believe that? I don't think so. I don't think there's a single anti-realist who does so. Yet, they call themselves anti-realists.
Yes, it is obvious, when I see a tree outside [t1], then go inside the house, and at t2 go outside, I will see the tree again.
But is the tree at t2 the same as the tree at t1. The tree at t2 will differ from the tree at t1 by difference is the number of molecules and atoms of oxygen, carbon dioxide, H20, etc.

The point is whatever you conclude on the above is based on humans who made the conclusion of "what is reality".
Therefore "what is reality" CANNOT be independent of humans, i.e. mind-independent.

The mind-independent reality that always exists even without humans is a mere speculation and can never be real.
Kant is an idealist, i.e. Transcendental Idealist;
Plato was an idealist too. But he wasn't an anti-realist.
My point is a realist can be an anti-realist depending on context.
There are many types of realists and anti-realists.
You are a philosophical realist [mind-independence] and at the same time an Empirical-Idealist, i.e. what you know of empirical things is confined to the mind.
I am not sure how you can be a moral objectivist from the philosophical realist sense, perhaps it is based on intuition.
Can you explain.
I will do so in a lengthy response to Popeye.
One never knows the source, be it object or energy, one only knows on a subjective level the effects of the source on one's biological constitution, for it changes or alters that constitution, giving us an experience of the alteration not an experience of the source that affected that alteration. So, reality isn't really real in the sense that our apparent reality is a reading and readout of how the source affects us, thus apparent reality is biological reaction, we experience effects not the source. As to time lag, if one considers that all of reality is a process, it infers this time lag of cognitive perception. Biological life is the source of all meaning as its affected biology, and it then is in a position to bestow this meaning on a meaningless world, these experiences are projected outside itself as meanings in the world. A self-simulation of one's constitutional nature in relation to the constitutional nature of the unknown source of energy.
Last edited by popeye1945 on Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 4:58 am
Magnus Anderson wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:47 pmWhat do you mean by "reality gap"?
Note this;

Image

The REALITY-GAP [time-gap] can be represented by the blue-arrow above.

To a philosophical Realist [P-realist] the REAL candle in the picture exist as a mind-independent object from the human.
In this case, the REAL candle is separated from the person, as such there is no way the person will ever realize and know what the REAL candle really is.
As such there is a REALITY-GAP [like the blue-arrow] for the person, i.e. between the real-candle and the person.
What the person know as the candle is merely an inferred reality from his experiences.
Alright, so the term "reality gap" refers to the fact that the description is not the same thing as the described.

Do note that only indirect realists believe in the existence of reality gap. Direct realists do not. Direct realists think that we observe reality directly, i.e. that we do not map it. The 2D image that we see with our own eyes, according to direct realists, is not a map of reality, it is reality itself. According to them, our eyes are sort of like windows into reality that can get dirty at times and make it difficult for us to see what's really out there.
There is NO WAY the person will EVER know what the supposed real independent candle is.
That's a stretch. I know a lot of things about "real independent candles".

The fact that I cannot perceive a candle without mapping it ( wihch is what the word "direct" stands for in "direct realism" ) does not mean I know nothing about it. It merely means that I cannot perceive it without mapping it ( either directly or indirectly. ) The very idea of perceiving something without mapping it seems contradictory to me.

Similarly, the fact that I cannot directly map a candle does not mean I know nothing about it. It merely means I cannot directly map it, which means, I have to use reasoning in order to map it.

We understand reality in terms of how it would affect us in various situations.

It's like sitting in a spherical room with soft walls that can bend and straighten depending on what kind of pressure is exerted upon them by the external world. Even though you cannot perceive the external world without mapping it, and even though you cannot directly map it, you can still form a true map of it by observing the movement of the walls and by employing reasoning.
Yes, it is obvious, when I see a tree outside [t1], then go inside the house, and at t2 go outside, I will see the tree again.
But is the tree at t2 the same as the tree at t1. The tree at t2 will differ from the tree at t1 by difference is the number of molecules and atoms of oxygen, carbon dioxide, H20, etc.
It's still a tree. And that's what matters.

We're asking, "Is there a tree in my garden when noone is looking at it?"

We're not asking, "Is the tree in my garden when noone is looking exactly the same as the one we saw the last time?"
The point is whatever you conclude on the above is based on humans who made the conclusion of "what is reality".
Therefore "what is reality" CANNOT be independent of humans, i.e. mind-independent.
That does not follow.

If beliefs are determined by humans, which they are, it does not follow that there is no such thing as mind-independent reality.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Magnus Anderson wrote:To say that portion of space P was occupied by thing T at some point in time t is to say that if a man observed that portion of reality P in its entirety ( i.e. from all relevant angles and distances ) that he would have observed thing T.
Of course, it's necessary to observe the portion of reality P without changing it before observing it.

Isn't that what happens when we observe things in real life?

For example, the tree in my garden remains a tree regardless of how long anyone is looking at it. This isn't to say that observation doesn't affect it, I am sure that it does, but it does not change the fact that it is a tree. And whether or not it is a tree is what we care about here.

Apparently, Veritas Aequitas thinks that when I look inside my garden, I create every single physical object in it, just by looking at it. There was nothing in my garden before I looked inside it -- it was an empty space -- but when I looked in its direction, suddenly, physical objects came into existence.

How would he prove that?

Creation implies causation. It means that, upon observing the garden, the contents of my mind -- or the contents of all minds that exist -- causes the garden to be full of physical objects.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 4:58 am
Magnus Anderson wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:47 pmWhat do you mean by "reality gap"?
Note this;

Image

The REALITY-GAP [time-gap] can be represented by the blue-arrow above.

To a philosophical Realist [P-realist] the REAL candle in the picture exist as a mind-independent object from the human.
In this case, the REAL candle is separated from the person, as such there is no way the person will ever realize and know what the REAL candle really is.
As such there is a REALITY-GAP [like the blue-arrow] for the person, i.e. between the real-candle and the person.
What the person know as the candle is merely an inferred reality from his experiences.
Alright, so the term "reality gap" refers to the fact that the description is not the same thing as the described.
That is not the main issue.

P-realists [you as one] claim there is a really real objective mind-independent reality external to the perceiver.
As such, physically there is a time and distance element between the perceiver and the-perceived.
So, there is a need for light waves to travel through the GAP, the REALITY-GAP the-perceived to the perceiver.
Because of the inevitable physical GAP - the Reality-GAP, what-is-reality [P-realist version] is corrupted when perceived by the perceiver [P-realist].

Thus the P-realists claim of a mind-independent thing can NEVER be realistic.

At the extreme and obvious, when P-realists see star-X [300 light years away] they claim that is the real mind independent star-X, when in real-time of reality, star-X is already dead and gone millions of Earth-years ago.

The above quandary [mess] do not apply to anti-philosophical-realists of the Kantian type.
Do note that only indirect realists believe in the existence of reality gap.
Direct realists do not.
Direct realists think that we observe reality directly, i.e. that we do not map it. The 2D image that we see with our own eyes, according to direct realists, is not a map of reality, it is reality itself. According to them, our eyes are sort of like windows into reality that can get dirty at times and make it difficult for us to see what's really out there.
First, realism [philosophical] is basically flawed because it merely assumed [without proof] there is a mind-independent realty out there to be perceived. Thus it is begging the question.
Direct Realism, note 'ism' is merely a belief that what-is-perceived is what-is-real.
It is an insistence despite the common sense of there is a distance and time between 'what-is-perceived and the supposedly the-perceived.

There is NO WAY the person will EVER know what the supposed real independent candle is.
That's a stretch. I know a lot of things about "real independent candles".

The fact that I cannot perceive a candle without mapping it ( wihch is what the word "direct" stands for in "direct realism" ) does not mean I know nothing about it. It merely means that I cannot perceive it without mapping it ( either directly or indirectly. ) The very idea of perceiving something without mapping it seems contradictory to me.

Similarly, the fact that I cannot directly map a candle does not mean I know nothing about it. It merely means I cannot directly map it, which means, I have to use reasoning in order to map it.

We understand reality in terms of how it would affect us in various situations.

It's like sitting in a spherical room with soft walls that can bend and straighten depending on what kind of pressure is exerted upon them by the external world. Even though you cannot perceive the external world without mapping it, and even though you cannot directly map it, you can still form a true map of it by observing the movement of the walls and by employing reasoning.
As a P-realist you are merely assuming [without proof] there is a mind independent candle out there.
Then you assumed what you perceived is that mind-independent candle that you assumed ideologically as a P-realist.
This is fallacious, i.e. begging the question.

When you state "I know a lot of things about "real mind independent candles" that is really a stretch because you are begging the question.
It would be more realistic to state;
"I know [as a human-being via a mind] a lot of things about a candle out there"

On the contrary, I had pointed out, before you can know and describe anything, that thing must emerged and be realized then be known and described.

You need to read this thread,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?t=40145

So, because, "I realized the candle, and know [human-based via the mind] a lot of things about a candle out there" that eventual real candle cannot be mind-independent because you participated in creating that candle in the first place. This co-participator of reality is anti-philosophical realism, thus cannot be mind-independent.
Yes, it is obvious, when I see a tree outside [t1], then go inside the house, and at t2 go outside, I will see the tree again.
But is the tree at t2 the same as the tree at t1. The tree at t2 will differ from the tree at t1 by difference is the number of molecules and atoms of oxygen, carbon dioxide, H20, etc.
It's still a tree. And that's what matters.

We're asking, "Is there a tree in my garden when noone is looking at it?"

We're not asking, "Is the tree in my garden when noone is looking exactly the same as the one we saw the last time?"
A tree is merely a universal, i.e. a concept, it cannot be the real thing, the real particular tree.
"MA: Is there a tree in my garden when noone is looking at it?"
If you insist on the tree as a concept [universal abstract] and not the particular tree, then you are engaging in illusions.
The point is whatever you conclude on the above is based on humans who made the conclusion of "what is reality".
Therefore "what is reality" CANNOT be independent of humans, i.e. mind-independent.
That does not follow.

If beliefs are determined by humans, which they are, it does not follow that there is no such thing as mind-independent reality.
The point is the idea of mind-independent reality [noumena] is actually a belief or worst an assumption [by P-realist] which is not based on any sound proof.
At most it is merely an intelligible object which is groundless but merely a thought driven by an evolution default. This is more of a psychological issue than epistemology.

Note I have presented Kant's words on the issue of Phenomena vs Noumena.
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
Note the other thread on the 2nd part of the Chapter.
If you read the full chapter on Kant's Phenomena vs Noumena [not easy] you will understand [not necessary agree with] my views which is more realistic.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:38 pm
Magnus Anderson wrote:To say that portion of space P was occupied by thing T at some point in time t is to say that if a man observed that portion of reality P in its entirety ( i.e. from all relevant angles and distances ) that he would have observed thing T.
Of course, it's necessary to observe the portion of reality P without changing it before observing it.

Isn't that what happens when we observe things in real life?

For example, the tree in my garden remains a tree regardless of how long anyone is looking at it. This isn't to say that observation doesn't affect it, I am sure that it does, but it does not change the fact that it is a tree. And whether or not it is a tree is what we care about here.

Apparently, Veritas Aequitas thinks that when I look inside my garden, I create every single physical object in it, just by looking at it. There was nothing in my garden before I looked inside it -- it was an empty space -- but when I looked in its direction, suddenly, physical objects came into existence.

How would he prove that?

Creation implies causation. It means that, upon observing the garden, the contents of my mind -- or the contents of all minds that exist -- causes the garden to be full of physical objects.
This is the typical misunderstanding and strawman in asserting [based on ignorance of reality] that "I create every single physical object in the garden [or reality] just by looking at it. That would be like as if I am claiming to be an omnipotent God.


The main point is this;
Philosophical Realism claims what are things in reality are mind-independent, i.e. if there are no humans those mind-independent things still exist regardless.

Anti-Philosophical-Realists [mine is Kantian] counter that things in reality are NOT mind-independent.
Somehow the human factor is entangled with reality, i.e.
  • Reality is ALL-THERE-IS,
    Human is intricately part and parcel of Reality
    Therefore, deterministically[relative], humans [mind] cannot be independent of reality and the things therein
So, the main thesis of anti-philosophical-realism is the above, NOT that reality and things are created when humans [and mind] look at it.
When the term 'look' [the moon] 'observe' hear [sound in the forest] is used, that is the simplified version for laymen, but there is more depth, details and complexity to it.

What P-realists are ignorant is the reality of the 13.7 billions of conditions since the Big-Bang to the present that ground and enable the emergence and realization of reality before it is perceived [cognition] known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].
You just cannot ignore the above 13.7 billions of conditions and history human are conditioned upon when philosophizing on more refined issues.
Suggest you upgrade you knowledge database on this knowledge.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:29 am What P-realists are ignorant is the reality of the 13.7 billions of conditions since the Big-Bang to the present that ground and enable the emergence and realization of reality before it is perceived [cognition] known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].
Claptrap. Wtf does 'ground and enable the emergence and realisation of reality before it is perceived, known and described' actually mean? It's complete nonsense. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:29 am What P-realists are ignorant is the reality of the 13.7 billions of conditions since the Big-Bang to the present that ground and enable the emergence and realization of reality before it is perceived [cognition] known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].
Claptrap. Wtf does 'ground and enable the emergence and realisation of reality before it is perceived, known and described' actually mean? It's complete nonsense. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes strikes again.

When I keep asking him what the term “reality” signifies his response is...

Still pending.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

'Don't show us examples of what we call real things, such as rocks and stones and trees and dogs and so on. I want to see reality itself - the whole thing. Show us reality! What? You can't? Ah, so reality doesn't exist, except in your head!'

'Don't show us examples of dropped things hitting the floor. Show us gravity - the thing itself!'

Face palm.

To repeat my question for VA, and not the fucking moron who feels the need to squirt out one inane question after another to get my attention:

What evidence do you have for the astonishingly unscientific claim that no humans = no reality?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:12 pm 'Don't show us examples of what we call real things, such as rocks and stones and trees and dogs and so on. I want to see reality itself - the whole thing. Show us reality! What? You can't? Ah, so reality doesn't exist, except in your head!'

'Don't show us examples of dropped things hitting the floor. Show us gravity - the thing itself!'

Face palm.

To repeat my question for VA, and not the fucking moron who feels the need to squirt out one inane question after another to get my attention:

What evidence do you have for the astonishingly unscientific claim that no humans = no reality?
Nobody is asking you for examples of "real things", you dumb English miscomprehending cunt.

You are being asked for an example of "reality".

And if you can't produce the example - then produce an explanation as to what's preventing you from producing the example.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:29 am What P-realists are ignorant is the reality of the 13.7 billions of conditions since the Big-Bang to the present that ground and enable the emergence and realization of reality before it is perceived [cognition] known [epistemology] and described [linguistic].
Claptrap. Wtf does 'ground and enable the emergence and realisation of reality before it is perceived, known and described' actually mean? It's complete nonsense. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
You are like a kindergarten kid insisting to a chemistry-scientist 'water is H20' [generally] is claptrap. That exposes your ignorance.

I have presented my argument here;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?t=40145

Humans Conditioned Upon 13.7 B Years of Conditions
viewtopic.php?t=40098

Suggest you educate and understand [not necessary agree with] the above thesis and present your counter in a matured way [not simply blabbering "It's (claptrap) complete nonsense. Sound and fury, signifying nothing."]
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:12 pm 'Don't show us examples of what we call real things, such as rocks and stones and trees and dogs and so on. I want to see reality itself - the whole thing. Show us reality! What? You can't? Ah, so reality doesn't exist, except in your head!'

'Don't show us examples of dropped things hitting the floor. Show us gravity - the thing itself!'

Face palm.

To repeat my question for VA, and not the fucking moron who feels the need to squirt out one inane question after another to get my attention:

What evidence do you have for the astonishingly unscientific claim that no humans = no reality?
I have already explained to you many times.

There are two senses of reality, i.e.

1. FSK-ed reality [evolutionary embedded in all humans]
2. P-realist reality independent of the existence of humans.

I have demonstrated your version of reality in 2 is illusory.

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH's What is Fact [independent] is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

My FSK-ed reality is most realistic.
FSK-ed implied it CANNOT be independent of the existence of humans.
Therefore if there are no humans, there is no FSK-ed reality.
Post Reply