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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:00 am
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.
'No humans = no reality as it is known by humans.'

No shit!
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:56 am 'No humans = no reality as it is known by humans.'

No shit!
So lets talk about reality as it's NOT known or knowable by humans.

What is it like?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:20 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:56 am 'No humans = no reality as it is known by humans.'

No shit!
So lets talk about reality as it's NOT known or knowable by humans.

What is it like?
I have been asking PH a 'milliont'h times to show HIS "reality as it's NOT known by humans" that is just-is, being-so, that is independent of human existence.
He has never responded to my requests.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Can there be a reality - or features of reality - that are not known by humans?

Was there a reality - or were there features of reality - before humans knew about them?

Would there have been a reality - or features of reality - had there been no humans?

What strange questions! And would 'no' be a rational answer to any of them? And do the eejits here who answer 'no' to them want to affirm the following conclusions?

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.

Please - just put your money where your mouths are. Shove it where the sun don't shine. Where you keep your brains.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:01 am Can there be a reality - or features of reality - that are not known by humans?

Was there a reality - or were there features of reality - before humans knew about them?

Would there have been a reality - or features of reality - had there been no humans?

What strange questions! And would 'no' be a rational answer to any of them? And do the eejits here who answer 'no' to them want to affirm the following conclusions?

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.

Please - just put your money where your mouths are. Shove it where the sun don't shine. Where you keep your brains.
That's a lot of words to avoid the question.

I guess there must be a reaon why Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes refuses to tell us what unknowabe reality is like; or what features reality had before anybody knew about them.

Still waiting for the example of "reality" too.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by promethean75 »

"Shove it where the sun don't shine. Where you keep your brains."

Thus one could infer from the above statements: 'x has shit for brains.'
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

promethean75 wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 1:07 pm "Shove it where the sun don't shine. Where you keep your brains."

Thus one could infer from the above statements: 'x has shit for brains.'
Yes. And here's an example.

Premise: Murder is wrong.
Conclusion: Murder is wrong.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 1:19 pm
promethean75 wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 1:07 pm "Shove it where the sun don't shine. Where you keep your brains."

Thus one could infer from the above statements: 'x has shit for brains.'
Yes. And here's an example.

Premise: Murder is wrong.
Conclusion: Murder is wrong.
Having shit for brains; and the argument being sound are not mutually exclusive.

You fucking idiot! That's an ad hominem fallacy.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

The following argument is shit. It isn't even an argument.

Premise: Murder is wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, murder is wrong.

Now, the entirely reasonable conclusion that the moron who produced that argument has shit for brains has no bearing on the shitness of the argument. It's a separate matter.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:08 pm The following argument is shit. It isn't even an argument.
This claim requires justification.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by promethean75 »

i know Peter i keep tellin em there is no basis for any categorical imperatives (unless a god exists who would be the final arbiter of what the Good is) and that hypothetical imperatives just result in a regress of ends... none of which can be categorically imperative. not taking your neighbor's cow is wrong becuz it's stealing. stealing is wrong becuz it violates property rights. violating property rights is wrong becuz [insert reason], continue...

so murder can be wrong in many intersubjective ways (a kind of objectivity that results from unanimous agreement on some hypothetical imperative) but it's not the kind of objectivity dicks like skep are tryna get at here. 

let's say that everytime a murder wuz committed, every person on earth had to watch a full episode of Cheers, and everybody hated Cheers, no exception.

they all don't ever have to watch an episode of Cheers, and they agree that any kind of action resulting in having to do so would be 'wrong', no exceptions. duddint even matter if the ends justify the means becuz nothing conceivable is more horrible, more torturous, than having to watch an episode of Cheers. they unanimously agree to never murder anyone to avoid having to watch it.

here there is an objective certainty to the imperative and the quality 'wrongness' actually exists. that is to say, if u want to avoid watching Cheers, and murdering people makes u watch Cheers, then murdering people would be the wrong thing to do.

this is as certain as jumping off a ten story building is the wrong thing to do if u don't wanna die.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

promethean75 wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:22 pm i know Peter i keep tellin em there is no basis for any categorical imperatives (unless a god exists who would be the final arbiter of what the Good is) and that hypothetical imperatives just result in a regress of ends... none of which can be categorically imperative. not taking your neighbor's cow is wrong becuz it's stealing. stealing is wrong becuz it violates property rights. violating property rights is wrong becuz [insert reason], continue...

so murder can be wrong in many intersubjective ways (a kind of objectivity that results from unanimous agreement on some hypothetical imperative) but it's not the kind of objectivity dicks like skep are tryna get at here. 

let's say that everytime a murder wuz committed, every person on earth had to watch a full episode of Cheers, and everybody hated Cheers, no exception.

they all don't ever have to watch an episode of Cheers, and they agree that any kind of action resulting in having to do so would be 'wrong', no exceptions. duddint even matter if the ends justify the means becuz nothing conceivable is more horrible, more torturous, than having to watch an episode of Cheers. they unanimously agree to never murder anyone to avoid having to watch it.

here there is an objective certainty to the imperative and the quality 'wrongness' actually exists. that is to say, if u want to avoid watching Cheers, and murdering people makes u watch Cheers, then murdering people would be the wrong thing to do.

this is as certain as jumping off a ten story building is the wrong thing to do if u don't wanna die.
Okay. But why would there being a god mean the good would be a categorical imperative? I think the argument from authority is as fallacious for moral as it it is for factual assertions. (As it happens, I don't think the expression 'categorical imperative' is coherent, because an imperative is a command, and commands have no truth-value.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

promethean75 wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:22 pm so murder can be wrong in many intersubjective ways (a kind of objectivity that results from unanimous agreement on some hypothetical imperative) but it's not the kind of objectivity dicks like skep are tryna get at here. 
Inter-subjectivity is the only kind of objectivity available to humans.

What sort of objectivity are you talking about? The idealised/unattainable kind that makes you chase your philosophical tail for 5000 years?
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by promethean75 »

"But why would there being a god mean the good would be a categorical imperative?"

damn you're right. bad choice of words. even if it's argued that there is a Good becuz a god makes it so (and even here god is up against the euthyphro dilemma but that's beside the point here), one still wouldn't have to do the Good just becuz there is a good. so it's irrelevant whether the imperative is categorical.

but all this is prescriptive not descriptive ethics. I'm not describing some entity 'Goodness' that exists in the world in a objective sense.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:01 am Can there be a reality - or features of reality - that are not known by humans?

Was there a reality - or were there features of reality - before humans knew about them?

Would there have been a reality - or features of reality - had there been no humans?

What strange questions! And would 'no' be a rational answer to any of them? And do the eejits here who answer 'no' to them want to affirm the following conclusions?

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
2 There was no reality before humans knew about it.
3 Had there been no humans, there would have been no reality.
You are the one who is putting yourself on a philosophy guillotine.

You insisted 'what is fact' is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs ...

I am asking [a million times] what is that "feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, a state of affairs" that is independent of the human opinions, beliefs and judgments.
You have cowardly run away and avoiding to answer above as based on your own definition of what is reality.

1 There can be no reality that is not known by humans.
The above is a strawman.
Rather,
Whatever is reality CANNOT be independent of the human factors in contrast to your claim.

I have no problem of being reality, i.e. to me,
What is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK-[FSR] of which the human-based science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
Because the FSK are human-based whatever the resultant [reality, others] CANNOT be independent of the human factors and per your definition above.
(I know you are tempted, but note the prior emerging and realization.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145)
Post Reply