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 »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:12 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:06 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:52 pm
Your misunderstanding of how we-the-subjects construct that which we call "objectivity".
So, point out where my reasoning goes astray, that is what we are here for.
I did already.

Objectivity is only a meaningful notion in the context of knowledge socially constructed by the subjects.

It's objectively true that today is the Sunday, 28th May 2023 and that the time is 19:12 GMT, even though without humans time, calendars or weeldays wouldn't exist.
It is nonsense, you are going by a prearranged human made code of reasoning, there are no Sundays, there are simply the rotations of the earth, and the time is now, whether it is dark or not---lol!! The only world you know is a subjective world.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:20 pm It is nonsense, you are going by a prearranged human made code of reasoning,
Why is it nonsense? That's literally how science works. That's literally what scientists call "objective".

If we are all using the same yardstick to measure with then our results are "objective".
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:20 pm there are no Sundays
Bulshit. Today is Sunday. This is objectively true to any fucking human. if you aren't human that's your fucking problem.

There was a time that philosopy self-identified with the humanities. It seems you've parted ways with this tradition.
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:20 pm there are simply the rotations of the earth, and the time is now, whether it is dark or not---lol!!
I bet you my grandmother doesn't give a shit about any of that.
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:20 pm The only world you know is a subjective world.
Fucking idiot. The world I know is an inter-subjective world. That's what humans call "objectivity".

The notion of "objectivity" that you (and other philosophers) are chasing is a bit like Alchemy. It's made up. Idealistic. Unattainable. Bullshit.

The fact that objectivity exists within the (inter)subjective is still going over your head.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:56 pmWhat is the color of this question?

... and why isn't it on the visible spectrum?
As I already told you, if you want me to answer this question, you have to show that it's relevant. Alternatively, you can present a counter-argument against my claim that colors are objective. You have options but you refuse to use them. As you wish.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Atla wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:06 pmSo again I should explain indirect realism. And now the abstract/concrete dichotomy. And then why our faulty definition of "subjective" doesn't override reality. Let's agree to disagree.
I have absolutely no idea why you have to explain what indirect realism is. I already know what it is. I agree with it. But I don't think it's relevant. Indirect realism says nothing about what the word "color" means. It merely says that we perceive reality indirectly. So instead of explaining what indirect realism is, you should consider explaining its relevance.

And the same goes for abstract / concrete dichotomy. Is it really relevant?

You're now saying that our definition of the word "subjective" is faulty. A definition is merely a statement about what meaning is assigned to some word by some person. The word "subjective", in the ontological sense, which is the sense that matters here, means "existing independently from minds", or better yet, it means "existing outside of minds". What exactly is faulty about that?
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:51 pm
Atla wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:06 pmSo again I should explain indirect realism. And now the abstract/concrete dichotomy. And then why our faulty definition of "subjective" doesn't override reality. Let's agree to disagree.
I have absolutely no idea why you have to explain what indirect realism is. I already know what it is. I agree with it. But I don't think it's relevant. Indirect realism says nothing about what the word "color" means. It merely says that we perceive reality indirectly. So instead of explaining what indirect realism is, you should consider explaining its relevance.

And the same goes for abstract / concrete dichotomy. Is it really relevant?

You're now saying that our definition of the word "subjective" is faulty. A definition is merely a statement about what meaning is assigned to some word by some person. The word "subjective", in the ontological sense, which is the sense that matters here, means "existing independently from minds", or better yet, it means "existing outside of minds". What exactly is faulty about that?
Okay let's see: though technically we only ever experience the color-qualia, by color we primarily mean the color of external objects.

I reversed what is considered primary. Is this good?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:43 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:56 pmWhat is the color of this question?

... and why isn't it on the visible spectrum?
As I already told you, if you want me to answer this questio, you have to show that it's relevant.
It's a rhetorical question you fucking idiot. The answer is magenta; and you can't find it on the spectrum because it has no wavelength.

So it can't be objective. And yet there you are - seeing it. All thanks to the inner magic of your brain.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:43 pm Alternatively, you can present a counter-argument against my claim that colors are objective. You have options but you refuse to use them. As you wish.
Your conceptual error and the correct answer has been served for you on a silver platter. Use it; or don't use it.

I have better things to do with my time than help you navigate the obstacle course you've setup for me inside your head.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun May 28, 2023 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Actually I don't even know what is being dicussed. Let's see

Image

Is there a magenta square on the screen? Almost certainly not.
Am I experiencing a magenta square on a screen? Yes.
Does the square on the screen actually have any color? Unknown.
Does the square on the screen emit the same wavelengths of light towards all human observers? Yes.

What do I say in everyday life? That I see a magenta square on the screen.
What do I say on a philosophy forum, what is actually happening? That I'm probably experiencing something inside my head.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 9:33 pm Actually I don't even know what is being dicussed. Let's see

Image

Is there a magenta square on the screen? Almost certainly not.
Am I experiencing a magenta square on a screen? Yes.
Does the square on the screen actually have any color? Unknown.
Does the square on the screen emit the same wavelengths of light towards all human observers? Yes.

What do I say in everyday life? That I see a magenta square on the screen.
What do I say on a philosophy forum, what is actually happening? That I'm probably experiencing something inside my head.
What is the wavelength of the light emited by the square?
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 9:33 pm
Atla wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 9:33 pm Actually I don't even know what is being dicussed. Let's see

Image

Is there a magenta square on the screen? Almost certainly not.
Am I experiencing a magenta square on a screen? Yes.
Does the square on the screen actually have any color? Unknown.
Does the square on the screen emit the same wavelengths of light towards all human observers? Yes.

What do I say in everyday life? That I see a magenta square on the screen.
What do I say on a philosophy forum, what is actually happening? That I'm probably experiencing something inside my head.
What is the wavelength of the light emited by the square?
Two wavelengths. Somewhere around 470 and 700 nanometers I guess.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 9:24 pmIt's a rhetorical question you fucking idiot.
There you go. The emphasis is mine.
The answer is magenta; and you can't find it on the spectrum because it has no wavelength.

So it can't be objective. And yet there you are - seeing it. All thanks to the inner magic of your brain.
When we say that the color of an object is magenta, we're talking about its surface. We're saying something about it. If you want to say that magenta does not exist, you have to 1) figure out what kind of surface can be represented by the word ( an issue of language ), and 2) show that such surfaces do not exist in reality. Have you done that here in this thread? I don't think so.

But who cares anyways? Even if you proved that to be the case, that would merely be a proof that certain colors do not exist. Even if you proved that no colors exist, that wouldn't be a proof that the word "color" is defined as something that exists inside minds. The fact that unicorns do not exist does not mean that the word "unicorn" does not mean what it means, namely, a horse with a horn; it does not mean it refers to something within minds.

All you're doing is you're repeating the popular mantra. "The color quale magenta does not represent light of certain wavelength, therefore there is no such thing as color magenta out there!" How exactly does that follow? And even if it does follow, how does that prove that the word "color" refers to things that exist within minds? Even claims such as "The color quale magenta does not represent light of certain wavelength, therefore the color quale magenta does not represent something outside of our minds" are non-sequiturs. If a color quale does not represent light of certain wavelength, how does it follow that 1) it does not represent light, and 2) it does not represent something outside of our minds?

Color qualia are visual symbols that our brains use to construct our visual representations of reality. A color quale is like a word. It's a symbol that has a concept attached to it that determines what kind of things it can be used to represent. Each color quale can only be used to represent light. And light exists outside of minds, doesn't it? The color quale yellow has a concept attached to it that says that it can be used to represent light that has wavelength between 570nm and 585nm. The concept attached to it also says that it can be used to represent a mixture of "red" light ( 620nm - 780nm ) and "green" light ( 490nm - 570nm. ) The color quale magenta, however, has a concept attached to it that does not allow us to use it to represent light with specific wavelength. Instead, it can only be used to represent a mixture of "red" and "blue" light. But it can still be used to represent light -- and only light. And as I said, light exists outside of minds.
Your conceptual error and the correct answer has been served for you on a silver platter. Use it; or don't use it.

I have better things to do with my time than help you navigate the obstacle course you've setup for me inside your head.
You don't have to do anything. You asked a question. I am merely telling you that I won't answer it unless certain conditions are met.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Neither Skepdick nor Magnus Anderson understand the abstract/concrete dichotomy, to others:

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

Arguably, color-qualia are concrete and words are abstract, when contrasted with each other. There is an asbtraction layer difference between them.

So either we have to say that color-qualia aren't symbols, and words are symbols.
Or we have to say that color-qualia are symbols, and words are symbols of symbols.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 3:32 am
Skepdick wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 9:24 pmIt's a rhetorical question you fucking idiot.
There you go. The emphasis is mine.
The answer is magenta; and you can't find it on the spectrum because it has no wavelength.

So it can't be objective. And yet there you are - seeing it. All thanks to the inner magic of your brain.
When we say that the color of an object is magenta, we're talking about its surface. We're saying something about it. If you want to say that magenta does not exist, you have to 1) figure out what kind of surface can be represented by the word ( an issue of language ), and 2) show that such surfaces do not exist in reality. Have you done that here in this thread? I don't think so.

But who cares anyways? Even if you proved that to be the case, that would merely be a proof that certain colors do not exist. Even if you proved that no colors exist, that wouldn't be a proof that the word "color" is defined as something that exists inside minds. The fact that unicorns do not exist does not mean that the word "unicorn" does not mean what it means, namely, a horse with a horn; it does not mean it refers to something within minds.

All you're doing is you're repeating the popular mantra. "The color quale magenta does not represent light of certain wavelength, therefore there is no such thing as color magenta out there!" How exactly does that follow? And even if it does follow, how does that prove that the word "color" refers to things that exist within minds? Even claims such as "The color quale magenta does not represent light of certain wavelength, therefore the color quale magenta does not represent something outside of our minds" are non-sequiturs. If a color quale does not represent light of certain wavelength, how does it follow that 1) it does not represent light, and 2) it does not represent something outside of our minds?

Color qualia are visual symbols that our brains use to construct our visual representations of reality. A color quale is like a word. It's a symbol that has a concept attached to it that determines what kind of things it can be used to represent. Each color quale can only be used to represent light. And light exists outside of minds, doesn't it? The color quale yellow has a concept attached to it that says that it can be used to represent light that has wavelength between 570nm and 585nm. The concept attached to it also says that it can be used to represent a mixture of "red" light ( 620nm - 780nm ) and "green" light ( 490nm - 570nm. ) The color quale magenta, however, has a concept attached to it that does not allow us to use it to represent light with specific wavelength. Instead, it can only be used to represent a mixture of "red" and "blue" light. But it can still be used to represent light -- and only light. And as I said, light exists outside of minds.
Your conceptual error and the correct answer has been served for you on a silver platter. Use it; or don't use it.

I have better things to do with my time than help you navigate the obstacle course you've setup for me inside your head.
You don't have to do anything. You asked a question. I am merely telling you that I won't answer it unless certain conditions are met.
You seem exceptionally committed to being wrong.

Congratulations, you are very good at it.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 8:51 pm
Atla wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:06 pmSo again I should explain indirect realism. And now the abstract/concrete dichotomy. And then why our faulty definition of "subjective" doesn't override reality. Let's agree to disagree.
I have absolutely no idea why you have to explain what indirect realism is. I already know what it is. I agree with it. But I don't think it's relevant. Indirect realism says nothing about what the word "color" means. It merely says that we perceive reality indirectly. So instead of explaining what indirect realism is, you should consider explaining its relevance.

And the same goes for abstract / concrete dichotomy. Is it really relevant?

You're now saying that our definition of the word "subjective" is faulty. A definition is merely a statement about what meaning is assigned to some word by some person. The word "subjective", in the ontological sense, which is the sense that matters here, means "existing independently from minds", or better yet, it means "existing outside of minds". What exactly is faulty about that?
What's faulty about your entire enterprise is the symbol-grounding problem.

What meaning is assigned to the word "meaning"?
Outside of philosophical language games - what is meaning?

You are trying to rescue the Titanic of realism, but it already sunk.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 3:32 am When we say that the color of an object is magenta, we're talking about its surface.
We are never talking about the surface of the object.
We are always talking about the effect resulting from our visual systems interacting with light reflected or emitted from the object.

And if you want even more reasons to abandon the silly "surface representation" conception - tell us more about the surface of a multi-colour light-emitting diode and how it changes when you power it up.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

1 As with any sign, the word meaning and its cognates mean what we use them to mean in different contexts.

2 The fact that any sign can mean anything whatsoever is trivially true and irrelevant.

3 The claim that what we call meaning exists only in philosophical language games is false. We use the word meaning and its cognates in many different contexts - unproblematically.

4 Outside deluded correspondence theories of truth, and other foundationalisms, there is no symbol-grounding problem. That non-problem is a philosophical invention.

5 Outside language, the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with meaning and truth. Once fashionable attempts to muddle these things up are now tired and boring.

6 Philosophical realism does not entail an 'absolute conception of reality' - or a 'conception of absolute reality'. Those are straw ducks without which the various anti-realisms have nothing to oppose.
Post Reply