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

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 8:42 am 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.
You keep talking about the use of language, yet you always refuse to say anything whatsoever about the use-case of language.

Why do you refuse to account for the use of language using language? Is it because Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is a formidable obscurantist?

In contetxt of your very own post I've quoted above, what are you using language for and why?
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon May 29, 2023 9:10 am, edited 4 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 3:32 am 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 problem is that your whole philosophy in this issue is grounded on something that is illusory.

I raised the issue of Philosophical Realism versus Anti-Philosophical-Realism here,
viewtopic.php?p=644530#p644530
which is critical to the issue.

  • Philosophical Realism is ... about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
    Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[8]
    In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Anti-Philosophical Realism re Philosophical of Science refer to Instrumentation;
  • But that is not what anti-realists think.
    Rather, anti-realists hold that the aim of Science is to find theories that are empirically adequate, i.e. which correctly predict the results of experiment and observation.
    If a theory achieves perfect empirical adequacy, the further question of whether it truly describes the world is redundant, for anti-realists; indeed some argue that this question does not even make sense.
Note Model Dependent Realism by Stephen Hawking - it is useless and meaningless to talk of an mind independent 'true reality' of anything;
  • Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
    It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
    The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Based on the anti-philosophical-realism principles I had claimed,
-all facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a human-based FSK, i.e. since human-based [human mind related], they cannot be mind-independent.

Since the 'theories of light' are conditioned upon the human-based science-Physics FSK, light do not exists independent of the human mind.
Your claim that 'light' exists outside the mind[human] and thus human conditions is false and illusory, at best a useful illusion for some purposes.

Thus your views above about colors and its fundamental light are at the fundamental level, groundless, baseless, illusory and nonsensical.

Note this comment on the realism versus anti-realism issue;
  • There is an ancient debate in philosophy between two opposing schools of thought called realism and idealism.
    Realism holds that the physical world exists independently of human thought and perception.
    Idealism denies this—it claims that the physical world is in some way dependent on the conscious activity of humans.
    To most people, realism seems more plausible than idealism.
    For realism fits well with the commonsense view that the facts about the world are ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered.
    Indeed at first glance idealism can sound plain silly.
    Since rocks and trees would continue to exist even if the human race died out, in what sense is their existence dependent on human minds?
    In fact the issue is a bit more subtle than this, and continues to be discussed by philosophers today.
I have argued, anti-philosophical-realism [Kantian kind] is most realistic on reality; philosophical realism is grounded on illusions driven by an evolutionary default towards common sense and proto, primal reasonings.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 8:42 am 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.
You are so ignorant of what you are stating above that you are kicking your own back.

PH: 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.

When you state "existence and nature of things" independent of language and human conditions, you are assuming things exist independent by themselves.

Explain clearly what you mean by "existence and nature of things" independent of language and therefrom independent of the human conditions. How does these independent things that exist by themselves came to be?
PH: 4 Outside deluded correspondence theories of truth, and other foundationalisms, there is no symbol-grounding problem. That non-problem is a philosophical invention.
You are so ignorant of what you are doing.
If you think things exist independent by themselves, independent of the human conditions, it only imply you have to do some sort of correspondence [mirroring] between what your language describe them and that-which-is-described.
There is a correspondence between your descriptions and the-described.

If you do not assume correspondence, then you are merely hallucinating and making descriptions out of nothing.

Also note my latest post above;
viewtopic.php?p=644975#p644975
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: Mon May 29, 2023 9:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 8:42 am 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.
You are so ignorant of what you are stating above that you are kicking your own back.

PH: 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.

When you state "existence and nature of things" independent of language and human conditions, you are assuming things exist independent by themselves.

Explain clearly what you mean by "existence and nature of things" independent of language and therefrom independent of the human conditions. How does these independent things that exist by themselves came to be?
PH: 4 Outside deluded correspondence theories of truth, and other foundationalisms, there is no symbol-grounding problem. That non-problem is a philosophical invention.
You are so ignorant of what you are doing.
If you think things exist independent by themselves, independent of the human conditions, it only imply you have to do some sort of correspondence [mirroring] between what your language describe them and that-which-is-described.
There is a correspondence between your descriptions and the-described.

If you do not assume correspondence, then you are merely hallucinating and making descriptions out of nothing.

Also note my latest post above;
viewtopic.php?p=644975#p644975
Here's the anti-realist insistence that realism entails a correspondence theory of truth. But it doesn't.

The claim 'the assertion "snow is white" is true because real snow really is white' is very obviously circular or tautological. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion "snow is white" and the feature of reality that it asserts.

The supposed realist mirroring or representation insisted on by anti-realists is a fiction. And without it, anti-realism collapses - which is why the straw man has to be made to stand up.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 12:36 pm Here's the anti-realist insistence that realism entails a correspondence theory of truth. But it doesn't.
Great!

Then what does the term "reality" correspond; or refer to?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 12:36 pm The claim 'the assertion "snow is white" is true because real snow really is white' is very obviously circular or tautological. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion "snow is white" and the feature of reality that it asserts.
So if snow and it's whiteness are not features of reality then why do you assert that snow is white?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 12:36 pm The supposed realist mirroring or representation insisted on by anti-realists is a fiction. And without it, anti-realism collapses - which is why the straw man has to be made to stand up.
Of course it's true that if there were no realists there would be no need for anti-realists.

But there are realists so...

Similariy - if there were no philosophers there would be no need for anti-philosophers.

Alas...
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: Mon May 29, 2023 8:56 amYour problem is that your whole philosophy in this issue is grounded on something that is illusory.
You're basically saying that mind-independent things do not exist.

A mind-independent thing is a thing that exists independently of minds, i.e. it is a thing that would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist.

Thus, what you're actually saying is that if minds ceased to exist, nothing would exist anymore. It's a position similar to, if not completely identical to, George Berkeley's idealism, i.e. the idea that only minds exist and that nothing outside of minds exists. It's borderline solipsism ( solipsism being the idea that only one's mind exists and that nothing outside of it exists, not even other minds. )

There is nothing sophisticated about idealism. It's actually a very primitive way of thinking that can be found among presocratic sophists. The belief in it is typically a consequence of the inability to think in highly abstract terms and to adhere to the laws of logic -- traits common among Greek sophists. But primitive ideas can appear sophisticated if you live in a society where they have been kept in the shadow by sophisticated ones for long enough. It's the same exact appeal as the one behind Jackson Pollock's work of art.

All in all, you're effectively saying that if minds ceased to exist, trees would cease to exist as well. Do you really believe that? If you do, what's your argument in favor of that position?
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 6:59 am
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.
When we say "The apple is red", we're describing the surface of the apple, we're not describing the effect the light reflected from the apple has on us.

Consider the following:

1) When noone is looking at the apple, the apple has no effect on anyone's vision. Yet, we say the apple is red even when noone is looking at it. What is it that we're describing here? If we're describing the effect the apple has on someone's vision, the question is: whose vision? There is no person whose vision is affected by that apple. That said, we're either talking nonsense or we're actually talking about the texture of the apple. If you want to believe that people are complete and utter imbeciles, you will adopt the "Yeah, they are talking nonsense!" stance. I choose not to.

2) We say the apple is red even when it's dark and when the apple actually appears black to us. If we're talking about the effect the apple has on our vision, then we're wrong, and we should actually say the apple is black when it's dark. But we don't. We say it's red. And I reckon it's because what we're talking about is not the effect the apple has on our vision but the texture of the apple.

3) In the checker shadow illusion, the two fields A and B are seen by people as being different in color. Yet, the actual pixels that occupy these fields are of the same color. In fact, we have quite a bit of trouble realizing that the two fields are made out of identical pixels. The reason for this is the fact that our brains care more about physical objects than it does about the light that is hitting our retina or the effect it has on our vision.
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.
There is a difference between the color of the light-emitting diode ( referring to its surface ) and the color of the light the light-emitting diode is emitting ( referring to the light that is being emitted. ) It's an example of how we use the word "color" in more than one way. In most cases, the word "color" is used to refer to the surface of the physical object under consideration. In some cases, however, it is used to refer to light. At other times, it is used to refer to color qualia. People have a tendency to use one and the same word in more than one way. Nothing unusual about it. But the word "color" is mostly used to refer to the surface of physical objects, followed by light, both of which are objective things, i.e. things that exist independently of minds.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Tue May 30, 2023 12:34 am, 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 »

Atla wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:38 am 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.
Consider defining the terms "abstract" and "concrete" in your own words or quoting a definition that describes how you're using them.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 9:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 8:42 am 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.
You are so ignorant of what you are stating above that you are kicking your own back.

PH: 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.

When you state "existence and nature of things" independent of language and human conditions, you are assuming things exist independent by themselves.

Explain clearly what you mean by "existence and nature of things" independent of language and therefrom independent of the human conditions. How does these independent things that exist by themselves came to be?
PH: 4 Outside deluded correspondence theories of truth, and other foundationalisms, there is no symbol-grounding problem. That non-problem is a philosophical invention.
You are so ignorant of what you are doing.
If you think things exist independent by themselves, independent of the human conditions, it only imply you have to do some sort of correspondence [mirroring] between what your language describe them and that-which-is-described.
There is a correspondence between your descriptions and the-described.

If you do not assume correspondence, then you are merely hallucinating and making descriptions out of nothing.

Also note my latest post above;
viewtopic.php?p=644975#p644975
Here's the anti-realist insistence that realism entails a correspondence theory of truth. But it doesn't.

The claim 'the assertion "snow is white" is true because real snow really is white' is very obviously circular or tautological. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion "snow is white" and the feature of reality that it asserts.

The supposed realist mirroring or representation insisted on by anti-realists is a fiction. And without it, anti-realism collapses - which is why the straw man has to be made to stand up.
Strawman!

I did not mention "correspondence theory of truth," rather I merely mention 'correspondence' and 'mirroring'.

You claim the-description is not the-described [independent of human conditions].
As such, there is an implied corresponding and mirroring between the-description and the-described [the independent fact].
You just cannot escape there is some sort of corresponding and mirroring between the-description and the-described.
How can you deny this?

That 'correspondence' is the basis of your denial of moral facts.
You insist moral elements are all expressions, i.e. opinions, beliefs and judgment; there are no objective moral facts; therefore, morality cannot be objective.
The claim 'the assertion "snow is white" is true because real snow really is white' is very obviously circular or tautological. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion "snow is white" and the feature of reality that it asserts.
Yes, the statement is circular.
But what is that 'feature of reality' that is asserted?
You stated outside words and meanings, that-is-asserted is meaningless.
Thus whatever is real to you is meaningless.
This is nonsense.
Show and demonstrate to me your real 'feature of reality' that is asserted?

On the other hand for me,
what is real, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based FSR[Reality] and FSK.
The FSK and FSK are not merely perceiving, knowing and describing but there are the prior processes of emergence and realization conditioned upon the 13.7 billions years of deterministic forces since the Big Bang.
The most reliable and credible FSK at present is the Scientific FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 8:56 amYour problem is that your whole philosophy in this issue is grounded on something that is illusory.
You're basically saying that mind-independent things do not exist.

A mind-independent thing is a thing that exists independently of minds, i.e. it is a thing that would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist.

Thus, what you're actually saying is that if minds ceased to exist, nothing would exist anymore. It's a position similar to, if not completely identical to, George Berkeley's idealism, i.e. the idea that only minds exist and that nothing outside of minds exists. It's borderline solipsism ( solipsism being the idea that only one's mind exists and that nothing outside of it exists, not even other minds. )
I am asserting the mind-independent things as claimed by Philosophical Realists do not exist as real. They are basically illusions, i.e. useful illusions emerging as an evolutionary default.

See this;
NeuroAnthropology: Realism vs Anti-Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40123

What I believe is different from Berkeley's Subjective Idealism.
What I believe is Kant's Transcendental Idealism with Empirical Realism.
I do believe in one perspective, there are things that exist outside the mind this is Empirical Realism as supported by Science.
But this Empirical Realism of externalness is subsumed within the human conditions [Transcendental Idealism], thus cannot be absolutely independent of mind.

Note I raised this thread;

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
The justifications are provided in the thread.
There is nothing sophisticated about idealism. It's actually a very primitive way of thinking that can be found among presocratic sophists. The belief in it is typically a consequence of the inability to think in highly abstract terms and to adhere to the laws of logic -- traits common among Greek sophists. But primitive ideas can appear sophisticated if you live in a society where they have been kept in the shadow by sophisticated ones for long enough. It's the same exact appeal as the one behind Jackson Pollock's work of art.
Rather, it is Philosophical Realism [mind-independence] that is proto-, primal and primitive as an evolutionary default from natural selection [conditioned upon 13.7 billions years of conditions] that is critical for survival in the primitive days.
see:
NeuroAnthropology: Realism vs Anti-Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40123
Anti-Philosophical-Realism [example Idealism] emerged as advanced thinking against the default of mind-independence.
As usual, like any other advanced-thinking, it is resisted strongly by the status quo of the habitualized mind-independent evolutionary default of philosophical realism.
All in all, you're effectively saying that if minds ceased to exist, trees would cease to exist as well. Do you really believe that? If you do, what's your argument in favor of that position?
As mentioned above, note this;

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
The justifications are provided in the thread.

Note this.
Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

"Common sense" meaning the evolutionary default of philosophical realism's mind-independence.
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 11:54 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 6:59 am
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.
When we say "The apple is red", we're describing the surface of the apple, we're not describing the effect the light reflected from the apple has on us.
So you are NOT using your sensory systems to acquire information about the world? How are you doing it then?

How do you know that there is an apple? How do you know the color of its surface?
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: Tue May 30, 2023 2:13 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 9:08 am
You are so ignorant of what you are stating above that you are kicking your own back.

PH: 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.

When you state "existence and nature of things" independent of language and human conditions, you are assuming things exist independent by themselves.

Explain clearly what you mean by "existence and nature of things" independent of language and therefrom independent of the human conditions. How does these independent things that exist by themselves came to be?


You are so ignorant of what you are doing.
If you think things exist independent by themselves, independent of the human conditions, it only imply you have to do some sort of correspondence [mirroring] between what your language describe them and that-which-is-described.
There is a correspondence between your descriptions and the-described.

If you do not assume correspondence, then you are merely hallucinating and making descriptions out of nothing.

Also note my latest post above;
viewtopic.php?p=644975#p644975
Here's the anti-realist insistence that realism entails a correspondence theory of truth. But it doesn't.

The claim 'the assertion "snow is white" is true because real snow really is white' is very obviously circular or tautological. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion "snow is white" and the feature of reality that it asserts.

The supposed realist mirroring or representation insisted on by anti-realists is a fiction. And without it, anti-realism collapses - which is why the straw man has to be made to stand up.
Strawman!

I did not mention "correspondence theory of truth," rather I merely mention 'correspondence' and 'mirroring'.

You claim the-description is not the-described [independent of human conditions].
As such, there is an implied corresponding and mirroring between the-description and the-described [the independent fact].
You just cannot escape there is some sort of corresponding and mirroring between the-description and the-described.
How can you deny this?

That 'correspondence' is the basis of your denial of moral facts.
You insist moral elements are all expressions, i.e. opinions, beliefs and judgment; there are no objective moral facts; therefore, morality cannot be objective.
The claim 'the assertion "snow is white" is true because real snow really is white' is very obviously circular or tautological. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion "snow is white" and the feature of reality that it asserts.
Yes, the statement is circular.
But what is that 'feature of reality' that is asserted?
You stated outside words and meanings, that-is-asserted is meaningless.
Thus whatever is real to you is meaningless.
This is nonsense.
Show and demonstrate to me your real 'feature of reality' that is asserted?

On the other hand for me,
what is real, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based FSR[Reality] and FSK.
The FSK and FSK are not merely perceiving, knowing and describing but there are the prior processes of emergence and realization conditioned upon the 13.7 billions years of deterministic forces since the Big Bang.
The most reliable and credible FSK at present is the Scientific FSK.
I wonder why you keep demanding evidence for the existence of real things, such as snow. Try banging your head on the table you're sitting at now. Or try walking out into fast-moving traffic and feel what its like to be hit by a non-existent car - a car that exists only because there are humans that observe it. You could try not observing it.

Have you never seen or experienced snow? Did it not exist before humans turned up? Will it not exist when humans have disappeared? You know damn well the answers to these questions - but you just can't admit it.

As for correspondence - a name no more corresponds with what it names than an arrow corresponds with its target. And, to pursue the analogy, an arrow doesn't designate, define or delimit its own target.

Correspondence is a two-way relationship, but there is no relationship at all between a name and what we name with it. For example, we use the word dog to talk about the things we call dogs. But there's nothing canine about the word dog, or the word canine.

In what way does the word dog mirror or represent the things we call dogs?

So, drop this correspondence charge; recognise the complete separation and difference between the way things are and what we believe, know and say about them. (Being known isn't a necessary condition for being a fact; and the description is not the described.)

Your claim that there are no 'things-as-they-are', outside or beyond what humans perceive, know and describe, is patently ridiculous. And, as it happens, it's arguably a radical misinterpretation of Kant.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 8:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:13 am
The claim 'the assertion "snow is white" is true because real snow really is white' is very obviously circular or tautological. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion "snow is white" and the feature of reality that it asserts.
Yes, the statement is circular.
But what is that 'feature of reality' that is asserted?
You stated outside words and meanings, that-is-asserted is meaningless.
Thus whatever is real to you is meaningless.
This is nonsense.
Show and demonstrate to me your real 'feature of reality' that is asserted?

On the other hand for me,
what is real, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based FSR[Reality] and FSK.
The FSK and FSK are not merely perceiving, knowing and describing but there are the prior processes of emergence and realization conditioned upon the 13.7 billions years of deterministic forces since the Big Bang.
The most reliable and credible FSK at present is the Scientific FSK.
I wonder why you keep demanding evidence for the existence of real things, such as snow. Try banging your head on the table you're sitting at now. Or try walking out into fast-moving traffic and feel what its like to be hit by a non-existent car - a car that exists only because there are humans that observe it. You could try not observing it.

Have you never seen or experienced snow? Did it not exist before humans turned up? Will it not exist when humans have disappeared? You know damn well the answers to these questions - but you just can't admit it.
You claim that what is fact, the supposed snow is independent of the human conditions.

Now you are talking about seeing and experienced snow; seeing and experiencing snow mean that it cannot be independent of the human conditions.
We humans realize and experience snow via various FSKs.

Generally, 'what is snow' to most is based on the common sense FSK.
But common sense do not guarantee 'realness' due to the possibilities of mistaken_ness & illusions, e.g. seeing a mirage in a desert, seeing a bent stick between water and air, seeing a snake when it is a piece of rope, and many other possible illusions and misinterpretations.

To avoid being mistaken as in the common sense FSK, humans evolved and adapt with more and more reliable human-based FSKs culminating in the human-based scientific FSK being the most credible and reliable at present.
But the emergence and realization of facts perceived, known and described are conditioned upon human-based FSK [with 13.7 billion years of conditions], thus cannot be independent of the human conditions as you are claiming.

So, explain and demonstrate to me your real facts that are independent of the human conditions?

As for correspondence - a name no more corresponds with what it names than an arrow corresponds with its target. And, to pursue the analogy, an arrow doesn't designate, define or delimit its own target.

Correspondence is a two-way relationship, but there is no relationship at all between a name and what we name with it. For example, we use the word dog to talk about the things we call dogs. But there's nothing canine about the word dog, or the word canine.

In what way does the word dog mirror or represent the things we call dogs?

So, drop this correspondence charge; recognise the complete separation and difference between the way things are and what we believe, know and say about them. (Being known isn't a necessary condition for being a fact; and the description is not the described.)
When you insist on
"the complete separation and difference between
1. the way things are and
2. what we believe, know and say about them.
surely, there is an implied correspondence and mirroring between 1 and 2.

Put aside words, [in your case] rather focus on,
1. experience and perception of the independent thing, and
2. the independent thing out there.
surely, there is an implied correspondence and mirroring between 1 and 2,
otherwise, the dog you experienced and perceived could be actually a wolf or even hyena out there.

Your claim that there are no 'things-as-they-are', outside or beyond what humans perceive, know and describe, is patently ridiculous. And, as it happens, it's arguably a radical misinterpretation of Kant.
Nope, according to Kant, that is what you [& philosophical realists] are claiming, i.e. the fact [the thing], a feature of reality is just-is, being-so, that is the case and it is independent of the human conditions. In this case, the fact or thing must as they are by themselves independent of the human conditions.
How can you deny that?

That is what you are claiming, i.e.
you claimed facts exist by themselves independent of the human conditions,
moral elements are dependent on the human condition,
therefore there are no moral facts,
thus, morality cannot be objective.
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: Tue May 30, 2023 9:13 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 8:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:13 am
Yes, the statement is circular.
But what is that 'feature of reality' that is asserted?
You stated outside words and meanings, that-is-asserted is meaningless.
Thus whatever is real to you is meaningless.
This is nonsense.
Show and demonstrate to me your real 'feature of reality' that is asserted?

On the other hand for me,
what is real, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based FSR[Reality] and FSK.
The FSK and FSK are not merely perceiving, knowing and describing but there are the prior processes of emergence and realization conditioned upon the 13.7 billions years of deterministic forces since the Big Bang.
The most reliable and credible FSK at present is the Scientific FSK.
I wonder why you keep demanding evidence for the existence of real things, such as snow. Try banging your head on the table you're sitting at now. Or try walking out into fast-moving traffic and feel what its like to be hit by a non-existent car - a car that exists only because there are humans that observe it. You could try not observing it.

Have you never seen or experienced snow? Did it not exist before humans turned up? Will it not exist when humans have disappeared? You know damn well the answers to these questions - but you just can't admit it.
You claim that what is fact, the supposed snow is independent of the human conditions.

Now you are talking about seeing and experienced snow; seeing and experiencing snow mean that it cannot be independent of the human conditions.
We humans realize and experience snow via various FSKs.

Generally, 'what is snow' to most is based on the common sense FSK.
But common sense do not guarantee 'realness' due to the possibilities of mistaken_ness & illusions, e.g. seeing a mirage in a desert, seeing a bent stick between water and air, seeing a snake when it is a piece of rope, and many other possible illusions and misinterpretations.

To avoid being mistaken as in the common sense FSK, humans evolved and adapt with more and more reliable human-based FSKs culminating in the human-based scientific FSK being the most credible and reliable at present.
But the emergence and realization of facts perceived, known and described are conditioned upon human-based FSK [with 13.7 billion years of conditions], thus cannot be independent of the human conditions as you are claiming.

So, explain and demonstrate to me your real facts that are independent of the human conditions?

As for correspondence - a name no more corresponds with what it names than an arrow corresponds with its target. And, to pursue the analogy, an arrow doesn't designate, define or delimit its own target.

Correspondence is a two-way relationship, but there is no relationship at all between a name and what we name with it. For example, we use the word dog to talk about the things we call dogs. But there's nothing canine about the word dog, or the word canine.

In what way does the word dog mirror or represent the things we call dogs?

So, drop this correspondence charge; recognise the complete separation and difference between the way things are and what we believe, know and say about them. (Being known isn't a necessary condition for being a fact; and the description is not the described.)
When you insist on
"the complete separation and difference between
1. the way things are and
2. what we believe, know and say about them.
surely, there is an implied correspondence and mirroring between 1 and 2.

Put aside words, [in your case] rather focus on,
1. experience and perception of the independent thing, and
2. the independent thing out there.
surely, there is an implied correspondence and mirroring between 1 and 2,
otherwise, the dog you experienced and perceived could be actually a wolf or even hyena out there.

Your claim that there are no 'things-as-they-are', outside or beyond what humans perceive, know and describe, is patently ridiculous. And, as it happens, it's arguably a radical misinterpretation of Kant.
Nope, according to Kant, that is what you [& philosophical realists] are claiming, i.e. the fact [the thing], a feature of reality is just-is, being-so, that is the case and it is independent of the human conditions. In this case, the fact or thing must as they are by themselves independent of the human conditions.
How can you deny that?

That is what you are claiming, i.e.
you claimed facts exist by themselves independent of the human conditions,
moral elements are dependent on the human condition,
therefore there are no moral facts,
thus, morality cannot be objective.
1 You agree that there can be illusions - that our senses can deceive us. But that means our senses don't usually deceive us - that, along with a mirage of water on the road, there can actually be water on the road. That our fallible perceptions are irrelevant.

2 I've explained why a correspondence theory of truth is incorrect. So there's no need to keep banging on about it.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 11:06 am 2 I've explained why a correspondence theory of truth is incorrect. So there's no need to keep banging on about it.
But you've failed to explain which theory of truth is correct.

And so nobody knows what to make of your use of terms like "reality" and "universe" because they don't correspond to anything.
Post Reply