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

Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:54 pm 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.
But in your example we said that the apple was red, because we were describing a memory. And that memory was formed after experiencing red color-qualia in the past. The apple emitted red wavelength light, which hit the eyes, then optic nerves carried signals to the back of the brain, where some kind of processing occured, and then some signals were sent to other areas of the brain, and we experienced red color-qualia somehow, using which then memories were formed of a red apple.

The actual apple "out there" is of course unknowable. Its surface, texture, color (if it even has any) are unknowable.
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: Tue May 30, 2023 2:37 amI 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.
You're saying that philosophical realism is illusory. It's not entirely clear what you mean by that term.

Realism, in general, refers to the idea that there exist mind-independent things. 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. Mind-independent things are otherwise known as objective things and realism is otherwise known as objectivism.

The opposite of realism is anti-realism. Anti-realism is the belief that mind-independent things do not exist, i.e. that everything that exists is mind-dependent. A mind-dependent thing is a thing that would cease to exist if all minds ceased to exist. Mind-dependent things are otherwise known as subjective things and anti-realism is otherwise known as subjectivism.

George Berkeley was a subjective idealist. The emphasis is on the word "subjective" because it tells us that he was a subjectivist, i.e. an anti-realist, a man who thought that mind-independent things do not exist.

Kant, however, was not a subjectivist / anti-realist. He believed in the existence of mind-independent things. He merely thought that what we normally consider to be mind-independent things ( such as physical objects, for example ) are actually mind-dependent things and that things that are truly mind-independent, the real things-in-themselves, are unknowable.

If you agree with Kant, then you're not an anti-realist.

One does not have to be a subjectivist in general in order to be subjectivist on particular issues.

For example, I'm a "memory subjectivist". I believe that memories are subjective. Yet, I am an objectivist in the general sense. I believe that objective things exist. For example, I'm a "color objectivist", a "beauty objectivist" and a moral objectivist.

You, on the other hand, are a "color subjectivist". You're also a "light subjectivist". And you're also a moral subjectivist. You're not willing to say it, of course, and instead, when describing your position on morality, you choose to use the objective / subjective dichotomy in a different sense, namely, in the epistemological sense.
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.
Pardon me if I'm wrong but it seems like you're saying that "things [..] exist outside the mind" and that things "cannot be absolutely independent of mind". That looks like a contradiction to me.
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.
That makes you a "Moon subjectivist" (:

I will look into that thread more carefully and try to address whatever points you're making there, just not in this post. I have to first finish my response to Popeye ( which would be an exposition of my position on the subject of this thread. )

Until that, let me ask you a question:

What does it mean to say that a tree exists at a point in time t during which you're not looking at it?

Does it not mean that, if you went back at that point in time t, and looked at where that tree is supposed to be, that you would have ended up seeing it?

If so, do you seriously doubt that?
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.
I have the impression that the subjectivization of what is objective is far more fashionable than the opposite. Even people who aren't strict anti-realists fall victim to it. Peter Holmes, for example, is not an anti-realist in the general sense of the term but he nonetheless thinks that morality is subjective. And it's neither a new thing nor something that became fashionable in recent years. Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, et al were all solipsists in one sense or another. Excessive empiricism, which is basically too much time spent on collecting information and too little time spent on analyzing the collected information, leads to solipsism. You end up drowning in information, and when you end up drowning in information, you lose the ability to think clearly, leading to all sorts of silly interpretations.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
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 11:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 9:13 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 8:30 am
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.
Strawman again.
Your water-on-the-road mirage and actual water example is useless.
Clearer example would be, there can be an actual oasis reflected as a mirage oasis; this is irrelevant because it does not apply to all sense-illusions, e.g. seeing a snake when it is a rope and others.

You claimed that what is real is confirmed by 'plainly' seeing and experiencing.
That our senses don't usually deceive us is not the point.
My point re the possibility of illusions via the senses means your claim of 'what is reality' cannot be highly credible.

To counter problem of illusions, the way to increase the credibility and reliability of 'what is reality' is to rely on increasing reliable human-based FSK.
Because it is human-based, what is reality cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions [or human mind].

Note the progressive process of the credibility 'what is reality';
1. Long ago, humans rely on the common sense FSK in realizing and perceiving reality.

2. Then Newton introduced his 'what is reality' based on his human-based Classical Physics-FSK, but Newton's 'what is reality' is not relatively realistic re Einstein.

3. Einstein Theory of Relativity [Einsteinian FSK] is more realistic and credible than Newtons; Einstein introduced the Observer's effect, where the Observer [human conditions] do influence the conclusion of 'what is reality' in the Einsteinian sense.
In this case, the higher the credibility of 'what is reality' it is somehow entangled with the human conditions [human mind]. (even though Einstein is a philosophical realist].

4. Then at a even higher level of 'what is reality' QM theories conclude 'what is reality' cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions [human mind]. Note the wave collapse function, entanglement, Bell's non-locality.

What you have been doing is keep blabbering without any supporting justified thesis [no supporting references at all].

Problem is you are dogmatically stuck with the evolutionary default of common sense view of externalness [philosophical realism], i.e. reality is independent of the human conditions.

Did you read this thread? you need to read it since it is very relevant to the whole issue.
NeuroAnthropology: Realism vs Anti-Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40123
2 I've explained why a correspondence theory of truth is incorrect. So there's no need to keep banging on about it.
There are many versions of "the correspondence theory of truth".
You may be rejecting some of the popular ones, but that you claimed
'what is fact', as a feature of reality that is independent of opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals implied a dualism between humans and a reality that is independent of humans.
That idea of 'independent' implied the need for some sort of correspondence or mirroring between humans and what is reality out there.

Btw, you kept insisting [blabbering] reality is objective fact, a feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, state of affair, but you have not demonstrate the actual existence of it at all.
So, prove, explain and demonstrate what is that 'just-is' being-so, that is the case, state of affair, that is independent of human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 12:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:37 amI 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.
You're saying that philosophical realism is illusory. It's not entirely clear what you mean by that term.

Realism, in general, refers to the idea that there exist mind-independent things. 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. Mind-independent things are otherwise known as objective things and realism is otherwise known as objectivism.
I have explained the point in detailed elsewhere, e.g.
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

In 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.
Note this sort of thinking is merely driven by an evolutionary default of external-ness to facilitate survival.
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?
What is really-real are your experiences of emerged and realized things; so what you claimed to be independent of mind is an illusion, i.e. just a thought.

To gain confidence of the reality of really-real from human experiences re emerged and realized things, humans rely upon their inherent FSK and subsequently improved human-based FSKs.
The most credible and reliable human-based FSK is the science-FSK.
Because it is human-based FSK whatever the resultant reality, that reality cannot be mind-independent; this is the anti-philosophical-realism basis.

To assert anything of reality without a qualification to the human-based FSK mean merely asserting a mind independent illusion.
The opposite of realism is anti-realism. Anti-realism is the belief that mind-independent things do not exist, i.e. that everything that exists is mind-dependent. A mind-dependent thing is a thing that would cease to exist if all minds ceased to exist. Mind-dependent things are otherwise known as subjective things and anti-realism is otherwise known as subjectivism.

George Berkeley was a subjective idealist. The emphasis is on the word "subjective" because it tells us that he was a subjectivist, i.e. an anti-realist, a man who thought that mind-independent things do not exist.

Kant, however, was not a subjectivist / anti-realist. He believed in the existence of mind-independent things. He merely thought that what we normally consider to be mind-independent things ( such as physical objects, for example ) are actually mind-dependent things and that things that are truly mind-independent, the real things-in-themselves, are unknowable.

If you agree with Kant, then you're not an anti-realist.
Anti-realism, more appropriately anti-philosophical-realism [of many types] means NOT -philosophical-realism.
I prefer not to use the term 'mind-dependent' which can be very misleading.
In addition, an idealist can also be a realist in different senses.

Kant believed 'mind-independent things' i.e. the thing-in-itself is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.

Kant is an idealist, i.e. Transcendental Idealist;
  • From the start, we have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism;
    and our Doctrine thus removes all difficulty in the way of accepting the Existence of Matter on the unaided testimony of our mere Self-Consciousness,
    or of declaring it [Matter] to be thereby proved in the same manner as the Existence of myself as a Thinking Being is proved.
    Kant CPR A370
Kant is also a realist, an Empirical Realist which is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism;
  • The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist or, as he is called, a dualist.
    Kant CPR A370
One does not have to be a subjectivist in general in order to be subjectivist on particular issues.

For example, I'm a "memory subjectivist". I believe that memories are subjective. Yet, I am an objectivist in the general sense. I believe that objective things exist. For example, I'm a "color objectivist", a "beauty objectivist" and a moral objectivist.

You, on the other hand, are a "color subjectivist". You're also a "light subjectivist". And you're also a moral subjectivist. You're not willing to say it, of course, and instead, when describing your position on morality, you choose to use the objective / subjective dichotomy in a different sense, namely, in the epistemological sense.
Note this
Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Philosophical Realism basis of Objectivity
2. FSK and Scientific basis of Objectivity.

Scientific [human-based FSK] Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Personal memories are obviously subjective.
But the mechanisms in the brain and body [things] that generate the memories are objective, i.e. human-based FSK objectivity.
If you believe things are mind-independent [philosophical realism] then logically the mechanisms in your brain and body [as things] are independent of your mind. [this is confusing].

You are a color, light objectivists in based on philosophical realism.
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 am a color, light and moral objectivist in the human-based FSK sense, i.e. where the objectivity human-based science FSK is the most credible.
Science is objective, i.e. philosophically objectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
which is not based on the view of ONE individual but rather on a collective of subjects within the scientific community.
This is where Objectivity is intersubjectivity.
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.
Pardon me if I'm wrong but it seems like you're saying that "things [..] exist outside the mind" and that things "cannot be absolutely independent of mind". That looks like a contradiction to me.
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.
That makes you a "Moon subjectivist" (:

I will look into that thread more carefully and try to address whatever points you're making there, just not in this post. I have to first finish my response to Popeye ( which would be an exposition of my position on the subject of this thread. )

Until that, let me ask you a question:

What does it mean to say that a tree exists at a point in time t during which you're not looking at it?

Does it not mean that, if you went back at that point in time t, and looked at where that tree is supposed to be, that you would have ended up seeing it?

If so, do you seriously doubt that?
Note your
" ... a tree exists at a point in time t ..." is conditioned upon a 'human-based science-physics FSK"
thus if there are no humans or no human looking at the tree, then, there is no human-based science-biology FSK tree.

Note in the above case,
the 'you' human condition is always qualified to the claim is true.
there if there is no human element at all, then the claim is not true.

You are speculating at all times when you claim there are things that are mind-independent out there. At most, they are merely thought-objects not real things.

My principle is;
All of reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.
Thus if there are no humans, there are no human-based FSKs,
So, there are no human-based reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity.

The above defies common sense, but common sense is the crudest and has the lowest credibility and reliability in terms of 'what is reality'.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 12:51 am Realism, in general, refers to the idea that there exist mind-independent things. A mind-independent thing is a thing that exists independently of minds
The trouble with this premise is that the term "exists" ALWAYS expresses a mind-made judgment.

It's the mind that determines what's mind-dependent and what's mind-independent.

This is a goat. Further asserting that "It exists." is a metaphysical claim about the goat. There's no such thing as mind-independent metaphysics.

Image
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 7:41 am
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 12:51 am Realism, in general, refers to the idea that there exist mind-independent things. A mind-independent thing is a thing that exists independently of minds
The trouble with this premise is that the term "exists" ALWAYS expresses a mind-made judgment.

It's the mind that determines what's mind-dependent and what's mind-independent.

This is a goat. Further asserting that "It exists." is an ontological/metaphysical claim. There's no such thing as mind-independent metaphysics.

Image
Say if one is 'seeing' a goat in a farm.
Is there really an absolutely mind-independent goat out there under all conditions?

Using reflective and critical thinking,
what is likely to be a permanent or persisting goal out there is a persisting existence of a goat like that of moving images from series of single images in motion.
This is sustained by the human mind.

What is more realistic [re realists' version] about that goat that is alive is, it is merely a cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time [t] and space [l].
Therefore it is more realistic [realists' version], instead of saying there is a mind-independent goat out there, we should say, that specific bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time t and space[l].
Does anyone deny this?

To be even more realistic [realist version], we should state,
there is bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time t and space[l] then track the existence of every molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in its specific time t and specific location in space[l].

Why are philosophical realists so ignorant in insisting on merely 'things' [goats, etc.] exists as mind-independent when what is more realistic is to identify the specific bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time t and space[s] then track the existence of every molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in its specific time t and specific location in space[l].

The point is when philosophical realists via an evolutionary default insist there is an independent goat out there [the macro], they are not being realistic; this is conditioned upon the human mind to prefer this simplicity [to facilitate survival] instead of the more realistic version of referencing to that specific bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time t and space[s] and tracking the existence of every molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in its specific time t and specific location in space[l].

As such, the philosophy realist claim of mind-independent things [even within the realist FSK] is not realistic because there is the more realistic micro version which they ignore.

Now, even if philosophical realists can track the existence of every molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in its changing time t and changing location in space[l], the fact is that molecules, atoms, electrons and particles are not mind-independent things but are conditioned upon the science-physics-chemistry FSK, thus cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind [or human conditions.

In addition, there is the human conditions [mind] in interaction with "other things" but both these two things are in constant flux within a primordial soup of particles that are always interchanging particles within each other.
As such, things [of particles] in constant flux with the human conditions [mind and body] in constant flux and interchanging particles within themselves, can NEVER be independent from one another.

What is most realistic is this;
before any things is perceived, known or described, there is the prior processes of emergence and realization within the human conditions via the interaction of particles within the primordial soup in constant flux.

So, there are no things that are independent of the human conditions as claimed by philosophical realists.

The most realistic sense of reality is, things in existence cannot be absolute independent of the human conditions [mind, brain and body]; things in existence emerged and are realized within a human-based FSR, then it is perceived, known via FSK and described within the linguistic FSK.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 7:41 amThe trouble with this premise is that the term "exists" ALWAYS expresses a mind-made judgment.
It looks like you're repeating something I've already addressed.

The statement "The goat exists" is not describing your judgment. Sure, the statement is a verbal expression of your judgment that was formed based on judgments you made before that were, in turn, formed based on how your senses were affected in the past. But the statement isn't describing any of that. The statement is merely saying that there exists a portion of reality in the present moment that is occupied by the goat we're talking about. This portion of reality is most definitely outside of your brain, since goats cannot fit inside brains. They are too big for that. And you know that.

The mistake that you're making, I believe, is the same one that was made by John Locke and everyone who followed in his footsteps ( Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, et al. ) The mistake consists in thinking that the truth value of a representation of reality is the extent to which that representation of reality is reality itself. It's the idea that, if your perception of reality is not a direct perception of reality, then your perception is false. It's a yearning for direct perception. It's a corrupt version of "correspondence theory of truth".

Atla seems to be making the same exact mistake. And so does Veritas Aequitas.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:09 pm Atla seems to be making the same exact mistake.
I don't know what "the truth value of a representation of reality is the extent to which that representation of reality is reality itself" means. Looks like some kind of weird self-contradiction. Skepdick and Veritas never made sense to me either though

The truth value of a representation of reality is the extent to which the representation can account for, explain all known things in a completely self-consistent way, while using the least amount of made-up assumptions and made-up entities (Occam's razor).

So since our experiences are consistent with a directly unknowable, but very real external world, it's best to posit such an external world's existence (with directly unknowable apples and goats in it).
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:09 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 7:41 amThe trouble with this premise is that the term "exists" ALWAYS expresses a mind-made judgment.
It looks like you're repeating something I've already addressed.

The statement "The goat exists" is not describing your judgment. Sure, the statement is a verbal expression of your judgment that was formed based on judgments you made before that were, in turn, formed based on how your senses were affected in the past. But the statement isn't describing any of that. The statement is merely saying that there exists a portion of reality in the present moment that is occupied by the goat we're talking about. This portion of reality is most definitely outside of your brain, since goats cannot fit inside brains. They are too big for that. And you know that.

The mistake that you're making, I believe, is the same one that was made by John Locke and everyone who followed in his footsteps ( Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, et al. ) The mistake consists in thinking that the truth value of a representation of reality is the extent to which that representation of reality is reality itself. It's the idea that, if your perception of reality is not a direct perception of reality, then your perception is false. It's a yearning for direct perception. It's a corrupt version of "correspondence theory of truth".

Atla seems to be making the same exact mistake. And so does Veritas Aequitas.
You seem really confused.

Take these two sentences:

Here's a goat.
Here's a goat that exists.

What is the second sentence telling you about the goat over and above the first sentence? Absolutely nothing! It's a frivolous expression.

And I am most certainly not trying to tell you anything about reality, portions of it; or the goat occupying spacetime! All I am telling you is that there's a fucking goat!
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: Wed May 31, 2023 9:07 amSay if one is 'seeing' a goat in a farm.
Is there really an absolutely mind-independent goat out there under all conditions?

Using reflective and critical thinking,
what is likely to be a permanent or persisting goal out there is a persisting existence of a goat like that of moving images from series of single images in motion.
This is sustained by the human mind.

What is more realistic [re realists' version] about that goat that is alive is, it is merely a cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time [t] and space [l].
Therefore it is more realistic [realists' version], instead of saying there is a mind-independent goat out there, we should say, that specific bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time t and space[l].
Does anyone deny this?
That's reminiscent of Democritus who thought that nothing exists except for atoms and void.

It's an example of what I call "yearning for direct realism".

Direct realism is a combination of the position that there exist things that are independent of minds ( "realism" ) and the position that we perceive, or at least, that we can perceive, reality directly ( "theory of direct perception". ) If you're a realist, you're not necessarily a direct realist. You might, for example, be an indirect realist. I am an indirect realist. I don't think that we have direct perception. But if you're a direct realist, then you will, in most but not necessarily all cases, believe that the only true reality is the one that you directly perceive. Everything else, you will naively think, is necessarily tainted by subjectivity. As such, if one and the same object can be perceived in more than one way, then only one of those perceptions can be true and all other must be false.

One and the same goat can be perceived differently in different situations. For example, the way a goat is perceived when looking from afar is different than the way it is perceived when looking up close. If you're a naive direct realist, believing that only what is directly perceived is true, you can't accept the fact that these are merely two different representations of one and the same thing both of which are accurate. Instead, you have to decide which one, if any, is a direct perception of the thing itself, and therefore, the true one. Because the perception of the goat when looked up close is more detailed, you are inclined to believe that this perception is closer to being a direct perception of the goat than the other one. But since you're not completely close to the goat, i.e. since there is a distance separating the two of you, you may be inclined to think that this is still not a direct perception of the goat. Instead, you might see it as a false perception that is, however, closer to truth than the other one.

If you're like Berkeley, you might argue that even if you got absolutely close to the goat, your perception would still be tainted by subjectivity, since what you're seeing depends on your position in space. As a result, you might abandon realism in favor of anti-realism.

If you're like Kant, you might agree with Berkeley that our visual perception is at all times, in all situations, tainted by subjectivity, but you will argue that mind-independent reality nonetheless exists, it's just that it is unknowable to us.

Alternatively, you may preserve realism but reject the theory of direct perception while preserving the corrupt version of correspondence theory of truth ( i.e. the idea that our perceptions are true if and only if they are a product of direct perception. ) You might even reject the corrupt version of correspondence theory of truth in favor of other false theories of truths ( e.g. pragmatic theory, perspectivism, etc. )

I choose to preserve realism, reject the theory of direct perception and reject the corrupt version of correspondence theory of truth in favor of the good old correspondence theory of truth ( which many, obviously, have trouble understanding due to their direct realism bent. )

The fact of the matter is that we cannot observe anything without using some sort of language. For example, when light hits our retina, we have to somehow represent that affect in our brains. In order to do so, we have to pick a language. Since there is an infinite number of different languages to pick from, different organisms might pick different languages, leading to different organisms describing one and the same reality differently. But note that, if two descriptions are different, it does not necssarily follow that only one of them can be true. "John is a man" and "John is a human being" are two different descriptions that even have different meanings but they can both be true since they are not in opposition to each other. Another example is your "This is a goat" and "This is a bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion". Two different descriptions that have different meanings both of which can be true since they are not mutually exclusive. The same applies to vision. A trichromat's representation of light that has wavelength of 650nm using red color quale is just as true as a monochromat's representation of the same light using gray color quale. They are both right, their brains are merely "speaking" in different languages.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6212
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

There are exactly two entities in the universe: things and stuff. If you look really really really close, stuff is made out of things. And if you look closer still, the things are made out of stuff. This completes your ontology, there is no need for questions, you are all entirely schooled in this subject now.

Moral stuff reduces to nothing but things doing stuff and stuff getting up to things. We have now completed your Ethics training, everyone form an orderly queue to receive your honourary degrees.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 7:41 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 9:07 amSay if one is 'seeing' a goat in a farm.
Is there really an absolutely mind-independent goat out there under all conditions?

Using reflective and critical thinking,
what is likely to be a permanent or persisting goal out there is a persisting existence of a goat like that of moving images from series of single images in motion.
This is sustained by the human mind.

What is more realistic [re realists' version] about that goat that is alive is, it is merely a cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time [t] and space [l].
Therefore it is more realistic [realists' version], instead of saying there is a mind-independent goat out there, we should say, that specific bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion in time t and space[l].
Does anyone deny this?
That's reminiscent of Democritus who thought that nothing exists except for atoms and void.

It's an example of what I call "yearning for direct realism".

Direct realism is a combination of the position that there exist things that are independent of minds ( "realism" ) and the position that we perceive, or at least, that we can perceive, reality directly ( "theory of direct perception". ) If you're a realist, you're not necessarily a direct realist. You might, for example, be an indirect realist. I am an indirect realist. I don't think that we have direct perception. But if you're a direct realist, then you will, in most but not necessarily all cases, believe that the only true reality is the one that you directly perceive. Everything else, you will naively think, is necessarily tainted by subjectivity. As such, if one and the same object can be perceived in more than one way, then only one of those perceptions can be true and all other must be false.

One and the same goat can be perceived differently in different situations. For example, the way a goat is perceived when looking from afar is different than the way it is perceived when looking up close. If you're a naive direct realist, believing that only what is directly perceived is true, you can't accept the fact that these are merely two different representations of one and the same thing both of which are accurate. Instead, you have to decide which one, if any, is a direct perception of the thing itself, and therefore, the true one. Because the perception of the goat when looked up close is more detailed, you are inclined to believe that this perception is closer to being a direct perception of the goat than the other one. But since you're not completely close to the goat, i.e. since there is a distance separating the two of you, you may be inclined to think that this is still not a direct perception of the goat. Instead, you might see it as a false perception that is, however, closer to truth than the other one.

If you're like Berkeley, you might argue that even if you got absolutely close to the goat, your perception would still be tainted by subjectivity, since what you're seeing depends on your position in space. As a result, you might abandon realism in favor of anti-realism.

If you're like Kant, you might agree with Berkeley that our visual perception is at all times, in all situations, tainted by subjectivity, but you will argue that mind-independent reality nonetheless exists, it's just that it is unknowable to us.

Alternatively, you may preserve realism but reject the theory of direct perception while preserving the corrupt version of correspondence theory of truth ( i.e. the idea that our perceptions are true if and only if they are a product of direct perception. ) You might even reject the corrupt version of correspondence theory of truth in favor of other false theories of truths ( e.g. pragmatic theory, perspectivism, etc. )

I choose to preserve realism, reject the theory of direct perception and reject the corrupt version of correspondence theory of truth in favor of the good old correspondence theory of truth ( which many, obviously, have trouble understanding due to their direct realism bent. )

The fact of the matter is that we cannot observe anything without using some sort of language. For example, when light hits our retina, we have to somehow represent that affect in our brains. In order to do so, we have to pick a language. Since there is an infinite number of different languages to pick from, different organisms might pick different languages, leading to different organisms describing one and the same reality differently. But note that, if two descriptions are different, it does not necssarily follow that only one of them can be true. "John is a man" and "John is a human being" are two different descriptions that even have different meanings but they can both be true since they are not in opposition to each other. Another example is your "This is a goat" and "This is a bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion". Two different descriptions that have different meanings both of which can be true since they are not mutually exclusive. The same applies to vision. A trichromat's representation of light that has wavelength of 650nm using red color quale is just as true as a monochromat's representation of the same light using gray color quale. They are both right, their brains are merely "speaking" in different languages.
I am an Empirical Realist [mind-independence] and at the same time a Transcendental Idealism [conditioned upon human conditions].
Empirical Realism is ultimately subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [conditioned upon human conditions],thus what is ultimately real cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Noted, Indirect Realism [philosophical realism] is a belief that things exist independent to the human mind.

You observe independent things [thing] 'out there,' you express;
1. "This is a goat"
2. "This is a bundle and cluster of molecules and atoms with electrons and particles in motion"
or possibly,
3. "This is a load of meat and bones with furs and so on"
4. etc.

If you think carefully, for indirect-realists, 1-4 are separate independent things.
You insist it is the 'same thing' in different languages.
But what is that 'same thing' that is supposedly permanent and 'constant'.
Btw, the only thing that is constant is change, not some mind-independent thing.
Since change is the only constant, there is no way you can ever nail "what is that 'same thing' that is supposedly permanent and 'constant' " in accordance to Indirect Realism.
Therefore Indirect Realism is a false.

I had argued fundamentally, Indirect Realism [philosophical realism] of mind-independence is merely an evolutionary default to facilitate survival that is optimize for our then and even current state, but not towards the future to facilitate greater progress of humanity with awareness of greater global and galactical threats.

Note this post;
viewtopic.php?p=645651#p645651 in
A Macro Goat or A Cluster of Micro Particles?
Suggest you continue this argument in the above thread.

I argued therein what is really and most real is always conditioned to a specific human based FSK and therefore cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

If you're like Kant, you might agree with Berkeley that our visual perception is at all times, in all situations, tainted by subjectivity, but you will argue that mind-independent reality nonetheless exists, it's just that it is unknowable to us.
Kant refuted Berkeley's Subjective Idealism.
Kant never agreed that "mind-independent reality nonetheless exists" instead he proved that "mind-independent reality nonetheless exists" is illusory, nevertheless a useful illusion.

Kant did mention the mind-independent thing-in-itself is 'unknowable' is some sense, but ultimately there is no possibility of it to be known to be real.
  • For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
    and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
    and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves.
    CPR Kant A280 B336
The thing-in-itself [pls. things-in-themselves] is merely a thought, i.e. an intelligible object.
The fact of the matter is that we cannot observe anything without using some sort of language.
This is not true at all.
We act upon instincts [no language needed] when triggered by triggers observed.
In the interview, [Daniel] Everett challenges the nativist theories of Noam Chomsky, arguing that Chomsky only focuses on grammar, which is only a small part of language and does not consider social or cultural origins. Everett discusses his findings on Piraha, one of nearly 8,000 spoken languages in the world, arguing that it is no different from any other language in terms of language acquisition.

Everett states that current theories of language learning do not consider semiotics and inferential reasoning and need revision. The interview also touches on the relationship between language and thought, where Everett argues that language and culture exist in a symbiotic relationship, with each one necessarily shaping and affecting the other.

According to Everett, ChatGPT has shown that language acquisition is possible without any innate grammar or language rules. This is achieved through the use of massive amounts of data, as demonstrated by Large Language Models.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Seriously, why is it so difficult to comprehend that
1. mind-dependence as in no absolute division, boundary between the mind and the external world, and
2. mind-dependence as in a literal dependence on the human mind
are two totally different things that shouldn't be conflated?

Someone explain this to me pls.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 4:58 am But what is that 'same thing' that is supposedly permanent and 'constant'.
The noumenal object. Except it's always changing too, so I've no idea where this "permanent and constant" view is coming from.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:12 am Seriously, why is it so difficult to comprehend that
1. mind-dependence as in no absolute division, boundary between the mind and the external world, and
2. mind-dependence as in a literal dependence on the human mind
are two totally different things that shouldn't be conflated?

Someone explain this to me pls.
Because they aren't different things.

Sure, that's two ways of describing it, but the practical implication is identical.

Where's the boundary between my memories, and Aristotle's memories once I've read his writings?

No minds -> no experience
No experience -> no memory

So how would memories be acquired, exactly and how would they be transferred between humans if minds ceased to exist?

Insisting that X remains after minds disappear is an untestable and unfalsifiable prediction. It's not even wrong!
Post Reply