What could make morality objective?

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

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 11:09 am 1 We construct a model of a car in order to construct a car.

2 We construct a model of reality in order to construct reality.

Same thing. Obvs.

(Face palm.)
You are that desperate?
Note the context;

In modern manufacturing of real cars in reality;
A real car in reality is constructed based on a model of a car [intended reality].
Therefore, a model of reality [the car] is constructed to construct a real car in reality.
What is wrong with the above in its specific context.

Don't strawman in relating the above in the context of reality as all-there-is.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun May 21, 2023 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

CIN wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 12:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 7:45 am You still have have not prove your world of facts exist [feature of reality, i.e. just-is, being so, that is the case] as real absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Give examples to explain your case? Produce your real facts for all to confirm?
If there is no world independent of human perception and theory, then there can be no explanation for the order in human experience. Subjective experience cannot create its own internal order. Something other than the experience must be causing it.

If you would only grasp this simple point, this entire futile discussion could be brought to a merciful end.
You are merely speculating.
What is that "something" that is absolutely independent of the human mind?

There is no need for the question of "IF",
at the present moment whatever is realis experienced, and can be verified, justified by a specific human based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], i.e. based on a collective of subjects, thus Objective.
The most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK.

Btw, mind-independence is an evolutionary default; to facilitate survival, ALL humans are programmed to perceive reality as independent of their mind or human conditions. The opposite idea is very psychological painful to all humans, with exceptions.

What is that "something" that is absolutely independent of the human mind?
Can you explain clearly?
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

The Andromeda galaxy isn't absolutely independent of me, we are both parts of the same world. Therefore the Andromeda galaxy depends on my mind.

VA is physically incapable of understanding that the above is a non-sequitur, he's conflating two different senses of dependence/independence. I think this is way more than a non-native speaker issue. It's a condition called "being REALLY dense".
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

What could make morality objective? Answer: A conscious subject.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 7:30 pm What could make morality objective? Answer: A conscious subject.
Can't be if considered within philosophy. Note,
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of asentient being. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Note the critical "a" i.e. ONE sentient being,
this will cover individual[s] is a loosely, i.e. not in organized groups.

As such "A" conscious subject does not equate with 'moral objectivity'.

Rather, moral objectivity is always conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK comprising a sufficient large group of conscious subjects with shared-truths.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 4:57 am The Andromeda galaxy isn't absolutely independent of me, we are both parts of the same world. Therefore the Andromeda galaxy depends on my mind.

VA is physically incapable of understanding that the above is a non-sequitur, he's conflating two different senses of dependence/independence. I think this is way more than a non-native speaker issue. It's a condition called "being REALLY dense".
Just as soon as you explain the objective meaning of "independent" we'll be over the hurdle and our way.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 5:47 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 7:30 pm What could make morality objective? Answer: A conscious subject.
Can't be if considered within philosophy. Note,
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of asentient being. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Note the critical "a" i.e. ONE sentient being,
this will cover individual[s] is a loosely, i.e. not in organized groups.

As such "A" conscious subject does not equate with 'moral objectivity'.

Rather, moral objectivity is always conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK comprising a sufficient large group of conscious subjects with shared-truths.
The expression 'one's perception' doesn't usually mean 'one person's perception'. And 'bias caused by the mind of a sentient being' usually refers to bias caused by the mind of sentient beings.

In other words, subjectivity doesn't morph into objectivity at some unspecified number or proportion of 'subjects'. An opinion, whether held by just me, or some, many or all of us, remains an opinion.

For example, the fact that every human being used to believe in gods didn't make it a fact that there are gods. So, by exactly the same argument, the fact that everyone (maybe) now believes water is H2O doesn't make it a fact that water is H2O.

What we call objectivity does not reduce to consensus opinion. That's not how we use the word.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 7:34 am In other words, subjectivity doesn't morph into objectivity at some unspecified number or proportion of 'subjects'. An opinion, whether held by just me, or some, many or all of us, remains an opinion.
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's behaviuor reminds me of a quote by Solzhenitsyn

“We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
If we all held the opinion that this color is green.

Then it would also be true - a fact - that this ball is green. This is how the semantic theory of truth works.

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 7:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 5:47 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 7:30 pm What could make morality objective? Answer: A conscious subject.
Can't be if considered within philosophy. Note,
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of asentient being. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Note the critical "a" i.e. ONE sentient being,
this will cover individual[s] is a loosely, i.e. not in organized groups.

As such "A" conscious subject does not equate with 'moral objectivity'.

Rather, moral objectivity is always conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK comprising a sufficient large group of conscious subjects with shared-truths.
The expression 'one's perception' doesn't usually mean 'one person's perception'. And 'bias caused by the mind of a sentient being' usually refers to bias caused by the mind of sentient beings.

In other words, subjectivity doesn't morph into objectivity at some unspecified number or proportion of 'subjects'. An opinion, whether held by just me, or some, many or all of us, remains an opinion.

For example, the fact that every human being used to believe in gods didn't make it a fact that there are gods. So, by exactly the same argument, the fact that everyone (maybe) now believes water is H2O doesn't make it a fact that water is H2O.

What we call objectivity does not reduce to consensus opinion. That's not how we use the word.
As I had argued, your basis of "what is fact" is illusory.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You have ignored to counter this but continue to spew your illusory 'what is fact' as real.

I repeat my principle [the 1 millionth & 10 times];
What are facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.
The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective to be taken as the standard ALL other FSKs are to be evaluated upon.

In this case, theists claimed within their theistic FSK, that God exists is a fact.
We can accept that as a fact [as defined above]; but the 'fact' that God exists as conditioned upon a theistic FSK grounded on faith; by contrast it is way off the Objectivity chart, i.e. say 0.01/100 degree of objectivity.
Thus theists will claim 'God exists' is a fact [they really do that] but the objectivity of such a claim is negligible.
I believe any rational person will agree with the above judgment.

That 'water is H20' is a fact [my definition not yours] within the science-chemistry FSK; note its degree of objectivity is not that high because not every scientist except that 'water is H2O' due to the existence of isomers of H and O.

Note even if Einstein had declared E=MC2 is as true because 'he' personally said so, that cannot be objective, but rather it is subjective to one person.
But when Einstein's E=MC2 was subsequently verified, tested repeatedly to be true, accepted by peers, justified within the Science-Physics-FSK, it is only then it is declared a human-based-FSK-scientific-fact.

There is no E=MC2 pre-existing absolutely by itself independent of the Science-Physics-FSK.
It is delusional [and nonsensical] of you to insist it is a fact [yours] as a feature of reality that is just-is, being so, a state of affairs, or that is the case.

Get it?

Note don't forget to consider the 13.7 billion years of conditions [physical, organic and humans] that conditioned the human-based FSK fact 'E=MC2' or any other FSK-facts.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon May 22, 2023 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

The semantic theory of truth, like all other such theories, mistakes the word truth for a thing of some kind that can be described. Tarski's was a failed solution to a non-existent problem. The supposed issue of circularity, like the supposed issue of symbol-grounding, vanishes along with correspondence and maker-bearer theories, of which STT is a version.

A rigorous methodological separation of features of reality from what we believe and know about them, and from what we say about them - a separation that the various kinds of anti-realism refuse to contemplate - is the cure for the conceptual mess in which anti-realism festers.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 8:16 am The semantic theory of truth, like all other such theories, mistakes the word truth for a thing of some kind that can be described. Tarski's was a failed solution to a non-existent problem. The supposed issue of circularity, like the supposed issue of symbol-grounding, vanishes along with correspondence and maker-bearer theories, of which STT is a version.
Despite lying being objectively wrong the subjective moralist continues lying. Surprise, surprise!
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 1:45 pm 1 Philosophy is, and has always been, about the use of words, and particularly some important abstract nouns, such as truth, knowledge, identity, and so on. Imo.
If we all held the opinion that this color is green. Would it be valid/acceptable/correct/appropriate to use the word "true"; or "truth" to qualify the assertion/judgment/factual claim "The color of this ball is green." as being true?

This is a yes/no question.

If you answer "yes" - that's all I need from you to further asert a Q.E.D
If you answer "no" - then justify your answer.

Image
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon May 22, 2023 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 7:34 am The expression 'one's perception' doesn't usually mean 'one person's perception'. And 'bias caused by the mind of a sentient being' usually refers to bias caused by the mind of sentient beings.

In other words, subjectivity doesn't morph into objectivity at some unspecified number or proportion of 'subjects'. An opinion, whether held by just me, or some, many or all of us, remains an opinion.
In practical terms subjectivity morphs into objectivity (or at least being called objectivity) when there is some kind of consensus in some subgroup of subjects who call it that.

A general reaction I have to this topic is that it is not neat. We can try to nail it down, but in lived terms, it is messy.
For example, the fact that every human being used to believe in gods didn't make it a fact that there are gods. So, by exactly the same argument, the fact that everyone (maybe) now believes water is H2O doesn't make it a fact that water is H2O.
And I think this sentence is stronger, though still problematic, if you leave out 'fact' given that words ambiguity. '...doesnt make water H20.'
What we call objectivity does not reduce to consensus opinion. That's not how we use the word.
First note the implicit potential contradiction.

That's not how we use the word means that we are determining the objective meaning of 'objectivity' through consensus. I undertand that the meaning of words is perhaps not the same as features of reality (though even that gets gnarly).

Objectivity in practical terms for most groups usually entails some kind of expert consensus following a rigorous process. Rigor is defined in different ways by different people. And it is an evaluation. Replication is often part of the rigor in science. Team A came up with result X and then other teams replicted the experiments and lo, found the same or close enough results. Fine. And this certainly works a lot. It also fails even when replication succeeds.

Here on earth we are dealing with the subjective in paradigmantic biases - so a majority of experts who might end up calling something objective may share the same bias - corporate and power interest control of research funding and even experts - through a wide variety of processes affecting scientists, labs, universities, publication, and then the biases we all share as time bound, locally physical, mammalian primates with our main cognitive centers coming out of our motor cortexes - again, collective biases or intersubjective biases.

We might like to separate out universality/consensus from objectivity, but here on earth, partially blind as we all are, this isn't neat.

This doesn't mean the distinction between objective and subjective is meaningless, though I often wonder if it was better to drop objectivity as a concept. Since, for example, in science revision is considered good to always be open to, why not just present justifications and more or less treat everything as working hypotheses on some level.

This does not mean that all hypostheses are equal. Not does it mean we can't strive to eliminate biases as much as possible.

This doesn't mean that I am on the same team a VA. He likes that word objectivity. You like that word objectivity. I think it's problematic and on some level does break down to a tool of power.

What we have are all these conclusions out there. We all deal with our own conclusions and those of others. These have wide varieties of justification, both in quality or seeming quality and type.

Why not transparancy regarding justification - which is SORT OF the case or goal in science (but take a look at pharmaceutical company behavior, which we are often told is science ((period)) and trasnparancy is lacking. And the moment money issues are invovled - as they generally are - and transparancy is always at risk (of not being objective))).

I am not sure the fighting over who gets to use the word objectivity really helps.

And even in science, I am not sure it really happens. Lab c draws a conclusion. Other labs check the process. I don't think anyone says 'Now we can call it objective,' even if you cornered the scientists and made them check off either subjective or objective conclusion, they would choose the latter. But really once it's looking good to the experts, then if there are any practical applications, industry and/or governments move in. If it affects models it gets added to or modifies models.

We don't have to have some discrete moment where we decide to put conclusion X in the objective set. Before it was subjective (merely) now we put it in box 2.

We know that things put in box 2 have turned out to be wrong. At least in science. So getting labeled objective (here on earth, in real time, in real lives) is no guarantee. It's a hey, this is looking really solid so far judgment.

It may be great, but we do not have that view from nowhere.

I think these terms reflect an urge to have things settled neatly. There, finished, good. It is this and not that. Period. A very human urge.

Often in philosophy and life it is as if we can see that, well, sure those things are objective and those are objective. But actually we are these primates on the ground.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 8:36 am Not does it mean we can't strive to eliminate biases as much as possible.
This is a fool's errand.

You are confusing the connotation and denotation of words.

Once you evacuate the moral connotation the words choice and bias they denote the exact same mechanism in practice: some mechanism which selects from multiple available options.

To be biased towards truth; or biased against lies is the same thing as choosing truth over lies.

If morality isn't objective then choosing (being biased towards) lies over truth is also a valid choice.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon May 22, 2023 8:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 5:47 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 7:30 pm What could make morality objective? Answer: A conscious subject.
Can't be if considered within philosophy. Note,
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of asentient being. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Note the critical "a" i.e. ONE sentient being,
this will cover individual[s] is a loosely, i.e. not in organized groups.

As such "A" conscious subject does not equate with 'moral objectivity'.

Rather, moral objectivity is always conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK comprising a sufficient large group of conscious subjects with shared-truths.
Think! All meaning is the property of a conscious subject never the object. We know the physical world only on a subjective level; experience is knowledge and meaning, which is then bestowed upon a meaningless world. If morality were to be objective it would be lying around on the ground like fallen apples. Morality is a concept of a subjective sentiment, a meaning, which is then bestowed upon a meaningless world, for in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing, and in the absence of object, consciousness itself ceases to exist. Ask yourself this, in your belief in the objectivity of morality, can it be known on any other level than that of subjectivity?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 8:16 am The semantic theory of truth, like all other such theories, mistakes the word truth for a thing of some kind that can be described. Tarski's was a failed solution to a non-existent problem. The supposed issue of circularity, like the supposed issue of symbol-grounding, vanishes along with correspondence and maker-bearer theories, of which STT is a version.

A rigorous methodological separation of features of reality from what we believe and know about them, and from what we say about them - a separation that the various kinds of anti-realism refuse to contemplate - is the cure for the conceptual mess in which anti-realism festers.
You are very ignorant.

As I had stated, philosophical realism [human-condition independent] [aka mind-independent] is an evolutionary default embedded in ALL human since 200,000 years ago and deterministically linked to a 13.7 billion years history to the Big Bang.
This human independence of reality is critical for basic survival.

Whilst the idea of human-independent-reality is crucial and has been successful of basic survival since 3.5 billions of years since life first emerged, it created two concepts;
1. that which is described,
2. description of the-described
which turn generates a REALITY-GAP where the only way to reconcile the-description with the-described is via correspondence and mirroring.

Thus the above is the skeptics feast in declaring the REALITY-GAP is eternal and humans will never ever know what is really real.
There is no way to prove the really real, i.e. the described.

You keep blabbering there is
1. the fact, a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case where no words and meanings can touch eternally
2. the above 1 is independent of subjects [humans] opinions, beliefs and judgments.
But you are unable to demonstrate in any way, what 1 above really is.

You are very arrogant based on your ignorance not realizing that was only about 5,000 -10,000 years ago a few humans realized there is something wrong with philosophical-realism - the evolutionary default.

Note example, the Buddha, Protagoras' "Man is the measure of all things" and a few others pioneers who has the competence to break away from the masses.

One point is;
as humans continue to evolve with knowledge of reality, they have the greater the knowledge of the existence of greater threats against humanity.
In the past, ignorance was bliss, even when it existed the possibility of a rogue meteorite coming from nowhere to smash humanity into extinction like what happened to the dinosaurs. Ignorance was bliss, even with the possibility of a pandemic, and other global threats that could wiped the human species to extinctions.
With an exponential expansion of knowledge, there is the threat of human extinction from cheap available WMDs [nuclear and biological], climate change and global warmings.

Now, the 13.7 billion years old philosophical realism of human independence [mind-independent] which is effective for our ancient ancestors is becoming a real liability and potential threat to humanity if we dogmatically cling to it without a paradigm shift by the masses.
Post Reply