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

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

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 8:51 am Think! All meaning is the property of a conscious subject never the object.
But from where I am looking you are an object.

So as an object you must be devoid of all meaning.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 8:51 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.
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?
I have always claimed that the ultimate of what is reality is subjective, thus subjectivity; there are are many perspectives to subjectivity and objectivity.
Thus when I argue with theists, I will rely on this principle to ensure that is no way an independent 'objective' God can exists by itself. God is in a way a human construct of an illusion.

But when it comes to other pragmatic matters, the principle of ultimate subjectivity is not effective.
To be effective we have to invoke the principle that objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. conditioned upon the shared-collective-thoughts of subjects.

If you insist morality is not objective but subjective, it will not promote moral progress since being subjective is to each their own. You will have to respect the subjective views of others whose subjective morality is where genocides, mass murders, mass rapes is permissible.

If you banked on subjectivity, you will end up with this;
  • goodness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
    If I think something is Good, it is.
    If you think it's bad, it is.
    Personal [subjective] opinion is the measure of morality.
    To suppose that there are Moral standards independent of such opinion--well, that's just wishful thinking, or an expression of arrogance.
    Clearly, morality is something that we [individual subjects] made for ourselves.
    Others have come to different conclusions about how to live their lives.
    Who are we to say that they are mistaken with their permissible genocides, mass murders, mass rapes?

We need morality to be objective to facilitate the effectiveness of moral progress within humanity, note my post above.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 9:26 am If you insist morality is not objective but subjective, it will not promote moral progress since being subjective is to each their own. You will have to respect the subjective views of others whose subjective morality is where genocides, mass murders, mass rapes is permissible.
This is not true. There is absolutely no compulsion to respect or accept them. And no possible prohibition to fighting against them. There are many options for doing that last: you can point out contradicitons in their own values and see if this will get them to stop believing X is good or bad, you can try to convince others based on your values, third parties, the not convinced, swing voters metaphorically.

There's no magical seal of objectivity one can put on morals so that people around the world will bow down to it.

And note that he is making a consequences argument in relation to a disagreement over whether something is true or not.
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 11:45 am There's no magical seal of objectivity one can put on morals so that people around the world will bow down to it.
There's no magical seal you can stamp on laws, facts, or truth either to make people bow down to them.
Laws of gravity? Who cares? Here's an airplane; and a parachute; and a rocket to bypass them with!

That doesn't make murder any less illegal/immoral.

You are just restating the Biblical paradox of free will. If God is omnipotent how come he can't stop me from committ attrocities?
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 9:26 am If you insist morality is not objective but subjective, it will not promote moral progress since being subjective is to each their own. You will have to respect the subjective views of others whose subjective morality is where genocides, mass murders, mass rapes is permissible.
One really has to wonder sometimes, what kind of sadistic cult VA spent most of his life in, that he never even heard of the human conscience?
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 9:26 am
popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 8:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 5:47 am
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?
I have always claimed that the ultimate of what is reality is subjective, thus subjectivity; there are are many perspectives to subjectivity and objectivity.
Thus when I argue with theists, I will rely on this principle to ensure that is no way an independent 'objective' God can exists by itself. God is in a way a human construct of an illusion.

But when it comes to other pragmatic matters, the principle of ultimate subjectivity is not effective.
To be effective we have to invoke the principle that objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. conditioned upon the shared-collective-thoughts of subjects.

If you insist morality is not objective but subjective, it will not promote moral progress since being subjective is to each their own. You will have to respect the subjective views of others whose subjective morality is where genocides, mass murders, mass rapes is permissible.

If you banked on subjectivity, you will end up with this;
  • goodness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
    If I think something is Good, it is.
    If you think it's bad, it is.
    Personal [subjective] opinion is the measure of morality.
    To suppose that there are Moral standards independent of such opinion--well, that's just wishful thinking, or an expression of arrogance.
    Clearly, morality is something that we [individual subjects] made for ourselves.
    Others have come to different conclusions about how to live their lives.
    Who are we to say that they are mistaken with their permissible genocides, mass murders, mass rapes?

We need morality to be objective to facilitate the effectiveness of moral progress within humanity, note my post above.
To the individual truth/fact is experience, but to the group it is the collective personal experiences in agreement which is truth/fact. This means it is a necessary product of the formation of groups or societies whether large or small. The individual in isolation has no need for morality. The agreement of the group is simply the collective subjectivity of the many, and is less likely to error than the individual judgment.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 11:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 9:26 am I have always claimed that the ultimate of what is reality is subjective, thus subjectivity; there are are many perspectives to subjectivity and objectivity.
Thus when I argue with theists, I will rely on this principle to ensure that is no way an independent 'objective' God can exists by itself. God is in a way a human construct of an illusion.

But when it comes to other pragmatic matters, the principle of ultimate subjectivity is not effective.
To be effective we have to invoke the principle that objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. conditioned upon the shared-collective-thoughts of subjects.

If you insist morality is not objective but subjective, it will not promote moral progress since being subjective is to each their own. You will have to respect the subjective views of others whose subjective morality is where genocides, mass murders, mass rapes is permissible.

If you banked on subjectivity, you will end up with this;
  • goodness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
    If I think something is Good, it is.
    If you think it's bad, it is.
    Personal [subjective] opinion is the measure of morality.
    To suppose that there are Moral standards independent of such opinion--well, that's just wishful thinking, or an expression of arrogance.
    Clearly, morality is something that we [individual subjects] made for ourselves.
    Others have come to different conclusions about how to live their lives.
    Who are we to say that they are mistaken with their permissible genocides, mass murders, mass rapes?

We need morality to be objective to facilitate the effectiveness of moral progress within humanity, note my post above.
To the individual truth/fact is experience, but to the group it is the collective personal experiences in agreement which is truth/fact. This means it is a necessary product of the formation of groups or societies whether large or small. The individual in isolation has no need for morality. The agreement of the group is simply the collective subjectivity of the many, and is less likely to error than the individual judgment.
All facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality which has to be on a collective basis.
Therefore there are no acts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity on an individual basis which is highly subjective.

There is also a difference between experience by an individual and his experience within a group where interchanges and inter feedbacks make the differences.

ALL humans are programmed with an innate potential moral function where has a range and degree of activeness within humanity.
On the individual basis, it is immoral to commit suicide resulting in premature death.
The agreement of the group is simply the collective subjectivity of the many, and is less likely to error than the individual judgment.
This sort of collective subjectivity with shared-beliefs is what we call Objectivity, i.e. independent of individual[s] beliefs, opinions, judgments.

And, collective subjectivity with shared-beliefs related to morality [innate] is what we call Moral Objectivity.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Elsewhere, VA says that philosophical realism is a threat to the human race, and that moral realism is our only hope. Here's my response.

Goddit. 'There are no mind-independent facts. But there are moral facts, such as the existence of an 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitor represented by neurons in human brains.'

Years of contemplation - and amassing documents and sometimes reading bits of them - and this unutterable tripe is the rotten fruit.

Here's the truth. Just as there are no aesthetic facts, but only aesthetic opinions - this is beautiful/ugly - so there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - this is morally right/wrong. So morality isn't and can't be objective.

And that's why it's completely rational for people to hold diametrically opposed moral opinions, such as: abortion is/is not morally wrong. There is no fact that can settle the matter.

Moral realists and objective are just wrong. The end. (Or is it?)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 8:27 am Moral realists and objective are just wrong. The end. (Or is it?)
But that's just your moral opinion.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Some thoughts for the day.

1 The expressions the right answer and the wrong decision need not - and usually don't - have any moral meaning or significance whatsoever.

2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.

3 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language whatsoever.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am Some thoughts for the day.
Thoughts? You mean sentences, right? Thoughts don't exist (according to you).

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am 1 The expressions the right answer and the wrong decision need not - and usually don't - have any moral meaning or significance whatsoever.
That's not true. If there's no moral significance to getting answers or decisions right or wrong then why does it ever matter whether anybody is right or wrong?

There's nothing morally wrong with being non-morally wrong and nothing moraly right with being non-morally right.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am 2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.
That's not true. There's the meaning intended by the speaker and the meaning understood by the listener(s).

If by using the sign "red" I intend you to understand this color, yet you've understood this color then we are miscommunicating.

And even then - so what if we are miscommunicating? Are you saying there ought not be miscomminication?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am 3 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language whatsoever.
Yeh. It has to do with metaphysics.

How do you propose we talk about about thinking; and thinking about thinking without language?
How do you propose we do meta-anything without a meta-language?

Perhaps Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is of the belief that thinking and communicating about thinking are unrelated activities?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:34 am Some thoughts for the day.

1 The expressions the right answer and the wrong decision need not - and usually don't - have any moral meaning or significance whatsoever.

2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.

3 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language whatsoever.
As usual your thinking is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic as from a philosophy gnat.

PH: 1 The expressions the right answer and the wrong decision need not - and usually don't - have any moral meaning or significance whatsoever.
Your sense of 'what is fact' is delusional and from that, to you, there are no moral facts, thus no objective right or wrong answers to moral issues.

Morality-proper [inherent to human nature] is about the natural spontaneous response without deliberation towards what is good in an absence of evil.
As such morality-proper involved the self-development of neural inhibitors to modulate the inherent evil impulses with any decision whether an act is right or wrong.
This is already ongoing within humanity where the majority of humans do not have an impulse to kill human arbitrary despite having the inherent drive to kill.

Any talk of right or wrong in relation to morality is a secondary issue and has no more relevance when the majority or all humans are totally indifferent to any evil acts, like killing another human.
Note the above point is not applicable to the present [where many humans are evil-laden with evil impulses] but rather it is relevant in the future [next 100 years or later].

2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean.
Yes, but only as conditioned within a human-based FSK.
Scientific words and signs can have meanings within the specific scientific FSK; and so on with other specific FSK, like economics, legal, political, social, history, etc.
This is why we also have specific dictionaries to represent specific meanings within a specific FSK.
3 The existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language whatsoever.
Existence is not a predicate; exists or "is" is merely a copula and what exists must be predicated upon conditions [13.7 billions years of conditions] within a human-based FSK.

The existence and nature of things emerged and is realized within a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and subsequently a FSK prior to exposure to language to describe what realized.
The purpose of language is primary for the effective communication of knowledge of real existence and nature of things, for the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

As you can see, your thinking and views are above are illusory or too crude, and I have to add more details to make them more realistic.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 10:29 am This is already ongoing within humanity where the majority of humans do not have an impulse to kill human arbitrary despite having the inherent drive to kill.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 10:29 amAny talk of right or wrong in relation to morality is a secondary issue and has no more relevance when the majority or all humans are totally indifferent to any evil acts, like killing another human.
Image
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

I think VA's kind of anti-realist mistake is as follows.

Premise: If there were no humans, then there would be no reality-as-it-is-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans.

In one way, this claim is trivially true and so inconsequential. But lurking inside it is an empiricist skepticism of the kind exploited by Berkeley with his idealist esse est percipi - and maybe also picked up by Quine with his 'to be is to be the value of a bound variable in a quantification'.

Perhaps this skepticism can be summarised by the claim: ontology is epistemology. And this is what VA's drone - 'a fact emerges from and exists only within a framework and system of knowledge' - amounts to.

But the following conclusion is a mistake:

If there were no humans, then there would be no reality.

A question for VA: is the above what you claim?
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 29, 2023 12:26 pm I think VA's kind of anti-realist mistake is as follows.

Premise: If there were no humans, then there would be no reality-as-it-is-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans.

In one way, this claim is trivially true and so inconsequential. But lurking inside it is an empiricist skepticism of the kind exploited by Berkeley with his idealist esse est percipi - and maybe also picked up by Quine with his 'to be is to be the value of a bound variable in a quantification'.

Perhaps this skepticism can be summarised by the claim: ontology is epistemology. And this is what VA's drone - 'a fact emerges from and exists only within a framework and system of knowledge' - amounts to.

But the following conclusion is a mistake:

If there were no humans, then there would be no reality.

A question for VA: is the above what you claim?
If there were no humans there would be nobody to use the term "reality"; or any terms. For any purpose whatsoever.
There would be nothing refered to as "reality" because there would be nobody to DO any referring.

Yet here you are. Using the term "reality". What are you using it for and why?
Here you are refering to something using the term "reality". What are you refering to and why are you referring to it?

Epistemology is not ontology. Epistemology is epistemology.

What the fuck is ontology? Do you even know?
Post Reply