What is Constructivism? Common Denominators

[Skepdick]

I was surprised to find that a significant number of contructivists believe in objective morality

Of course they do!

Constructed Moral facts are no different to all other constructed facts. such as Logical, Mathematical, Philosophical, and Methodological facts.

Reject any one of those and the whole house of cards comes crashing down by simply insisting on consistency in one's rejection criteria.

Such is the intellectual journey - one eats from the tree of knowledge and must depart the Garden of Eden. Only to return with the realisation that without objective morals/social norms literaly anything goes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'd be interested to know if constructivists believe in objective morality at a higher rate than non constructivists. Or if becoming a constructivist is more likely to coincide with a change from not accepting objective morality to accepting morality, than a change in the opposite direction.

Otherwise, the claim that constructivism supports objective morality seems pretty empty. The only supporting data point in that direction would be, we have one person who already believes in objective morality choosing to interpret constructivism in a way that goes with the grain of his existing beliefs. Confirmation bias, as you say.

Because there's nothing analytically that tells me constructivism and objective morality go together particularly well. Analytically they seem like largely separate topics.

Note the following'

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

• 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 a sentient subject.
  Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Then, there are,

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
2. Objectivity in the human-based FSK Sense [re realization and emergence]

My argument is 'objectivity' in the Philosophical Realism [mind-independent] sense is not realistic because there is no absolutely mind-independent objective reality existing out there to be mirrored, pictured or corresponded with concepts, words, etc.
For example theists [fundamentally are realists] claim there is a independent God and objective reality, but such objectivity is unreliable as grounded on an illusion.

Realists [mind-independent] like PH and yourself would deny the existence of moral objectivity because all moral elements cannot absolutely independent of mind.
In this case the realist's rejection of moral objectivity is grounded on an illusory idea of an absolutely mind independent reality.

Philosophical Realism [grounded on an illusion] is the anti-thesis of Constructivism [see OP] which relies on its objectivity via the specific human-based FSK. The most credible and reliable human-based FSK [constructivist] is the science-FSK with the highest degree of objectivity, i.e.

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

In this case, all constructivists' moral claims and moral objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based [constructed] moral FSK.

But the question remained, how objective is the moral objectivity of each specific constructivist's human-based moral FSK in comparison the science-FSK as a standard.

In my case, I am claiming the objectivity my human-based moral FSK is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are from the science-FSK.

[Iwannaplato]

In my case, I am claiming the objectivity my human-based moral FSK is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are from the science-FSK.

This is simply not true. A major input is the value judgment involved in choosing which facets of human neural patterns to enhance. VA chooses mirror neurons and not neuronal networks related to aggression. That is his value. That choice does not come from science, it comes from his values. This choice completely affects the moral nature of his so called objective morality.

He never explains the missing step, that which guides him to choose one portion of the brain to enhance, because the house of cards falls there. There is nothing objective about his moral FSK. Nothing.

viewtopic.php?p=636879#p636879

You can see this when one simply replaces his choice of brain function with another as I did in the link above.

[Skepdick]

In my case, I am claiming the objectivity my human-based moral FSK is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are from the science-FSK.

This is simply not true. A major input is the value judgment involved in choosing which facets of human neural patterns to enhance. VA chooses mirror neurons and not neuronal networks related to aggression. That is his value. That choice does not come from science, it comes from his values. This choice completely affects the moral nature of his so called objective morality.

He never explains the missing step, that which guides him to choose one portion of the brain to enhance, because the house of cards falls there. There is nothing objective about his moral FSK. Nothing.

viewtopic.php?p=636879#p636879

You can see this when one simply replaces his choice of brain function with another as I did in the link above.

Then there's nothing objective about water boiling at 100 degrees Celsius either.
Or a kilogram weighing what it weighs.
Or a second being as long as it is.
Or the speed of light being what we say it is.

All those arbitrary choices come from our values - All thse choices completely affects the nature of this so called "objective science".

Ahhhh, but of course. What's the value of the speed of light?

Evaluation (measurement!) is what humans DO.

[Flannel Jesus]

In my case, I am claiming the objectivity my human-based moral FSK is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are from the science-FSK.

This is simply not true. A major input is the value judgment involved in choosing which facets of human neural patterns to enhance. VA chooses mirror neurons and not neuronal networks related to aggression. That is his value. That choice does not come from science, it comes from his values. This choice completely affects the moral nature of his so called objective morality.

He never explains the missing step, that which guides him to choose one portion of the brain to enhance, because the house of cards falls there. There is nothing objective about his moral FSK. Nothing.

viewtopic.php?p=636879#p636879

You can see this when one simply replaces his choice of brain function with another as I did in the link above.

Yeah. The particular focus on empathy-related brain facts as opposed to other ones doesn't seem to pass the criteria of "objective" to me. Objectivity was previously defined as "A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." - this all seems very much centered in the bias of a particular sentient subject.

[Skepdick]

Yeah. The particular focus on empathy-related brain facts as opposed to other ones doesn't seem to pass the criteria of "objective" to me. Objectivity was previously defined as "A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." - this all seems very much centered in the bias of a particular sentient subject.

Can you make explicit the criteria for objectivity already ?!? It's like you are holding onto this privileged knowledge as if it was revealed to you by God himself.

Once a sentient subject defines the boiling temperature of water as 100 degrees Celsius then objectively speaking water boils at 100 degrees celsius.
Of course, the sentient subject could've made water boil at 27 degrees Celsius. Had the sentient subject defined it that way.
Furthermore the sentient subject who defined the boiling temerature of water as 100 degrees Celsius could've been counting in binary.

Objectivity is a social construct! That doesn't mean nothing is objective (everything is subjective) - what it means is that your don't understand what objectivity means in a social setting.

It means using a shared, mutually agreed upon measurement system.

When using the same, shared measurement system murder is objectively wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah. The particular focus on empathy-related brain facts as opposed to other ones doesn't seem to pass the criteria of "objective" to me. Objectivity was previously defined as "A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." - this all seems very much centered in the bias of a particular sentient subject.

It doesn't fit his own criteria for objectivity. He asserts that it is objective. But elsewhere when he describes objectivity his own actions/argument don't pass his own muster.

And so far he has never shown how enhancing aggression is wrong. He ignores that. And he ignores explaining the step in his own argument, even though this step has been pointed out repeatedly and not just by me.

He repeats how his approach is objective with the same gap, same lack of response.

While a similar lack of response by PH he considers a victory.

[Skepdick]

And so far he has never shown how enhancing aggression is wrong. He ignores that.

Because wrongness is a value. Like the value 7. Or -346. Or √-7. Or π.

Nobody has ever shown you WHY the value 100 was chosen for the boiling point of water; or why that particular weight was chosen for the unit-kilogram.

Scientific units merely inform us of the choice that has been made.
They don't inform us of how or why the choice was made.

You can't derrive the boiling temperature of water empirically - you simply accept the definition.

[Agent Smith]

Veritas Aequitas, you're showing up in me files. Rest easy though, I live in tornado alley.


I see ya, up there, last leg of yer exciting safari, the home stretch pal, I'm gonna be on the drums. Bonam fortunam, this be yer moment in the sun!

Remember though to turn yer book (there are 360 options, assuming natural numbers are yer favorite) and check ... fer what?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah. The particular focus on empathy-related brain facts as opposed to other ones doesn't seem to pass the criteria of "objective" to me. Objectivity was previously defined as "A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." - this all seems very much centered in the bias of a particular sentient subject.

You missed my point.
In the above I was merely dealing with general principles and not specific issues related to empathy etc.

• 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 a sentient subject.

I have claimed that the highest objectivity of truths are scientific facts from the science-FSK. Example, contrast the degree of objectivity between 'oxygen exists as a gas' from science-chemistry-FSK against 'god exists as an entity' from theistic FSK.

In principle [without consideration of the specifics],
In my case, I am claiming the objectivity my human-based moral FSK is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are [scientific facts] from the science-FSK.

Note the analogy;
In principle [without consideration of the specifics],
the objectivity a human-based Criminality FSK [court] is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are [scientific facts] from the science-FSK.
In this case, the requirement of this human-based Criminality FSK is every piece of evidence presented by the prosecutor must be supported as a scientific fact [DNA and other forensic evidences] without exception, i.e. never based on observations by witnesses.
Thus if a criminal is convicted as a murderer, the objectivity of this fact must have high objectivity in contrast to another a human-based Criminality FSK [court] that do not rely purely on scientific evidences.

It is based on these principles in the above analogy that I am applying the methodology and conditions to my human-based moral FSK.
Since it is based on merely principles, there is no need for me to produce specific examples like mirror-neurons, etc.
The principle is whatever input I introduced in the my human-based moral FSK, it must be a scientific fact that is verifiable and justifiable within the science-FSK.

I agree it would be clearer if I give examples to illustrate the workings of the principles, but at this point, relying in the principles are sufficient.
Note I am not banking on the concept of empathy and mirror neurons as the main point for my arguments, there are many elements [neural and others] of morality that can be justified via the scientific FSK.

[Flannel Jesus]

In principle [without consideration of the specifics],
In my case, I am claiming the objectivity my human-based moral FSK is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are [scientific facts] from the science-FSK.

That doesn't make something objective nor a science.

You don't have a minimum word count to achieve, you don't have to say "human based" every time. Obviously all of the knowledge we're discussing here was obtained by humans as opposed to, say, birds, crustaceans, or aliens. It really goes without saying.

[Skepdick]

That doesn't make something objective nor a science.

Why do I get this nagging feeling that you are never going to tell us what makes something objective or a science?

You don't have a minimum word count to achieve, you don't have to say "human based" every time. Obviously all of the knowledge we're discussing here was obtained by humans as opposed to, say, birds, crustaceans, or aliens. It really goes without saying.

It doesn't go "without saying' in any setting where objectivity as mind-independence is orthodoxy. You actually have to make the humans explicit.

This is even more necessary in any setting which conceptualizes truth as something which exists independent of humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In principle [without consideration of the specifics],
In my case, I am claiming the objectivity my human-based moral FSK is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are [scientific facts] from the science-FSK.

That doesn't make something objective nor a science.

You don't have a minimum word count to achieve, you don't have to say "human based" every time. Obviously all of the knowledge we're discussing here was obtained by humans as opposed to, say, birds, crustaceans, or aliens. It really goes without saying.

Missed my point.

Obviously it is not a science per se,
if it is a legal fact that "X is convicted murderer" from a legal-FSK that is based solely on scientific evidence, that does not make it a science [scientific fact].
It is only a legal fact from a human-based legal FSK which is highly objective since it leveraged from the scientific FSK.

It is objective because it is not subjective.
Thus if a criminal is convicted as a murderer [as a legal fact] based purely on scientific facts, the objectivity of this legal fact must have high objectivity in contrast to another human-based Criminality FSK [court] that do not rely purely on scientific evidences but rather on eye-witnesses or incorporated other biasness, etc.
Do you agree with this?

Perhaps you get my point re 'human-based' but it does not get through thick skulls like PH's [note his response to my posts] thus this repetition is to drum into PH's skull.

[Flannel Jesus]

"he murdered someone" is objective.

"We should put him in jail because he murdered someone" is not (although it could be IF you also specified your goals, but goals are subjective).

Imagine another legal framework which also uses scientific facts but just has entirely different values. Maybe this legal system sentences people to death for heterosexuality

This legal system, however, has a high bar of scientific evidence before convicting someone of heterosexuality. You have to prove conclusively that this person engaged in heterosexual sex before sentencing them to death.

This legal system is based on evidence that's EVEN MORE scientific than our own legal system. Does that make their legal system more objective? More scientific?

[Skepdick]

"he murdered someone" is objective.

According to which definition of "objective"?

It's certainly not objective according to any mind-independent conception of objectivity.

He killed somebody - sure, but did he murder them? Murder requires intent. Intent is only in minds.