What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

...in an Atheistic world. That was my conditional clause. We must not forget it.

The world is. Unqualified.

You believe, in an "unqualified" way, that you know there is no God? That would be quite an epistemological achievement.

So what rational line of thought compels you to this "unqualified" conclusion?

[TimeSeeker]

...in an Atheistic world. That was my conditional clause. We must not forget it.

The world is. Unqualified.

You believe, in an "unqualified" way, that you know there is no God? That would be quite an epistemological achievement.

So what rational line of thought compels you to this "unqualified" conclusion?

Bullshit. You are very slippery in English.

Lets try this another way: https://repl.it/repls/PrivateMealySequence

I expect your argument in formal logic. You are a philosopher and you study logic after all. You should totally school me on your turf.

[Peter Holmes]

here's a dictionary definition of the word 'objective':

Appeal to authority. The dictionary merely points out common use of words. It is descriptive not prescriptive.
Ironically - the meaning of words is agreed upon by tacit CONSENSUS through common use.

But I am willing to indulge your definition just long enough so I can beat you over the head with it. That is - hold you accountable to it.

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Notice that, by this definition, objectivity has nothing to do with consensus, and everything to do with facts - true factual assertions - true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know - true even if the consensus is 100% rejection.

So then you should have absolutely no problem telling me the OBJECTIVE RULES by which you evaluate "rational and sound arguments" so that you can tell them apart from the "irrational and unsound arguments"?
You should have absolutely no problem telling me the OBJECTIVE RULES by which you ASSERT whether something is "true" or "factual" as opposed to "false" and "non-factual".

You should have absolutely no problem telling me the OBJECTIVE RULES by which you INTERPRET and LABEL the information you acquire via your sense. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, feeling and perceiving!

The OBJECTIVE RULES you use to parse ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing ) the meaning of everything you experience.

All I ask for is transparency and intellectual honesty. I am waiting.

In reciprocation - I will tell you that I intend on using the Regress argument ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument ) over and over and over. For evey definition you give me or any distinction you try to draw. Until you figure out that I can DECIDE to work towards consensus or DECIDE to work towards disagreement. And I have all the tools to do either one effectively!

I will give you no quarter and will not allow you to "ground" or define objectivity. Until you acknowledge and accept the symbol grounding problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

Because objectivity is made up! By humans. By consensus. Just like how words acquire meaning. By consensus.

I can't be arsed to scroll back and find your valid and sound argument demonstrating the objectivity of morality. My bad and my loss, no doubt.

Probably because you know I've called you out on your bullshit.

For shits and giggles - you can even call me an atruist. I reject truth like atheists reject god.

So you've produced somewhere a valid and sound argument demonstrating that morality is objective. But you think objectivity is made up.

And you deny the possibility of distinguishing a valid and sound argument from an invalid and unsound argument, which must include your own arguments.

And you reject any way to evaluate the truth value of a factual assertion, which must include the truth value of your own assertions.

I should think you find the smell of bullshit up your own arse pretty over-powering.

[TimeSeeker]

So you've produced somewhere a valid and sound argument demonstrating that morality is objective. But you think objectivity is made up.

Equivocation. We have two definitions for 'objectivity' on the table. We have not yet come to CONSENSUS on which one to use going forward.
And yet you are using the one to 'contradict' the other - that's a shoddy tactic. I can't tell if you are being malicious or ignorant.

And you deny the possibility of distinguishing a valid and sound argument from an invalid and unsound argument, which must include your own arguments.

Strawman and a deflection. I am asking you to produce the OBJECTIVE (by YOUR definition) rules for evaluating the soundness and validity of arguments.

And you reject any way to evaluate the truth value of a factual assertion, which must include the truth value of your own assertions.

Strawman and a deflection. I am asking you to produce the OBJECTIVE rules for asserting truthfulness and factuality of the assertions you make.

If we have different OBJECTIVE rules, then we will reach different assertions!

I want to ensure we have CONSENSUS on the OBJECTIVE RULES by which we EVALUATE each other's arguments.

I should think you find the smell of bullshit up your own arse pretty over-powering.

Non-sequitur. Deflection?

[Immanuel Can]

The world is. Unqualified.

You believe, in an "unqualified" way, that you know there is no God? That would be quite an epistemological achievement.

So what rational line of thought compels you to this "unqualified" conclusion?

Bullshit. You are very slippery in English...

It was your "English." You said it, I didn't. I just asked you what made you so absolute in your belief that there is no God.

And I don't yet note a relevant response to that. One would think it should be a very easy question to answer, if you possess "unqualified" certainty....

[TimeSeeker]

You believe, in an "unqualified" way, that you know there is no God? That would be quite an epistemological achievement.

So what rational line of thought compels you to this "unqualified" conclusion?

Bullshit. You are very slippery in English...

It was your "English." You said it, I didn't. I just asked you what made you so absolute in your belief that there is no God.

And I don't yet note a relevant response to that. One would think it should be a very easy question to answer, if you possess "unqualified" certainty....

Non-sequitur.

Respond in formal logic please. I want to play on your turf.

[Atla]

What I love about this forum the most is that every now and then, someone comes along and shows a kind of crazy I haven't seen before. This one for example misunderstands simple English words like he was from another planet, then converts the words into bits and builds a computer code out of them, seemingly effortlessly. Human creativity truly is vast and I always like to see what it can come up with.

[TimeSeeker]

What I love about this forum the most is that every now and then, someone comes along and shows a kind of crazy I haven't seen before. This one for example misunderstands simple English words like he was from another planet, then converts the words into bits and builds a computer code out of them, seemingly effortlessly. Human creativity truly is vast and I always like to see what it can come up with.

I don’t “misunderstand” English. I recognize the flaws in English. It is laden with ambiguity, tautology and equivocation. It has no standards for interpretation which is why you can create new (meaningless) words out of thin air. Like "objectivity" and "truth". If one is not careful it is very easy to end up running in one place, talking about the same phenomenologies using new, fancy words. Philosophy does that a lot.

And so depending on my goal - I can strive for clarity (understanding); or I can strive for disruption (skepticism).

If I want to agree with you - I can.
If I want to disagree with you - I can.

What do YOU want to do?

I have no tolerance for bullshit and there is high concentration of bullshitters on philosophy forums. Far higher than in churches for that matter.
Nothing quite like philosophers to turn trivial matters into esoteric garbage.

[Peter Holmes]

So you've produced somewhere a valid and sound argument demonstrating that morality is objective. But you think objectivity is made up.

Equivocation. We have two definitions for 'objectivity' on the table. We have not yet come to CONSENSUS on which one to use going forward.
And yet you are using the one to 'contradict' the other - that's a shoddy tactic. I can't tell if you are being malicious or ignorant.

And you deny the possibility of distinguishing a valid and sound argument from an invalid and unsound argument, which must include your own arguments.

Strawman and a deflection. I am asking you to produce the OBJECTIVE (by YOUR definition) rules for evaluating the soundness and validity of arguments.

And you reject any way to evaluate the truth value of a factual assertion, which must include the truth value of your own assertions.

Strawman and a deflection. I am asking you to produce the OBJECTIVE rules for asserting truthfulness and factuality of the assertions you make.

If we have different OBJECTIVE rules, then we will reach different assertions!

I want to ensure we have CONSENSUS on the OBJECTIVE RULES by which we EVALUATE each other's arguments.

I should think you find the smell of bullshit up your own arse pretty over-powering.

Non-sequitur. Deflection?

No, I showed you why your definition of objectivity as distributed consensus is incorrect, because it amounts to an appeal to popularity, which is a fallacy. And the equivocation is yours, when you say objectivity is made up.

If you reject the existence of facts - true factual assertions about features of reality - then this discussion is pointless. For example, there either is or isn't a god; so the factual existence-claim there is a god is (classically) true or false - even if no one can say which. Its truth or falsehood isn't a matter of distributed (?) consensus.

[TimeSeeker]

No, I showed you why your definition of objectivity as distributed consensus is incorrect, because it amounts to an appeal to popularity, which is a fallacy.

It's not an appeal to popularity. I am not arguing that something is "right" because lots of people believe it. I am arguing that something is INVENTED because lots of people WANT/NEED it. Are human desires and needs "real" ?

but here is the catch. In this one sentence you have commited SIX fallacies all ot once!

1. Appeal to authority
You pointed me to a dictionary for the definition of a word when no authority on language exists.
Humans invent language/words. Not dictionaries.

2. Appeal to popularity
Because dictionaries are descriptive (of the POPULAR use of words) you too are appealing to popularity by referring to the dictionary.
You are appealing to the POPULAR USE of words.

3. Performative contradiction
From the previous point. You are USING language (logos) which is a system of communication which emerges from POPULISM.

4. Argument from ignorance
You fail to recognise that you have adopted the USE of LANGUAGE from other HUMANS. Without ever questioning their correctness (a lot like religion!)

5. Hypocrisy
You accuse me of the same things you are doing.

6. The fallacy fallacy
You have accused me of a fallacy, allowing yourself to dismiss my argument when you are continuously engaging in performative contradictions about the very claims you deny!

And the equivocation is yours, when you say objectivity is made up.

That is not equivocation.

Humans made up the language you speak.
Humans made up the concept AND the word "objective".

If you reject the existence of facts - true factual assertions about features of reality - then this discussion is pointless

False dichotomy AND argument from ignorance AND appeal to authority! I haven't accepted or rejected anything and those are not the only options.
The existence of facts may be true, false, unknown OR unknowable!

But you are getting ahead of yourself. I am still waiting for us to reach CONSENSUS on the meaning of:
* true
* factual
* objective
* reality (is tomorrow real?)

You are also appealing to the correspondence theory of truth ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth ).
When as many as 20 other "theories of truth" exist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth )

What OBJECTIVE STANDARDS did you use to DECIDE which theory is "most true"? Maybe your one is wrong?

I have an idea on how we can reach CONSENSUS here. WHY are you making any claims/descriptions/assertions about reality? And which aspects of it? It's a VEEERY big place. Language doesn't even begin to capture it.

There either is or isn't a god; so the factual existence-claim there is a god is (classically) true or false - even if no one can say which. Its truth or falsehood isn't a matter of distributed (?) consensus.

Another false dichotomy AND argument form ignorance. BECAUSE nobody can say which this is a matter for epistemology - therefore the claim is either true, false, unknown or unknowable.

We can't even agree on the meaning of something as trivial as "objectivity". How do you think we will agree on the meaning of "god"? Or "truth" without some prior CONSENSUS?

[Peter Holmes]

No, I showed you why your definition of objectivity as distributed consensus is incorrect, because it amounts to an appeal to popularity, which is a fallacy.

It's not an appeal to popularity. I am not arguing that something is "right" because lots of people believe it. I am arguing that something is INVENTED because lots of people WANT/NEED it. Are human desires and needs "real" ?

but here is the catch. In this one sentence you have commited SIX fallacies all ot once!

1. Appeal to authority
You pointed me to a dictionary for the definition of a word when no authority on language exists.
Humans invent language/words. Not dictionaries.

2. Appeal to popularity
Because dictionaries are descriptive (of the POPULAR use of words) you too are appealing to popularity by referring to the dictionary.
You are appealing to the POPULAR USE of words.

3. Performative contradiction
From the previous point. You are USING language (logos) which is a system of communication which emerges from POPULISM.

4. Argument from ignorance
You fail to recognise that you have adopted the USE of LANGUAGE from other HUMANS. Without ever questioning their correctness (a lot like religion!)

5. Hypocrisy
You accuse me of the same things you are doing.

6. The fallacy fallacy
You have accused me of a fallacy, allowing yourself to dismiss my argument when you are continuously engaging in performative contradictions about the very claims you deny!

And the equivocation is yours, when you say objectivity is made up.

That is not equivocation.

Humans made up the language you speak.
Humans made up the concept AND the word "objective".

If you reject the existence of facts - true factual assertions about features of reality - then this discussion is pointless

False dichotomy AND argument from ignorance AND appeal to authority! I haven't accepted or rejected anything and those are not the only options.
The existence of facts may be true, false, unknown OR unknowable!

But you are getting ahead of yourself. I am still waiting for us to reach CONSENSUS on the meaning of:
* true
* factual
* objective
* reality (is tomorrow real?)

You are also appealing to the correspondence theory of truth ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth ).
When as many as 20 other "theories of truth" exist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth )

What OBJECTIVE STANDARDS did you use to DECIDE which theory is "most true"? Maybe your one is wrong?

I have an idea on how we can reach CONSENSUS here. WHY are you making any claims/descriptions/assertions about reality? And which aspects of it? It's a VEEERY big place. Language doesn't even begin to capture it.

There either is or isn't a god; so the factual existence-claim there is a god is (classically) true or false - even if no one can say which. Its truth or falsehood isn't a matter of distributed (?) consensus.

Another false dichotomy AND argument form ignorance. BECAUSE nobody can say which this is a matter for epistemology - therefore the claim is either true, false, unknown or unknowable.

We can't even agree on the meaning of something as trivial as "objectivity". How do you think we will agree on the meaning of "god"? Or "truth" without some prior CONSENSUS?

I'm sorry, but you're making so many mistakes here that it's hard to know where to begin. And I have neither the time now nor the energy to sort them out. I don't believe you've demonstrated that or how morality is objective, but perhaps others are finding your contribution useful.

[TimeSeeker]

I'm sorry, but you're making so many mistakes here that it's hard to know where to begin. And I have neither the time now nor the energy to sort them out. I don't believe you've demonstrated that or how morality is objective, but perhaps others are finding your contribution useful.

Look! You believe that you can distinguish 'mistakes' from 'non-mistakes'

I am claiming you are making mistakes.
You are claiming I am making mistakes.

How could we ever reach CONSENSUS on who is right if we can't define what "mistakes" are? What if YOU have defined "mistakes" incorrectly? What if the MAN-MADE "laws" of logic you have accepted are wrong? How would you tell if that were the case?

P.S You have no authority to determine if I am making any "mistakes". You are USING the internet. You are USING a computer and there is a good chance you are using other systems I have BUILT using LOGIC. So you are guilty of a performative contradiction without even knowing it.

The only authority I recognize is the test of time. The Lindy effect. You are judged by your peers - I am judged by reality.

My logic works. IN PRACTICE. When I make errors - reality tells me because my systems STOP WORKING. A few million people notice when I fuck up. So I am well incentivised not to make errors.

The thing you are most guilty of is the Green Lumbar Fallacy. You've probably never even heard of it ( https://fs.blog/2016/11/green-lumber-fallacy/ )

Philosophers are the 21st century theists... We need atruism to burn The Church of Truth down.

[Immanuel Can]

Bullshit. You are very slippery in English...

It was your "English." You said it, I didn't. I just asked you what made you so absolute in your belief that there is no God.

And I don't yet note a relevant response to that. One would think it should be a very easy question to answer, if you possess "unqualified" certainty....

Non-sequitur.

That means, "[It] does not follow."

What "does not follow" from what? "It does not follow" that if you claim "unqualified" certainty, you actually know what you're talking about? Is that what you mean? Because it seems quite obviously to follow from the claim that you possess "unqualified" knowledge, that you ought to be able to give your evidence and the premises that conduce to your conclusion...

Respond in formal logic please. I want to play on your turf.

Oh dear.

Well, a question cannot be framed as a syllogism (logic form). Nor can a command, nor can an exclamation. Only a statement can.

In this case, I have just asked a question. Conversely, it's you who state that you have "unqualified" knowledge of the non-existence of God, and that is being requested; so it's only you who can "respond in formal logic" form.

Just a suggestion: if you use a technical philosophical term, you might want to make sure you know what it means. If you use such thing and you don't know what it means, then very likely somebody's going to come along who knows what it means, and how it is really used, and it's not going to go well for you.

[TimeSeeker]

What "does not follow" from what?

Your own barrage doesn't follow! You have gone on a tangent about something I never said.
Present your "atheistic world" counter-argument in formal logic. Given that I PROVED to you it's a tautology.

In my head "God" is a Null-pointer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer ). A signifier without a signified. So far nobody has even produced a testable/falsifiable definition for 'god'. And so I don't know how to make any assertions. Not even an "I don't know" assertion. God is a meaningless word.

Does lkasjdkjshdfiaoshdflkajsdhf exist ? Exactly same bullshit.

Just a suggestion: if you use a technical philosophical term

Hahahahaha. That's an oxymoron. (In my conception of) Philosophy the field hasn't had claims to anything "technical" in a few hundred years.

you might want to make sure you know what it means.

Are you appealing to objective meaning now? You can't even nail down 'truth' and now you want to muddy the waters with even more ambiguity?
I don't know what it means to you. But since you think I am using it 'wrong', I guess our meanings diverge? Since you don't have a clue about how logic works (or doesn't) I am going to stick with my meaning for now.

If you use such thing and you don't know what it means, then very likely somebody's going to come along who knows what it means, and how it is really used, and it's not going to go well for you.

Yes. I am that guy! Telling you. From where I am standing it's definitely not going well for you
Look at you clinging on straws. You think there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' way to use a particular tool! Like language. Or philosophy. Or logic. While arguing AGAINST 'objective morality'.

Just about every second word you utter is value-laden! And you are preaching some notion of "objectivity" disconnected from human values. Your ignorance of your performative contradictions and your utter lack of self-awareness is astounding.

[TimeSeeker]

For example, there either is or isn't a god; so the factual existence-claim there is a god is (classically) true or false - even if no one can say which. Its truth or falsehood isn't a matter of distributed (?) consensus.

Given the lack of specifics this is not a claim that can be asserted as true or false in context of current human knowledge.

There's far too much MEANING in that sentence. Without some testability or falsifiability criteria I can't even interpret what you are saying without having to make a very large number of assumptions!

Do you treat the space and time dimensions as separate? Is God somewhere; somewhen or both? That's 3 possible interpretations for 'exists'
What if God is outside of spacetime does that still mean 'exists'? What word do you use for something that exists 'inside' the universe and something that exists 'outside' the universe? That's another 2 interpretations for the word 'exists'.
How big or small is God? Are we looking for a galaxy, a quark or a quantum field? There are 10^10 galaxies in the universe. There are 10^160 quarks in the universe. We don't even know how many quantum fields there are.
Does "God" remain constant while the universe is changing?
What if there was a God but it died?
What if there will be a God and time flows backwards?
What if there was a God but it has now morphed into something else?
What if there is a God on Tuesdays and Allah on Wednesdays (maybe gods have shift work)?
What if God and Allah have died, and there's somebody new who has taken the job?
What if it has been a misunderstanding in vocabulary all along and God is equivocation for "The Universe"?

All of these variables you have left out are open to INTERPRETATION! If we don't come to CONSENSUS I can't possibly interpret what you are saying. There is far too much meaning in a vague statement like that.

There is a false dichotomy where 3 possibilities exist.
And there is a false dichotomy where 2*3*10^10 to 2*3*10^160 possibilities exist.

You expect me to wrap my mind around 10^150 Decibels of ambiguity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel ).

And I am being gentle. If we bring system dynamics into this - the complexity is actually factorial. That's a REALLY BIG number of interpretations! My brain is having a hard time doing the WSD in real time ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sense_disambiguation )

Can you say "Total perspective vortex" ? The concepts of scale and complexity seem very foreign to you.