What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

But can you make an example where they break down in philosophy?

Yes. Define ‘exists’ in a manner compatible with popperian epistemology.

viewtopic.php?t=25087

Exist as in, it's there? Like the monitor in front of me? Not sure what you want to have defined, existence is itself.

I don’t know what ‘exists’ and ‘real’ and ‘illusionary’ mean. They don’t parse in my head but I see them being used all over by philosophers, so surely they are logical assertions?

So the objects definitions are there (god, universe, human). Define a function that tests for existence in accordance with your own beliefs.

God doesn’t exists.
Universe exists.
I exist.

Etc... you will have a hard time defining anything other than a function which returns “true” all the time

A tautology/truism.

[Atla]

Yes. Define ‘exists’ in a manner compatible with popperian epistemology.

viewtopic.php?t=25087

Exist as in, it's there? Like the monitor in front of me? Not sure what you want to have defined, existence is itself.

I don’t know what ‘exists’ and ‘real’ and ‘illusionary’ mean. They don’t parse in my head but I see them being used all over by philosophers, so surely they are logical assertions?

So the objects definitions are there (god, universe, human). Define a function that tests for existence in accordance with your own beliefs.

God doesn’t exists.
Universe exists.
I exist.

Etc... you will have a hard time defining anything other than a function which returns “true” all the time

A tautology/truism.

I don't really understand. We can't test existence itself, because existence is itself.
We can test for limited things like "I" and "monitor" and the answer will be "yes". If we test for a limited God and don't find it, the answer will be "no", which either means that God doesn't exist or that we didn't find it.

[Peter Holmes]

We’ve seen (at great length) that one reaction to the claim (my claim) that morality isn’t objective – because it can’t be – is that nothing is objective anyway, because objectivity and truth don’t exist.

But the claim that there are (or aren’t) abstract things, such as objectivity and truth, is a metaphysical delusion derived from the weird idea that abstract nouns must be the names of abstract things that, because they are things, do or don’t exist.

So anti-objectivists are metaphysicians tilting at a straw windmill.

Like all signs, the words objectivity and truth mean what we use them to mean. And the ways we use signs are necessarily conventional, contextual and purposive.

Theories (explanations) of what we call truth, including the correspondence and pragmatism theories, try to describe a thing. But all we can do is explain how we use a word and its cognates. (That was the later Wittgenstein’s profound insight, imo.)

The claim that any such explanation is a fallacious appeal to authority – and open to infinite-regress refutation – comes from the delusion that truth is a thing that happens not to exist, so any account of it must be tendentious.

Our linguistic practices constitute everything we say about everything, including our linguistic practices. There is no absolute standard of perfection, precision, correctness or completeness – of truth – measured against which our descriptions must fall short. That’s mystical nonsense.

[TimeSeeker]

'No harm' is objective morality.

In as much the words 'objective' and 'harm' have "conventional, contextual and purposive" use.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We’ve seen (at great length) that one reaction to the claim (my claim) that morality isn’t objective – because it can’t be – is that nothing is objective anyway, because objectivity and truth don’t exist.

I believe you have a different sense of what is morality and what is objectivity.

Morality is not something like prospecting for nuggets of gold in the wilderness. Morality in the objective sense do not pre-exists to be discovered.

However in order to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, there is a need and imperative to establish objective moral principles.

As with Science and other fields of knowledge,
objectivity is based on intersubjective consensus.
Thus, even in the absence of a God, it is possible to establish secular objective moral principles based on solid grounds.

[Peter Holmes]

We’ve seen (at great length) that one reaction to the claim (my claim) that morality isn’t objective – because it can’t be – is that nothing is objective anyway, because objectivity and truth don’t exist.

I believe you have a different sense of what is morality and what is objectivity.

Morality is not something like prospecting for nuggets of gold in the wilderness. Morality in the objective sense do not pre-exists to be discovered.

However in order to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, there is a need and imperative to establish objective moral principles.

As with Science and other fields of knowledge,
objectivity is based on intersubjective consensus.
Thus, even in the absence of a God, it is possible to establish secular objective moral principles based on solid grounds.

Thanks again. I know you believe it's possible to 'establish objective moral principles' - you've been saying it here consistently.

And, to repeat, this is to misunderstand the word 'objective', which means: 'relying on, or a matter of, facts, rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions'.

If we agree on (establish) a moral principle, it would then be a fact - a true factual assertion - that we have done so. But it wouldn't follow that the moral principle itself is then a fact - a true factual assertion. Surely you can see that to claim that would be to make a category error.

A claim such as 'it is good to promote individual well-being' - how ever interpreted - can't be a fact of any kind - so it can't be objective.

[TimeSeeker]

I believe you have a different sense of what is morality and what is objectivity.

Morality is not something like prospecting for nuggets of gold in the wilderness. Morality in the objective sense do not pre-exists to be discovered.

However in order to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, there is a need and imperative to establish objective moral principles.

No Peter, you misunderstand. You are stuck in a circularity. You don't understand the difference between 'circularity' and 'recursion' and so you can't tell why one is bad and the other is good. Well - you SAY that you KNOW that circular reasoning is bad, but you can't observe yourself DOING circular reasoning. I am trying to get you to see your own performative contradiction. I don't know how to reach out to you - because you won't tell me where your uncertainty lies (so you are making me do this to you).

You don't even have a conception for the words 'conception', 'objectivity' or 'meaning' that is in any sense 'objective' because you've learned them from the English language. You are chasing your own tail because you are trapped in Logocentrism.

Until you conquer the limits of language I don't really think you have anything to offer to the world (sorry to be this harsh).

I will copy/paste from the other thread for your benefit:

As per my example on what computer scientists are forced to do as part of their education.

1. They conceptualise a language (L). It does not 'exist' except in their head (what philosophers might have you believe is just an illusion)
2. They write an interpreter (lets call it IL) for their language in another language (say language M).
3. Once they have an interpreter (IL) for L written in M, they are forced to write an interpreter for L IN L.

Now you have a language that can INTERPRET ITSELF and just like that - we have INVENTED objective meaning!

I want you to observe a second thing that also happens as part of this process.
Before you invent a language - you have no conception for 'Language' that is other than the one you have LEARNED TO USE! English.
So your very notion of the word conception is defined in English. This is the philosophical "define X" game.
Define 'conception' (and you spill out some metaphysical wordsoup which we can't untangle for weeks)
Define 'define'. Game over

After you invent your own language - you have a conception for 'Language' that is the one you CREATED (Language M), and because you created a language you have a conception for 'conception' that is grounded in experience. And the biggest win of all - you have a conception of how a conception turns from "just an idea" to something OBJECTIVELY MEANINGFUL. This is what engineers call realization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems). Or you can just call it 'creation'.

And so when two software engineers (one from China and one from Russia) who have never met before bump into each other on the street: they already have a shared EMPIRICAL and OBJECTIVELY MEANINGFUL concepts for:
* conception
* realization
* language
* interpretation
* objective meaning

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN SAID A WORD TO EACH OTHER YET!!!

Whatever claim Philosophy used to have on Metaphysics - I laugh in their face!

Observe this tiny tiny TINY TINY TINY (OK.It is fucking HUMONGOUS!) distinction between English and Programming languages.
English DEFINES itself (circular)
Python INTERPRETS itself (recursive)

Recursion is computation. This thing we call 'reason'!

[TimeSeeker]

I believe you have a different sense of .... what is objectivity.

If you don't recognise Logocentrism in the the irony of that very sentence then I really do not know how to help you!

And, to repeat, this is to misunderstand the word 'objective', which means: 'relying on, or a matter of, facts, rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions'.

Maybe I did misunderstand YOUR INTERPRETATION of the word 'objective'. Now I also misunderstand YOUR INTERPRETATION of the words 'facts', 'judgments', 'beliefs' and 'opinions'!
So we had 1 misunderstanding to address, and now we have 5 ?!?!?!?!??

Well fuck me if you are helping us get anywhere with this strategy! How many more words are you going to invent before you figure out it doesn't work?

Read my previous post. I have given you objective metaphysics. It is on you now to go do the WORK REQUIRED to get to where I am.

Go learn my language. If you want to.

If you don't want to. Then the only charity I can extend to you is to hire you to mow my lawn, wash my dishes and all my sports cars.
Because clearly I misunderstand the truth and you don't.

The world is so "evil" and "unfair" that only "pseudo-intellectuals" like me get ahead in life. After all "pseudo-intellectuals" like me "only" solved objective meaning.

[Peter Holmes]

I believe you have a different sense of what is morality and what is objectivity.

Morality is not something like prospecting for nuggets of gold in the wilderness. Morality in the objective sense do not pre-exists to be discovered.

However in order to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, there is a need and imperative to establish objective moral principles.

No Peter, you misunderstand. You are stuck in a circularity. You don't understand the difference between 'circularity' and 'recursion' and so you can't tell why one is bad and the other is good. Well - you SAY that you KNOW that circular reasoning is bad, but you can't observe yourself DOING circular reasoning. I am trying to get you to see your own performative contradiction. I don't know how to reach out to you - because you won't tell me where your uncertainty lies (so you are making me do this to you).

You don't even have a conception for the words 'conception', 'objectivity' or 'meaning' that is in any sense 'objective' because you've learned them from the English language. You are chasing your own tail because you are trapped in Logocentrism.

Until you conquer the limits of language I don't really think you have anything to offer to the world (sorry to be this harsh).

I will copy/paste from the other thread for your benefit:

As per my example on what computer scientists are forced to do as part of their education.

1. They conceptualise a language (L). It does not 'exist' except in their head (what philosophers might have you believe is just an illusion)
2. They write an interpreter (lets call it IL) for their language in another language (say language M).
3. Once they have an interpreter (IL) for L written in M, they are forced to write an interpreter for L IN L.

Now you have a language that can INTERPRET ITSELF and just like that - we have INVENTED objective meaning!

I want you to observe a second thing that also happens as part of this process.
Before you invent a language - you have no conception for 'Language' that is other than the one you have LEARNED TO USE! English.
So your very notion of the word conception is defined in English. This is the philosophical "define X" game.
Define 'conception' (and you spill out some metaphysical wordsoup which we can't untangle for weeks)
Define 'define'. Game over

After you invent your own language - you have a conception for 'Language' that is the one you CREATED (Language M), and because you created a language you have a conception for 'conception' that is grounded in experience. And the biggest win of all - you have a conception of how a conception turns from "just an idea" to something OBJECTIVELY MEANINGFUL. This is what engineers call realization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems). Or you can just call it 'creation'.

And so when two software engineers (one from China and one from Russia) who have never met before bump into each other on the street: they already have a shared EMPIRICAL and OBJECTIVELY MEANINGFUL concepts for:
* conception
* realization
* language
* interpretation
* objective meaning

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN SAID A WORD TO EACH OTHER YET!!!

Whatever claim Philosophy used to have on Metaphysics - I laugh in their face!

Observe this tiny tiny TINY TINY TINY (OK.It is fucking HUMONGOUS!) distinction between English and Programming languages.
English DEFINES itself (circular)
Python INTERPRETS itself (recursive)

Recursion is computation. This thing we call 'reason'!

1 I was addressing Veritas Aequitas's comment, which I quoted. Your interruption is, as usual, impertinent. And I've explained the metaphysical delusion that informs your mistakes.
2 You mistakenly ascribe her/his words to me.
3 So, we can use language to conquer the limits of language? Good luck with that.
4 So, a language that can interpret itself is somehow objective? What are its facts about?
5 When you mention logocentrism, I sniff the absurdities Derrida derived from Saussure's superstitious bifurcation of the sign. Perhaps they explain your obsessions. Derrida was wildly (and gloriously) wrong.

[TimeSeeker]

Yes we can solve the limits of language with another KIND of language. We can and we have. The symbol grounding problem is solved.

Programming languages have direct effect on reality.

Derrida stumbled upon what any software engineer calls debugging.
He wasn’t wrong, but he was right by accident.

And you are yet to be open and honest about your standards of “right and wrong” on a thread where you question objective morality after all - if you teach HOW you assert that Derrida was wrong you will be that much closer to convincing me about objective morality.

My influences are praxis and science. Philosophers wouldn’t know truth from a donkey’s ass.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We’ve seen (at great length) that one reaction to the claim (my claim) that morality isn’t objective – because it can’t be – is that nothing is objective anyway, because objectivity and truth don’t exist.

I believe you have a different sense of what is morality and what is objectivity.

Morality is not something like prospecting for nuggets of gold in the wilderness. Morality in the objective sense do not pre-exists to be discovered.

However in order to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, there is a need and imperative to establish objective moral principles.

As with Science and other fields of knowledge,
objectivity is based on intersubjective consensus.
Thus, even in the absence of a God, it is possible to establish secular objective moral principles based on solid grounds.

Thanks again. I know you believe it's possible to 'establish objective moral principles' - you've been saying it here consistently.

And, to repeat, this is to misunderstand the word 'objective', which means: 'relying on, or a matter of, facts, rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions'.

If we agree on (establish) a moral principle, it would then be a fact - a true factual assertion - that we have done so. But it wouldn't follow that the moral principle itself is then a fact - a true factual assertion. Surely you can see that to claim that would be to make a category error.

A claim such as 'it is good to promote individual well-being' - how ever interpreted - can't be a fact of any kind - so it can't be objective.

Why I repeat is because you repeated your views which I do not agree with.

What is fact and being objective as in a scientific theory other than it being at best a polished conjecture [Popper]. Note a fact is fundamentally a conjecture.

You cannot put 'fact' on an absolute objective pedestal.

Thus we can develop and polish moral conjectures to be moral objective principles just like how scientist make scientific theories objectives.
Just like we have Pure and Applied Science or Mathematics, we can have Pure and Applied Morality & Ethics.

One critical point is these moral objective principles must be derived from empirical evidences.
For example the Golden Rule is evident to all* humans if we were to interview every human being on Earth. Note your own acceptance [presumably] of the Golden Rule .
* naturally there will be a rare % and exceptions like the perverts.

Therefore the Golden Rule is objective of some reasonable degrees#.
What we need is to establish moral objectives that are of a higher degree than the Golden Rule.

# I have argued objectivity [intersubjective consensus] come in a continuum of degree conditioned upon the basis of justification. You argued otherwise in term of Philosophical Realism which I believe is untenable in the ultimate sense.

Like it or not, humanity is at present in the process of objectifying moral principles subliminally and implicitly.
The Slavery Convention on the abolishment of Chattel Slavery is an objective UN declaration and has legal objectivity which is independent of all members therein and this has been fully [if not 100, then 99%] applied in practice by all recognized nations.

What humanity need to progress from the above is to make the moral objectifying process more explicit and formal with greater refined objective moral principles.

[TimeSeeker]

Using the distinction made between a principle (beginning) and an objective (destination).

The moral objective is no harm. It is a shared human value. It requires no principle.

However WE decide to define/measure “harm” through our collective decision-making ethical framework (scientific input, public debate and politics. democratic consensus etc.).

The goal is a iterative and systematic improvement so that ‘harm’ is always trending towards 0.

Premature death -> 0
Disease and suffering -> 0
Crime -> 0
Poverty -> 0
Uneducation -> 0
Unemployment -> 0

To attempt to solve morality through deduction/logic from first principles rather than with induction/teleology/consequentialism is a sign of a reasoning disability (in my books).

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

What is fact and being objective as in a scientific theory other than it being at best a polished conjecture [Popper]. Note a fact is fundamentally a conjecture.

You cannot put 'fact' on an absolute objective pedestal.

Thus we can develop and polish moral conjectures to be moral objective principles just like how scientist make scientific theories objectives.
Just like we have Pure and Applied Science or Mathematics, we can have Pure and Applied Morality & Ethics.

You seem to be dazzled by the metaphysical delusion that so befuddles TimeSeeker. I don't 'put 'fact' on an absolute objective pedestal'. That's what you've done, and then you conclude that, because what we call objectivity and facts can't exist up on that (imaginary) pedestal, facts can be no more than 'polished conjectures'.

Popper was talking specifically about the inductive nature of scientific theory - not the way we normally use the word 'fact'. Here are two claims:

P1 People eat animals and their products.

P2 Eating animals and their products is (morally) wrong.

Do you really think P1 is 'at best a polished conjecture''? What is in any way conjectural about it? It's a fact - a true factual assertion. If you don't think it is, you and I are on a different wave-length.

And do you really think P2 could be or become a fact (objective), rather than a moral judgement? Of course, we could lay down the rule or law that people must not eat animals and their products. But doing so would in no way magically turn 'eating animals and their products is wrong' into anything other than the moral judgement that it patently is.

And to call P2 a 'moral conjecture' is simply false. A conjecture is a guess: 'an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.' But that eating animals and their products is morally wrong isn't a guess of any kind - it isn't an opinion reached on the basis of incomplete information - what sort of non-question-begging factual information could inform that opinion?

The two claims, P1 and P2, have radically different linguistic and epistemological functions. I'm sorry, but until you address and refute my argument here, as far at least as I'm concerned, there's no point in your repeating your claims and argument - because what I'm saying shows that they're incorrect.

[TimeSeeker]

P1 People eat animals and their products.

It contains no USEFUL information. Criterion for useful: I am able to make some yes/no DECISION (action!) with it.

Otherwise, if you have no useful/useless distinction then I suppose I can give you 10^200 facts. Every single quark, lepton and electron in the universe. Which is the other end of your extreme - information overload!

All you have done with that statement is set a context. So that SUBSEQUENT sentences can be interpreted in some useful/meaningful way.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 People eat animals and their products.

It contains no USEFUL information. Criterion for useful: I am able to make some yes/no DECISION (action!) with it.

Otherwise, if you have no useful/useless distinction then I suppose I can give you 10^200 facts. Every single quark, lepton and electron in the universe. Which is the other end of your extreme - information overload!

All you have done with that statement is set a context. So that SUBSEQUENT sentences can be interpreted in some useful/meaningful way.

Rubbish, as usual.

In many possible contexts, that fact provides extremely useful information on which decisions could be made. You lack imagination.

And you mistake a feature of reality, such as a quark, for a factual assertion, which is a linguistic expression. Fundamental category error.