What could make morality objective?

[Belinda]

TimeSeeker wrote:

English DEFINES itself (circular)
Python INTERPRETS itself (recursive)

That interests me because English** meanings are defined by their contexts which in turn are defined by other contexts and so on with no objective source for any context. A prevalent context of morality was established around 500 BC in several parts of the world as novel idea. This establishment was a big invention which was necessary for the maintenance of cooperative life in the burgeoning centres of trade and production at the time. Although the precise morality to which I refer has a well defined historical origin it is not an objective origin but refers to natural necessity within historical evolution.

**And all natural languages.

[TimeSeeker]

TimeSeeker wrote:

English DEFINES itself (circular)
Python INTERPRETS itself (recursive)

That interests me because English** meanings are defined by their contexts which in turn are defined by other contexts and so on with no objective source for any context. A prevalent context of morality was established around 500 BC in several parts of the world as novel idea. This establishment was a big invention which was necessary for the maintenance of cooperative life in the burgeoning centres of trade and production at the time. Although the precise morality to which I refer has a well defined historical origin it is not an objective origin but refers to natural necessity within historical evolution.

**And all natural languages.

Hey Belinda.

None of the natural languages have this property. Have a look at the Chomsky hierarchy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy )

Type 0 and Type 1 grammars are context sensitive (just like natural languages).
Type 2 and Type 3 grammars are context-free (e.g objectively meaningful - within the context described/defined in the language itself)

Or if the formal logic gets a bit too much to absorb just start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language

The TL;DR is that programming languages are very different to natural languages. They have unambiguous structure and they prescribe the exact steps of work (for the interpreter to DO) so that meaning can emerge. Algorithms. Think cooking recipe.

Largely because the rules of the language's interpretation are 'objective' and defined in software themselves. Subjectivity has been removed from the equation in as much as computers behave EXACTLY as they are told to.
That we tell computers to be biased in exactly the same way as we are - that is not a problem I know how to solve

[Eodnhoj7]

TimeSeeker wrote:

English DEFINES itself (circular)
Python INTERPRETS itself (recursive)

That interests me because English** meanings are defined by their contexts which in turn are defined by other contexts and so on with no objective source for any context. A prevalent context of morality was established around 500 BC in several parts of the world as novel idea. This establishment was a big invention which was necessary for the maintenance of cooperative life in the burgeoning centres of trade and production at the time. Although the precise morality to which I refer has a well defined historical origin it is not an objective origin but refers to natural necessity within historical evolution.

**And all natural languages.

The relation of context as a continual progression is objective.

[TimeSeeker]

Ok. And if it isn’t, what would be different?

[Peter Holmes]

TimeSeeker wrote:

English DEFINES itself (circular)
Python INTERPRETS itself (recursive)

That interests me because English** meanings are defined by their contexts which in turn are defined by other contexts and so on with no objective source for any context. A prevalent context of morality was established around 500 BC in several parts of the world as novel idea. This establishment was a big invention which was necessary for the maintenance of cooperative life in the burgeoning centres of trade and production at the time. Although the precise morality to which I refer has a well defined historical origin it is not an objective origin but refers to natural necessity within historical evolution.

**And all natural languages.

I think 'no objective source for any context' is unclear.

The word 'objective' means 'relying on facts rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions'. So the phrase 'objective source' seems to be a misattribution. If by the word 'source' you mean something like 'feature of reality', obviously none of those are factual and so objective, because reality isn't linguistic, and facts are nothing more than linguistic expressions. (The phrase 'objective origin' is a similar misattribution.)

My point is that are two quite separate and different things: features of reality, such as a blue sky; and what we say about them, such as 'the sky is blue'. If the sky is blue, the factual assertion 'the sky is blue' is true, in context, given the way we use those words. And that's all that 'fact', 'objectivity' and 'truth' mean here. Metaphysical lucubrations notwithstanding.

[TimeSeeker]

The word 'objective' means 'relying on facts rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions'.

No, Peter. This is a poor and rude attempt to frame the debate. That is your SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of the word objective. I reject your definition. Please do not impose your language on me and LISTEN to what I am saying.

I already addressed my problem with your conception of the word 'objective' in this comment (which you conveniently ignored):

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 ?!?!?!?!??

(ETC....)

My point is that are two quite separate and different things: features of reality, such as a blue sky; and what we say about them, such as 'the sky is blue'. If the sky is blue, the factual assertion 'the sky is blue' is true, in context

Yes, Peter. Important part IN CONTEXT.. The sky is definitely not blue on Mars! And so the sentence "The sky is blue" on its own does not carry any contextual information and therefore it has no truth-value.

Which is why it evaluates to "true' on Earth and 'false' on Mars. The sentence is MEANINGLESS without the context in which it has to be interpreted. And it obtains its truth-value only after it has been interpreted.

So if a Martian sends a message to an Earthling saying "The sky is blue" - is that sentence true or false?
It is a fact on Earth and a lie on Mars! Which interpretation is 'correct'? Context causes ambiguity!

given the way we use those words. And that's all that 'fact', 'objectivity' and 'truth' mean here. Metaphysical lucubrations notwithstanding.

There is no authority on how we SHOULD USE use words! To point at a dictionary is to appeal to authority!
There is only the social consensus on how we use words.

I USE the word 'objectively' differently to you! To assert that I am using the word incorrectly is to ASSERT AN OUGHT. Your ought! Need I remind you that it is you who is arguing against this very position?

You are over-stepping your boundaries by imposing you language on me. Check yourself and take two steps back. DO NOT impose your language on me. DO NOT impose your language on anyone!

I have a voice - I can and do speak for myself! If we cannot AGREE on the meaning of the word 'objective' (or facts, opinions and beliefs) then the rest of this debate is pointless and we can go our separate ways.

That IS why solving OBJECTIVE METAPHYSICS is the hardest problem in philosophy. Without it - language is meaningless!

[Belinda]

TimeSeeker wrote:

None of the natural languages have this property. Have a look at the Chomsky hierarchy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy )

Have what property?

I looked at the Chomsky link. I regret that most of Chomsky is too difficult for me: I prefer Wittgenstein the meaning of a word is its use. I understand that Chomsky did not submit a theory of meanings. Deep grammar structure may well be inherent in brain structure, however not genes but cultures transmit meanings. Don't you agree that meaning is social?

If so, that meaning is social, there can be no objective basis for morality which is a body of social meanings.

[Peter Holmes]

The word 'objective' means 'relying on facts rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions'.

No, Peter. This is a poor and rude attempt to frame the debate. That is your SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of the word objective. I reject your definition. Please do not impose your language on me and LISTEN to what I am saying.

I already addressed my problem with your conception of the word 'objective' in this comment (which you conveniently ignored):

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 ?!?!?!?!??

(ETC....)

My point is that are two quite separate and different things: features of reality, such as a blue sky; and what we say about them, such as 'the sky is blue'. If the sky is blue, the factual assertion 'the sky is blue' is true, in context

Yes, Peter. Important part IN CONTEXT.. The sky is definitely not blue on Mars! And so the sentence "The sky is blue" on its own does not carry any contextual information and therefore it has no truth-value.

Which is why it evaluates to "true' on Earth and 'false' on Mars. The sentence is MEANINGLESS without the context in which it has to be interpreted. And it obtains its truth-value only after it has been interpreted.

So if a Martian sends a message to an Earthling saying "The sky is blue" - is that sentence true or false?
It is a fact on Earth and a lie on Mars! Which interpretation is 'correct'? Context causes ambiguity!

given the way we use those words. And that's all that 'fact', 'objectivity' and 'truth' mean here. Metaphysical lucubrations notwithstanding.

There is no authority on how we SHOULD USE use words! To point at a dictionary is to appeal to authority!
There is only the social consensus on how we use words.

I USE the word 'objectively' differently to you! To assert that I am using the word incorrectly is to ASSERT AN OUGHT. Your ought! Need I remind you that it is you who is arguing against this very position?

You are over-stepping your boundaries by imposing you language on me. Check yourself and take two steps back. DO NOT impose your language on me. DO NOT impose your language on anyone!

I have a voice - I can and do speak for myself! If we cannot AGREE on the meaning of the word 'objective' (or facts, opinions and beliefs) then the rest of this debate is pointless and we can go our separate ways.

That IS why solving OBJECTIVE METAPHYSICS is the hardest problem in philosophy. Without it - language is meaningless!

Okay, what meaning do you give to the word 'objective'? Sorry if I missed your explanation. How do you use the words 'objective' and 'objectivity' - and the words 'fact' and 'truth', and their cognates, for that matter? (Because meaning is use, and can be nothing else, of course.)

If you're objecting to my standard uses of those words, what are your non-standard uses? And do you follow your own private rules when you use them?

Btw, your discussion of my blue sky point is fatuous. Look at the hypothetical.

[TimeSeeker]

Have what property?

The language contains the context in which the meaning is to be interpreted.

I looked at the Chomsky link. I regret that most of Chomsky is too difficult for me: I prefer Wittgenstein the meaning of a word is its use. I understand that Chomsky did not submit a theory of meanings. Deep grammar structure may well be inherent in brain structure, however not genes but cultures transmit meanings. Don't you agree that meaning is social?

Yes and no. As per my previous comment - meaning comes from interpretation AND from context.

Suppose that I said to you: "Damn! It is very hot outside!" Is that true or false? That sentence contains insufficient context to be parsed by you!

You need at least the following information:
* Where I live ( North Pole or Cairo)
* What my reference frame is for 'hot' is. -5 is 'hot' on the North Pole. 45 is 'hot' in Cairo.

If so, that meaning is social, there can be no objective basis for morality which is a body of social meanings.

Only if we can agree on the context. And since the context is human well-being. I think we can agree on objective morality?

Without an explicit context - it is meaningless to even play this silly game! Might makes right!

[TimeSeeker]

Because meaning is use, and can be nothing else, of course

Incorrect. Meaning is consistent interpretation in a consistent context. Without these two criteria - you end up with ambiguity.

And so you have the meaning as the person uttering the sentence INTENDED it to be interpreted. And the meaning the recipient of the message ACTUALLY interprets it. This is how ambiguity emerges.

Example: I went to the bank today.

Bank is ambiguous. Do I mean a river bank or the social institution where people deposit money? Without an explicit context - the sentence is ambiguous.

Meaning is satisfying the law of identity. Meaning is avoiding ambiguity. From computational linguistics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sense_disambiguation )

Btw, your discussion of my blue sky point is fatuous. Look at the hypothetical.

You cannot assert this until you have understood my use of the word 'objective'. The very definition of your hypothetical excludes my perspective.

By doing that you are IMPOSING your OUGHT on me. You are saying "You ought not to participate in this discussion." because it falls outside the hypothetical context which YOU have CHOSEN. OK, but my perspective is broader (read: more objective!) than yours - what then?

Okay, what meaning do you give to the word 'objective'? Sorry if I missed your explanation. How do you use the words 'objective' and 'objectivity' - and the words 'fact' and 'truth', and their cognates, for that matter?

Objectivity requires a pre-determined context. My context is The Universe. All of it. INCLUDING the time dimension. This necessarily means that the 'fact' and 'opinion' distinctions require an a priori and an a posteriori distinction also.

And so - would objective morality be an a posteriori ASSERTION about a PAST event ( a judgment)
OR
An a priori claim about a FUTURE EVENT (a proposition)

This is the distinction between consequentialist and deontological ethics.

Throughout this entire thread you have pre-supposed deontology when I am a consequentialist.

In fact - I do not believe deontological ethics are even possible given that time never stops flowing. Your INTENTION always has consequences! Cause and effect.

And since best intentions with catastrophic consequences are still catastrophic - deontology should not even feature on the debate.

Which leaves you hanging until we both DECIDE HOW to address the is-ought gap!

How indeed.

Until we solve THAT - everything else is a waste of time

[Peter Holmes]

Because meaning is use, and can be nothing else, of course

Incorrect. Meaning is consistent interpretation in a consistent context. Without these two criteria - you end up with ambiguity.

And so you have the meaning as the person uttering the sentence INTENDED it to be interpreted. And the meaning the recipient of the message ACTUALLY interprets it. We call this ambiguity.

Example: I went to the bank today.

Bank is ambiguous. Do I mean a river bank or the social institution where people deposit money? Without an explicit context - the sentence is ambiguous.

Meaning is satisfying the law of identity. Meaning is avoiding ambiguity. From computational linguistics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sense_disambiguation )

Btw, your discussion of my blue sky point is fatuous. Look at the hypothetical.

You cannot assert this until you have understood my use of the word 'objective'.

Okay, what meaning do you give to the word 'objective'? Sorry if I missed your explanation. How do you use the words 'objective' and 'objectivity' - and the words 'fact' and 'truth', and their cognates, for that matter?

Objectivity requires a pre-determined context. My context is The Universe. All of it. INCLUDING the time dimension. This necessarily means that the 'fact' and 'opinion' distinctions require an a priori and an a posteriori distinction also.

And so - would objective morality be an a posteriori ASSERTION about a PAST event ( a judgment)
OR
An a priori claim about a FUTURE EVENT (a proposition)

This is the distinction between consequentialist and deontological ethics.

Throughout this entire thread you have pre-supposed deontology when I am a consequentialist.

In fact - I do not believe deontological ethics are even possible given that time never stops flowing. Your INTENTION always has consequences! Cause and effect.

And since best intentions with catastrophic consequences are still catastrophic - deontology should not even feature on the debate.

Which leaves you hanging until we both DECIDE HOW to address the is-ought gap!

How indeed.

Until we solve THAT - everything else is a waste of time

1 We agree that any use of signs is contextual, so your bank homonym example is fatuous.
2 We agree that any use of signs is conventional, so your transmitter-receiver point is trivial.
3 I thought you despise the rule (not law) of identity. Changed your mind?
4 What is the rule of identity about if it isn't the conventional use of signs? (We agree it has nothing to do with reality.)
5 As I thought was clear - I reject metaethical theory for the metaphysical nonsense it actually is. So I'm neither a deontologist nor a consequentialist.
6 I'm puzzled by your consequentialism. By what contextual features of the universe do you judge the consequences of anything to be objectively morally good or bad?

[TimeSeeker]

1 We agree that any use of signs is contextual, so your bank homonym example is fatuous.
2 We agree that any use of signs is conventional, so your transmitter-receiver point is trivial.

Good! So we agree that the very use of the signs 'objective' and 'morality' is also contextual AND conventional? How do we agree on the CONTEXT AND CONVENTION for interpreting these very words?

3 I thought you despise the rule (not law) of identity. Changed your mind?
4 What is the rule of identity about if it isn't the conventional use of signs? (We agree it has nothing to do with reality.)

Well precisely! WHOSE convention/context? Yours or mine?

As I am pointing out to you that there at least two conventions for the very notion of 'objectivity' on the table. Rather ironic. Isn't it? It is decidedly obvious that the 'rule' of identity is broken. Without resorting to a bandwagon fallacy could you tell me which one is the 'correct' USE of the word 'objective'?

How do you decide ‘correctness’ without making a value-jusgment?!? It is a circular problem! How do you propose we get around it?

The law of identity only holds IF objective meaning is true. That is IF and only IF there is a 1:1 relationship between all signifiers and signifieds. That is - ALL AMBIGUITY BREAKS the 'law' of identity. And you can't avoid ambiguity without having a SINGLE UNIVERSAL context and RULES FOR INTERPRETATION!

And so - I reject the CONTEXT in which you use the word 'objective'. And I gave you mine - which includes the temporal dimension. Do you accept or reject my use of the word 'objective'?

5 As I thought was clear - I reject metaethical theory for the metaphysical nonsense it actually is. So I'm neither a deontologist nor a consequentialist.

That is even worse! Because you then don't even have a reference frame from which you are making any claims OR assertions about reality other than your own, but you are a prisoner of time!

Are you asserting that murder WAS wrong or that murder WILL be wrong? Or that murder IS wrong? Because you can't even define never mind interpret murder without a TIME CONTEXT! Try and define 'intent' without a notion of time! Try and define ANY VERB in English without the notion of time! Being, living, dying, killing are all temporal phenomena!

See what happens when you leave out time from the 'metaphysical nonsense'? The world stops!

6 I'm puzzled by your consequentialism. By what contextual features of the universe do you judge the consequences of anything to be objectively morally good or bad?

You are stuck in a reference frame which ignores the entire field of calculus and system dynamics, yet clings onto deductive logic!

The arrow of time is currently going only one way! And so whether you accept it or reject it - is rather immaterial. The flow of time is continuous. Time is NOT discrete. There is no cause-and-effect, no beginning or an end without an observer drawing a line - drawing a DISTINCTION! There is just constant change! And so in that reference frame I only know how to draw one distinction: Past vs Future.

In that OBJECTIVE FRAMEWORK you and I need to agree on the meaning of 'morality':

Is it an a posteriori assertion about a PAST event? e.g judgment
Or an a priori proposition about a FUTURE event? e.g desire

Unless you exist "outside of time"(e.g you invent an ‘objective observer’ a.k.a God) then "neither' is NOT on the menu! All assertions about reality happen in a bounded time-window (beginning and an end!) so you are either a deontologist or a consequentialist. “Neither” puts your reference frame “outside” of time and automatically makes you a theist!

I believe the above is an exhaustive taxonomy e.g it is NOT a false dichotomy. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The is-ought gap is forced upon you by time itself! Whether you like it or not. NOT by the laws of logic - those are made up!

[TimeSeeker]

My argument boils down to this: Calling it the 'is-ought' gap is a mistake! It is the past-future gap. At the time of interpretation 'facts' are descriptions of the past, not the present! The 'present' is an illusion. Unless we explicitly agree on a specific time-interval it's an egocentric moving target!

Facts are descriptions of the past, but the past was the future. 2017 was 2016's future, Tuesday was Monday's future and 1-second-ago was 2-seconds-ago's future!
If descriptions of Monday's future (Tuesday) are facts, and descriptions of 2-seconds-ago's future (1-second-ago) are 'facts' then why do we treat descriptions of Today's future (Tomorrow) differently? Special pleading?

Somehow we have managed to agree that the past is part of 'reality' but the future isn't. How and why? If the meaning of the words like 'objective' and 'fact' emerges from social consensus then why can't we do the same with the word 'morality'? It is a social problem, not a logical problem.

We already do that. We call such facts 'laws' and the objective moral principle is Primum non nocere. No harm!

[Belinda]

TimeSeeker wrote:

Suppose that I said to you: "Damn! It is very hot outside!" Is that true or false? That sentence contains insufficient context to be parsed by you!

If the context of that utterance was that you just consulted a reliable thermometer and validated by a reliable third person or something I'd say that it could be established as true or false. However if the context is your subjective sensation of heat I'd be unable to say true or false as you have privileged access to your own sensations.

The tone of the utterance seems to me to be about your evaluation of your own sensation and that you prefer cool temperatures. Or maybe I could know that your context is that you have just completed an ice sculpture.

Only if we can agree on the context. And since the context is human well-being. I think we can agree on objective morality?

I quite like that because your criterion for objectivity seems to me to be naturalistic. However our understanding of the workings of nature must be empirical. This leaves a gap which can never be filled by he who believes in objective morality. God is a mirage that we can't live without. We always have to say "as if".

[TimeSeeker]

If the context of that utterance was that you just consulted a reliable thermometer and validated by a reliable third person or something I'd say that it could be established as true or false. However if the context is your subjective sensation of heat I'd be unable to say true or false as you have privileged access to your own sensations.

The tone of the utterance seems to me to be about your evaluation of your own sensation and that you prefer cool temperatures. Or maybe I could know that your context is that you have just completed an ice sculpture.

There is no broad context in which the phrase 'it is hot' is a true claim about reality. It necessarily speaks of experience and it is therefore only useful in direct conversation (e.g shared context).

Lets say that I did consult a thermometer. It reads 25 degrees. The scientist next to me confirms it. As do 5 other independent parties.

And now back to your frame of mind (trying to interpret this 'fact'):
Was that 25 degrees Fahrenheit, Celsius or Kelvin?
Was the thermometer indoors or outdoors? Is the room isolated from the outside world? Air-conditioned? Heated? Is the thermometer exposed to direct sunlight?
What is the 'objective standard' for 'hot' (vs 'cold')? Where do you draw the line? Above 25 Celsius? Above 30? 35?

There is far too much ambiguity to take into account which makes any interpretation impossible. If you have managed to interpret anything from the context-free sentence 'it is hot outside' then you have made A LOT of assumptions about MY context!

As you say - the best interpretation possible is "communicating discomfort".

I quite like that because your criterion for objectivity seems to me to be naturalistic. However our understanding of the workings of nature must be empirical. This leaves a gap which can never be filled by he who believes in objective morality. God is a mirage that we can't live without. We always have to say "as if".

That gap is just a symptom of the complexity of reality and the poverty of language.

Can you explain the meaning of the word 'alive' empirically? What makes you 'alive'? Your heartbeat? Your brain and neural activity? Your lungs, liver and kidneys? Your cells? Your blood flowing through your veins? The human body is a very complex system - any answer you provide will be incomplete! A pragmatic over-simplification. The whole organism is 'alive'! Nobody can objectively define that word, yet just about everybody can assert the difference between a corpse and a living person!

Logic (language) will always be an incomplete description of reality. And there is no way to fix that unless context is encoded in the word's meaning (Type 2 and 3 on Chomsky hierarchy)