What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Killing people, on the other hand, matters a great deal, so it's a bit rich of you to accuse me of trivialising things.

Well, no - is just that determining triviality and non-triviality is "entirely subjective" according to some.

And so:

Philosopher 1 says: Killing/murder matters.
Philosopher 2 says: Killing/murder doesn't matter.

I am guessing you've chosen to be Philosopher 1.

I am just wondering how somebody who believes in underdeterminism determined that killing/murder matters (given the epistemically equivalent alternative).

I see. You think you can demonstrate that murder is wrong in some way analogous to flying to the Moon and taking a photo of a spherical Earth. Okie-dokie, let's see that picture.

We've been to the moon. We've taken photos. We've shown those photos to flat earthers. It didn't work - they still aren't convinced.

So, I guess - until you demonstrate effective persuasion and achieve 100% buy-in - the Earth remains flat?

Or are you ready to commit to an actual answer to my question? Why does it even matter if Earth was flat, or round, or triangular?

Rinse repeat:

Philosopher 1 says: Truth matters.
Philosopher 2 says: Truth doesn't matter.

And then? Why do you believe truth matters? Does it matter more or less than killing?

[Harbal]

Well of course I don't.

Then what does the word "objectivity" mean when you claim that there exists a distinction between the "objective" and "subjective"?

"Personal perspective" is more or less the definition of subjectivity.

Since you are using the adjective 'personal" to describe perspectives, I assume there some other kinds of perspectives you are familiar with.

Can you give me an example of a non-personal perspective?

If they hold an opinion regardless of their personal perspective, that would be an objective opinion.

So let me make sure I understand what you are saying.

You don't recognize any perspective as objective, but you do recognise some opinions as objective.

Is that correct?

"I like the colour blue" is a subjective opinion.

It's not A subjective opinion. It's YOUR subjective opinion that you like the color blue.

It is my objective opinion that you like the color blue.

Your liking of the color blue is an objective fact, despite your subjective opinion.

"Donald Trump is a compulsive liar" is an objective opinion. Blue is only the best colour because I say it is, but Donald Trump is a liar because it isn't possible to come to any other conclusion, regardless of personal perspective.

That's a double standard right there.

It's impossible for you to come to any other conclusion except "blue is the best color" - according to you that's subjective.
It's impossible for you to come to any other conclusion except "Donald trump is a lier" - according to you that's objective.

It also appears to confirm my hypothesis. Liking and lying are both verbs.

What you are calling a "subjective opinion" is an opinion about things you do (you like blue)
What you are calling "objective opinion" is an opinion about what other people do (Donald Trump lies).

But they are both still opinions.

That's because you are interpreting my words subjectively.

Strawman. I have suspended my judgment/interpretation.

That is why I am asking you to give me an example of something you consider objective; or somebody whose perspective you consider.

So far you are leaving me with the impression that you don't have any such examples, and so I am sceptical about your belief in objectivity.

Both are arbitrary concepts, but we also have rules regarding what may be placed in either category. I am following what I understand to be those rules.

That's an appeal to authority. What legitimises those rules?

When I used to take my son to watch football, we both chose to give our allegiance to Sheffield Wednesday, rather than Sheffield United. It is more or less a criminal offence in Sheffield to support both. It doesn't really work like that with subjectivity and objectivity.

Great! I am asking you to tell me how it works.

But at least with Wittgenstein it was possible to get a sense of what he was pointing at.

All the points you are objecting to are ones that I haven't made.

What I am pointing out is the artificial boundary - the dividing line between your concepts of "objectivity" and "subjectivity", and how choosing different rules would result in a different classification scheme.

I am pointing at Wittgenstein's rule-following paradox.

How would you know if you are following the rules for "subjectivity" and "objectivity" incorrectly if you don't have a concept for "incorrectness"?

I'm not dealing with all that. Ask me questions one at a time, please.

[Skepdick]

I'm not dealing with all that. Ask me questions one at a time, please.

I did. There's a question in every paragraph.

But if you are ignoring most of it - answer only these two:

How would you know if you are following the rules for "subjectivity" and "objectivity" incorrectly if you don't have a concept for "incorrectness"?

What legitimises the "correctness" of the subjective/objective distinction?

[uwot]

We've been to the moon. We've taken photos. We've shown those photos to flat earthers. It didn't work - they still aren't convinced.

So, I guess - until you demonstrate effective persuasion and achieve 100% buy-in - the Earth remains flat?

Ya know, out of the goodness of my heart, I checked several times to see if you had edited this out. You really ought to have; as a rhetorical tool it's oafish, because only an idiot could think it actually follows.
Anyway, you apparently think:

The objectivity of morality is an ineffable fact...

What empirical evidence do you base that claim on?

[surreptitious57]

Make your preferences testable and get evidence from third person

Evidence is arrived at through inter subjective consensus which is still subjective but is less so than it is with just first person subjective
There is a spectrum and the aim is to get evidence that is as objective as possible within that spectrum rather than absolutely objective

[Harbal]

But if you are ignoring most of it - answer only these two:

I was trying to ignore those two, as well.

How would you know if you are following the rules for "subjectivity" and "objectivity" incorrectly if you don't have a concept for "incorrectness"?

I'm disqualifying that question on the grounds of ambiguity. You do not make it clear whether you are referring to the rules of morality, or the rules for determining between subjectivity and objectivity.

What legitimises the "correctness" of the subjective/objective distinction?

Your language isn't very precise, for a scientist. I don't know what you are asking me.

[Skepdick]

What empirical evidence do you base that claim on?

Calculus + statistical inference.

The derivative of the mathematical function which represents the historical murder rate over centuries of data is a certain value.

That value is not positive (murder is not increasing), and it's not zero (murder is not steady).

Murder is decreasing.

That's 2:1 unlikely, or just above 3 decibels of evidence.

Objective explanation required.

[Skepdick]

I'm disqualifying that question on the grounds of ambiguity. You do not make it clear whether you are referring to the rules of morality, or the rules for determining between subjectivity and objectivity.

I am disqualifying your disqualification on the basis of irrelevance.

The rule-following paradox applies to any scenario where you classify things into categories. That's why it's called a classification rule.

The act of classifying things into the categories of "objective" and "subjective" is an example of rule-following.
The act of classifying things into the categories of "correct" and "incorrect" is an example of rule-following.
The act of classifying things into the categories of "moral" and "immoral" is an example of rule-following.

So, my question is universal and context-free - there is no ambiguity.

Given any classification rules you choose to practice, how do you determine whether you are following the rules (in)correctly if you don't have a prior concept for (in)correctness?

Your language isn't very precise, for a scientist. I don't know what you are asking me.

My language is English. it's not for precision - it's for informal communication. For precision we have logic/mathematics.

I don't know what it is that you don't understand, but I have tried to explain it in simpler words for you.

Still, if you prefer "precision", these are Wittgenstein's precise words: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule.

[Belinda]

If there is such a thing as nature, that's to say 'nature' as meaning objective reality, then it would be moral to act in harmony with nature= objective reality.

However we as subjects who are limited to our own experiences and perceptions can't know objective reality=nature. We can try to act in harmony with what we surmise objective reality to be, based upon whatever system of probability is in vogue . Moral codes are not the same as morality ; moral codes i.e. codified morality are limited to the peoples who do the codifying.

Moral codes follow economic and political imperatives.

[uwot]

Murder is decreasing. That's 2:1 unlikely. Explanation required.

And this is your explanation?

The objectivity of morality is an ineffable fact...

How does that work?

[Skepdick]

And this is your explanation?

I've given you my decision-procedure - I've satisfied the verificationist standard for meaning.

I have no idea if I've satisfied your standard for "explanation", and I don't think I can unless you tell me what that standard is.

How does that work?

Did it work? I don't see you agreeing.

Maybe the math went over your head - I don't know.

[uwot]

Maybe the math went over your head - I don't know.

You mean this maths?

Murder is decreasing.

That's 2:1 unlikely, or just above 3 decibels of evidence.

Not really Skepdick. Anyway, is that not just an admission that you have no empirical evidence for your claim that:

The objectivity of morality is an ineffable fact...

[Skepdick]

Anyway, is that not just an admission that you have no empirical evidence for your claim that:

The objectivity of morality is an ineffable fact...

Is that your admission that I have evidence, but you don't deem it "empirical" (whatever that means)?

The notion of "evidence" is covered in probability theory/Bayesian inference which is why I quantified my evidence in decibels - but apparently you understand the maths, so I don't have to explain this to you. Right?

And if you disagree with the scientific notion of "evidence", then tell us what notion of "evidence" you have in mind. Maybe you don't consider your abstract faculties part of your senses?

[uwot]

Is that your admission that I have evidence, but you don't deem it "empirical" (whatever that means)?

Well it was you that brought up verificationism.

The notion of "evidence" is covered in probability theory/Bayesian inference which is why I quantified my evidence in decibels - but apparently you understand the maths, so I don't have to explain this to you. Right?

As someone claiming to be a scientist you will understand that there is vastly more mathematics that tells us nothing whatsoever about the external world than is actually useful to science. Not only that but, as Einstein put it, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." So yeah, the amount of data produced by contemporary projects is so great that it cannot be usefully be 'mined' without specific algorithms seeking evidence for the hunches they were created to look for, and that therefore mathematics is effectively creating our scientific reality. But that has fuck all to do with morality.

And if you disagree with the scientific notion of "evidence", then tell us what notion of "evidence" you have in mind.

What "scientific notion of "evidence"" is that then? Your evidence that

The objectivity of morality is an ineffable fact...

is that people aren't killing each other quite like they used to. You really think that cuts the mustard?

Maybe you don't consider your abstract faculties part of your senses?

You'd have to tell me what you mean by 'abstract faculties' and 'senses'.

[Skepdick]

Well it was you that brought up verificationism.

I did - right after I made a verifiable claim about objective morality.

It's going the extra mile beyond definitions and you still aren't happy? Some times I get the feeling that there's no appeasing philosophers.

As someone claiming to be a scientist you will understand that there is vastly more mathematics that tells us nothing whatsoever about the external world than is actually useful to science.

Sure. I am not saying Mathematics says anything about reality - I am using Mathematics as an epistemic instrument for testing hypotheses about reality.

If you don't like the experiment design, and disapprove of the mathematical model I am using - tell us why.

Propose another one?

Not only that but, as Einstein put it, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

We know that. Mathematics is about epistemology, not reality. Models is all you get - sorry.

If you don't like it, write to management and request a different universe.

So yeah, the amount of data produced by contemporary projects is so great that it cannot be usefully be 'mined' without specific algorithms seeking evidence for the hunches they were created to look for, and that therefore mathematics is effectively creating our scientific reality. But that has fuck all to do with morality.

Well, if your conception of morality is inconsequential (read: untestable) then why should we care?

I can always put on my skepticism hat on dump the burden of proof on you. Does morality even exist? What are its consequences?

Isn't that what they teach in philosophy 101? Cast ontological doubt on it and watch the shit-show.

What "scientific notion of "evidence"" is that then?

The same one used by all scientists. Bayesian inference.

is that people aren't killing each other quite like they used to. You really think that cuts the mustard?

On balance of probabilities - it does.

Of course, you can always argue that just because murder and violence are socially unacceptable it doesn't follow that they would decrease, but then you'd have to explain what's causing that decrease.

Give that phenomenon a name, or we can stick with the "miraculously decreasing murder and violence"

You'd have to tell me what you mean by 'abstract faculties' and 'senses'.

I don't - I showed you the model.