Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

Two things which are not the same.

1 Rules for the use of language.

2 Moral rules.

Calling both of these examples of 'social norms' - and therefore things of the same nature - is an example of sophistry.

[Skepdick]

Two things which are not the same.

1 Rules for the use of language.

2 Moral rules.

Calling both of these examples of 'social norms' - and therefore things of the same nature - is an example of sophistry.

The sophist attempts to accuse the non-sophist of sophistry. What else could this be, except an attempt to muddy the waters?

Fucking obscurantist!

All things are the same, except for their differences.
All things are different, except for their similarities.

No TWO THINGS can ever be ontologically "the same". That's why there's TWO of them.
What we mean when we use the phrase "the same" is always "categorical sameness". They are the same sort of thing because they belong to the same abstract category of things.

ALL rules are socially constructed. Be they moral or linguistic.
They are categorically the same as members of the set of "socially constructed rules".
Rules that can be broken at will. Rules that work best through voluntary adherence to them.
They are "the same" sort of thing because their purpose is the same: to standardise/normalise behaviour.

From this viewpoint "facts" are simply the things we are allowed to say about the state of affairs given our social norms.

I am not "allowed" to say that you are a fucking idiot who doesn't know his head from his ass. Because it's not socially appropriate.
But you are an idiot who doesn't know his head from his has. As I keep demonstrating.

You OUGHT to not murder people is a normative stance.
You OUGHT to make logical arguments is your normative stance.

[Atla]

Facts are defined to be independent of FSKs. Can you point to dictionaries which claim otherwise?

Dictionaries meanings are useful for common use but what is more critical in a philosophy forum are philosophical definitions of a term and its ultimate implications.

Can you point to philosophical dictionaries which claim otherwise? I've not seen 'fact' used differently in philosophical discussions.

Facts of reality of the external world as per our senses are 'obviously' independent of humans but that is only apparent,
what is ultimate with what-is-fact per se is,

• 1. Reality, i.e. all there is comprised of facts of reality.
  2. Humans as facts are part and parcel of reality.
  3. Therefore, ultimately, all facts cannot be independent of humans.

Not only do you seem to conflate 'facts' as references and 'facts' as referents, you also seem to be oblivious that everyone knows that 'facts' as references are created by humans. No one is debating that. And even taking these into account, I can't tell what your first two points mean in English.

[bahman]

Okay. Usually "objective" refers to things that are independent of persons, or more specifically their minds.

Hell yeah. That is another definition of objective.

Re your definition, how are you figuring that minds "exist independently of anything else"?

That is true since the mind is free. The story is long but I can tell it if you are interested.

Well, you don't think that minds exist independently of bodies, do you?

Sure yes. I have an argument for that. The mind has an important contribution in making reality coherent. I am an argument for the mind too.

[bahman]

I suggest it's confusing to use the modifier 'objective' to describe things such as dogs. What would an objective dog be?

The dog that is sitting next to you if you have any.

How would it be different from a subjective dog?

The one who is in your thoughts.

Or, predicatively, can a dog be objective?

We know what is a objective and subjective dog are. At least now when definition is given.

And this is why the expression 'objective fact' is incoherent - a misattribution - as is the claim 'the mind is objective'.

Fact is objective given the new definition of objective, what is true independent of personal opinion. By mind is objective I mean the different meaning of objective and that is coherent.

Instead - what we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.

Fact is objective. An idea could be objective if it is based on facts though.

So the primary use for 'objective' is to describe a person; someone who relies on facts rather than opinions, feelings, impressions, and so on, is being objective. And, by extension, an objective decision is one made on the basis of facts rather than opinions. The existence and nature of what we call facts is at the heart of this argument. Is there such a thing as a subjective fact? Why is that question incoherent?

There is no such a thing as subjective fact given the new definition of subjective, person dependent.

(Sidebar: the methodological naturalism of natural science rests on what we call objectivity. Fashionable talk of paradigms, polished conjectures and the wrongness of models is belied in practice all the time by natural scientists, who, contrary to the lazy mantra, do deal with truth, such as the truth of data. That new data may falsify a conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion must be false. Do we think the data could also be false? Do we have no way to verify it? Verification and falsification are two sides of the same coin. What we call truth, facts and objectivity can only be what we say they are.)

Oh well, this is a different topic.

It follows, I think, that the 'external/internal' or 'mind-independent/mind-dependent' or 'collective/individual' distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity are misleading. (I reckon they derive from metaphysical furkling down the rabbit hole, as do most philosophical problems.)

I don't think so.

Upshot. Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts - moral features of reality - and the claimants incur a burden of proof (as in the need for the claim to be testable and tested.) A burden unmet, so far, to my knowledge.

Equity which is an ethical principle can be understood and derived. But that is the subject of long debate, what we are.

The fatuous but fashionable - and subversively exciting - claim that what we call a fact is merely an agreement to describe something in a certain way - so that there's no functional difference between the claims 'water is H2O' and 'slavery is morally wrong' - if we call one a fact, there's no reason not to call the other a fact - this nonsense has been swilling around for some time. It means: 'what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.'

Oh well, there is a short way between slavery is wrong and the basic ethical principle, we are equal.

Just on the last bit about equity: 'the basic ethical principle, we are equal'.

This looks like a factual assertion with a truth-value, like Henry's supposed basic fact: 'a person owns herself' - which doesn't mention equity or equality. So here are two different 'basic principles', masquerading as unarguable facts, from which moral values and judgements are supposed to follow - as follows:

1 We are equal; therefore everyone should be treated equally - and therefore slavery is morally wrong.
2 A person owns herself; therefore a person should own herself - and therefore slavery is morally wrong.

Point is, leaving aside the truth-value of the factual premises, the conclusions don't logically follow anyway.

It clear that we are equal. Equity follows from the facts that we are minds. We, however, have different nature, nature being the set of properties that define the behavior of body though and that is the problem since there is a gap in society in all forms some are good and some evil. This is not balanced due to evolution. We, fortunately, are equipped with intellectual power. So we can fill the gap by tools of education. So why not?

[Peter Holmes]

It clear that we are equal. Equity follows from the facts that we are minds. We, however, have different nature, nature being the set of properties that define the behavior of body though and that is the problem since there is a gap in society in all forms some are good and some evil. This is not balanced due to evolution. We, fortunately, are equipped with intellectual power. So we can fill the gap by tools of education. So why not?

No. You think we should be equal, though in what way is unclear. The claim 'we are minds' is mystical nonsense, as is the claim that our all being minds means that we are equal. Sorry - I have no interest in hippy-woo. But thanks.

[bahman]

It clear that we are equal. Equity follows from the facts that we are minds. We, however, have different nature, nature being the set of properties that define the behavior of body though and that is the problem since there is a gap in society in all forms some are good and some evil. This is not balanced due to evolution. We, fortunately, are equipped with intellectual power. So we can fill the gap by tools of education. So why not?

No. You think we should be equal, though in what way is unclear. The claim 'we are minds' is mystical nonsense, as is the claim that our all being minds means that we are equal. Sorry - I have no interest in hippy-woo. But thanks.

What if I provide an argument for the mind?

[Peter Holmes]

It clear that we are equal. Equity follows from the facts that we are minds. We, however, have different nature, nature being the set of properties that define the behavior of body though and that is the problem since there is a gap in society in all forms some are good and some evil. This is not balanced due to evolution. We, fortunately, are equipped with intellectual power. So we can fill the gap by tools of education. So why not?

No. You think we should be equal, though in what way is unclear. The claim 'we are minds' is mystical nonsense, as is the claim that our all being minds means that we are equal. Sorry - I have no interest in hippy-woo. But thanks.

What if I provide an argument for the mind?

I assume you mean an argument for the existence of minds. My standing question is: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'.

Cards on the table. I think the founding philosophical delusion is that abstract nouns, such as 'mind', are names of things of some kind that may or may not exist.

[bahman]

No. You think we should be equal, though in what way is unclear. The claim 'we are minds' is mystical nonsense, as is the claim that our all being minds means that we are equal. Sorry - I have no interest in hippy-woo. But thanks.

What if I provide an argument for the mind?

I assume you mean an argument for the existence of minds.

Yes.

My standing question is: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'.

These are off-topic unless you show their relevance to the topic of the existence of the mind.

Cards on the table. I think the founding philosophical delusion is that abstract nouns, such as 'mind', are names of things of some kind that may or may not exist.

That is alright. Here is my argument: I have to prove two things: A) Any change requires a mind, and B) There is a change therefore there is a mind.

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y otherwise there cannot be any change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

Proof for B:
P1) There is a change
P2) Any change requires a mind
C) Therefore, there is a mind

[Atla]

A) Any change requires a mind

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y otherwise there cannot be any change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

That's not a very strong argument, is it. Obviously change is impossible, it's just an everyday illusion. The past never vanishes, and the future already happened.

[bahman]

A) Any change requires a mind

Proof for A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y otherwise there cannot be any change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

That's not a very strong argument, is it.

It is but let's investigate other sorts of reality.

Obviously change is impossible, it's just an everyday illusion.

So your mental awareness about reality has never changed? Do you exist as a person or the person also is an illusion?

The past never vanishes, and the future already happened.

So you are talking about block universe. Is everything in this universe is decided or it is open? What is the use of consciousness in the decided block universe?

[Terrapin Station]

Hell yeah. That is another definition of objective.


That is true since the mind is free. The story is long but I can tell it if you are interested.

Well, you don't think that minds exist independently of bodies, do you?

Sure yes. I have an argument for that. The mind has an important contribution in making reality coherent. I am an argument for the mind too.

Minds are something that bodies (namely brains) do.

[bahman]

Well, you don't think that minds exist independently of bodies, do you?

Sure yes. I have an argument for that. The mind has an important contribution in making reality coherent. I am an argument for the mind too.

Minds are something that bodies (namely brains) do.

How do you define mind?

[Terrapin Station]

Sure yes. I have an argument for that. The mind has an important contribution in making reality coherent. I am an argument for the mind too.

Minds are something that bodies (namely brains) do.

How do you define mind?

It's a term for the set of phenomena including thinking (reasoning), perceptions, formulating concepts, assigning meaning, etc.

[bahman]

Minds are something that bodies (namely brains) do.

How do you define mind?

It's a term for the set of phenomena including thinking (reasoning), perceptions, formulating concepts, assigning meaning, etc.

I have another definition in my mind. The mind is a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide and cause. I have an argument for the mind. You need a mind for any change including most of the phenomena that you mentioned. For what regards perception, we are already discussing the emergence in another thread.