Is morality objective or subjective?

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

But there are reasons for saying that what call a dog is different from what we call a tree. For example, only one of them cocks a leg and pisses up the other. That we don't have to distinguish between them doesn't mean that can't or shouldn't.

Some male dogs squat like bitches and some bitches cock their legs. Taxonomy is invented not discovered. Taxonomic classifications change .
Similarly every bit of meaning or understanding , every science and every art, every moral system or other system of governance, is invented not discovered.

It often suits our intuitions to imagine some information is discovered not invented, and Peter needs to revise his intuition about reality.

Are features of reality discovered or invented? Do descriptions create or change the things being described? This is mystical codswallop.

It is not descriptions that change perceptions although public relations and advertising experts to some extent do channel buying practises. Perceptions change mostly according to what people learn through first hand experience or informed hearsay. For instance many people now experience pigs as more intelligent than dogs and accordingly do not classify pigs as food animals.

Some people classify dogs as companion animals however many more people classify them as feral or wild animals and often avoid contact with dogs. The point is classifications are not fixed by divine decree but by people's changing needs.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:



Some male dogs squat like bitches and some bitches cock their legs. Taxonomy is invented not discovered. Taxonomic classifications change .
Similarly every bit of meaning or understanding , every science and every art, every moral system or other system of governance, is invented not discovered.

It often suits our intuitions to imagine some information is discovered not invented, and Peter needs to revise his intuition about reality.

Are features of reality discovered or invented? Do descriptions create or change the things being described? This is mystical codswallop.

It is not descriptions that change perceptions although public relations and advertising experts to some extent do channel buying practises. Perceptions change mostly according to what people learn through first hand experience or informed hearsay. For instance many people now experience pigs as more intelligent than dogs and accordingly do not classify pigs as food animals.

Some people classify dogs as companion animals however many more people classify them as feral or wild animals and often avoid contact with dogs. The point is classifications are not fixed by divine decree but by people's changing needs.

Okay, but dogs and pigs are features of reality that can be shown to exist. Their existence and nature has nothing to do with how we name and describe them - which we can do in different ways for different and changing purposes.

Now, show that there are moral features of reality - that moral rightness and wrongness actually exist, in the way that dogs and pigs actually exist - and the case for moral objectivism is made.

But, of course, it can't be done. So morality isn't and can't be objective. OMG. How hard is this to understand and accept?

[Sculptor]

Peter Holmes wrote:

But there are reasons for saying that what call a dog is different from what we call a tree. For example, only one of them cocks a leg and pisses up the other. That we don't have to distinguish between them doesn't mean that can't or shouldn't.

Some male dogs squat like bitches and some bitches cock their legs. Taxonomy is invented not discovered. Taxonomic classifications change .
Similarly every bit of meaning or understanding , every science and every art, every moral system or other system of governance, is invented not discovered.

It often suits our intuitions to imagine some information is discovered not invented, and Peter needs to revise his intuition about reality.

Are features of reality discovered or invented? Do descriptions create or change the things being described? This is mystical codswallop.

SInce all things are interpreted by experience, nothing is objectively "discovered" as if it had no previous relevance. When things are near at hand, in the Heideggerian sense they are not part of the everyday experience, this is when new things that are apprehended become understood with some anticiption of what sort of thing they might be useful for - until they are ready at hand. So discovery includes some invention.
There is a worn out story about the first time a native of South America first encountered a Spanish ship. Falling completely outside his lived experience it has been said he could not see a ship at all.
However, what he could recognise is some elements of the ship that were familiar; wood, cordage; people. Invention of the meaning of the "thing" he sees may mislead him. Somehow the experience has to be interwoven with his expectations. A floating forest? Maybe the men are monkeys? a moving Island? What are the sails? Giant leaves, wings?
He does not simply discover a ship, since ship is not part of his experience. He invents what he can in order that the thing is understandable.

I submit that we do that all the time. We have an internal narrative and when we see news that new bit of information is integrated into our narrative. It can take a great deal of effort for news that is contrary to the narrative to overwhelm and unpack or destroy our narrative.
This is part of the way we can understand Trumpers, who have bought into the narrative of FAKE NEWS, and so any thing that makes Trump or his activities seem unreal or unfair can be added to an increasingly long and bizare list of fake news items.

It takes a perpetual act of will to remain skeptical of all things to avoid inventing your world. Discovering things and integrating them into your narrative takes effort.

[Sculptor]

Are features of reality discovered or invented? Do descriptions create or change the things being described? This is mystical codswallop.

It is not descriptions that change perceptions although public relations and advertising experts to some extent do channel buying practises. Perceptions change mostly according to what people learn through first hand experience or informed hearsay. For instance many people now experience pigs as more intelligent than dogs and accordingly do not classify pigs as food animals.

Some people classify dogs as companion animals however many more people classify them as feral or wild animals and often avoid contact with dogs. The point is classifications are not fixed by divine decree but by people's changing needs.

Okay, but dogs and pigs are features of reality that can be shown to exist. Their existence and nature has nothing to do with how we name and describe them - which we can do in different ways for different and changing purposes.

Now, show that there are moral features of reality - that moral rightness and wrongness actually exist, in the way that dogs and pigs actually exist - and the case for moral objectivism is made.

But, of course, it can't be done. So morality isn't and can't be objective. OMG. How hard is this to understand and accept?

I think you might not even need to employ this dichotomy.

Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.
To a child it is a cartoon character. to some it is a filty dirty animal; to others the most higly intelligent farm animal greater even than a dog; a social and sociable pet to some; others it prepresents cash or a commission for sale; to a Man from New Guinea a pig is pure gold, as a man with no pigs is no man at all - a "rubbish man"; to many a pig is prospective food, an item to decide how high the oven should be set to; bacon or pork.

With all this diversity of view points, how can you say a pig is just a pig?
Then how much more difficult is "ethics", "honour", "murder", "hate" etc...

[Peter Holmes]

It is not descriptions that change perceptions although public relations and advertising experts to some extent do channel buying practises. Perceptions change mostly according to what people learn through first hand experience or informed hearsay. For instance many people now experience pigs as more intelligent than dogs and accordingly do not classify pigs as food animals.

Some people classify dogs as companion animals however many more people classify them as feral or wild animals and often avoid contact with dogs. The point is classifications are not fixed by divine decree but by people's changing needs.

Okay, but dogs and pigs are features of reality that can be shown to exist. Their existence and nature has nothing to do with how we name and describe them - which we can do in different ways for different and changing purposes.

Now, show that there are moral features of reality - that moral rightness and wrongness actually exist, in the way that dogs and pigs actually exist - and the case for moral objectivism is made.

But, of course, it can't be done. So morality isn't and can't be objective. OMG. How hard is this to understand and accept?

I think you might not even need to employ this dichotomy.

Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.
To a child it is a cartoon character. to some it is a filty dirty animal; to others the most higly intelligent farm animal greater even than a dog; a social and sociable pet to some; others it prepresents cash or a commission for sale; to a Man from New Guinea a pig is pure gold, as a man with no pigs is no man at all - a "rubbish man"; to many a pig is prospective food, an item to decide how high the oven should be set to; bacon or pork.

With all this diversity of view points, how can you say a pig is just a pig?
Then how much more difficult is "ethics", "honour", "murder", "hate" etc...

To take just one thing you say: 'Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.'

Whatever that means, 'how we apprehend it' doesn't matter. A pig is a real thing. Moral rightness and wrongness are not real things - to my knowledge. So if objectivity is to do with reality, since there are no moral things, morality can't be objective. Full stop.

[Belinda]

Okay, but dogs and pigs are features of reality that can be shown to exist. Their existence and nature has nothing to do with how we name and describe them - which we can do in different ways for different and changing purposes.

Now, show that there are moral features of reality - that moral rightness and wrongness actually exist, in the way that dogs and pigs actually exist - and the case for moral objectivism is made.

But, of course, it can't be done. So morality isn't and can't be objective. OMG. How hard is this to understand and accept?

I think you might not even need to employ this dichotomy.

Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.
To a child it is a cartoon character. to some it is a filty dirty animal; to others the most higly intelligent farm animal greater even than a dog; a social and sociable pet to some; others it prepresents cash or a commission for sale; to a Man from New Guinea a pig is pure gold, as a man with no pigs is no man at all - a "rubbish man"; to many a pig is prospective food, an item to decide how high the oven should be set to; bacon or pork.

With all this diversity of view points, how can you say a pig is just a pig?
Then how much more difficult is "ethics", "honour", "murder", "hate" etc...

To take just one thing you say: 'Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.'

Whatever that means, 'how we apprehend it' doesn't matter. A pig is a real thing. Moral rightness and wrongness are not real things - to my knowledge. So if objectivity is to do with reality, since there are no moral things, morality can't be objective. Full stop.

True, there no moral things. Also true: there are no dog things : there are no tool things: no weapon
things: no art things: no science things: no animal things and so forth. It is thinking that reifies what must be perceptions abstracted from undifferentiated reality.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... 0%E2%80%A6

[Sculptor]

Okay, but dogs and pigs are features of reality that can be shown to exist. Their existence and nature has nothing to do with how we name and describe them - which we can do in different ways for different and changing purposes.

Now, show that there are moral features of reality - that moral rightness and wrongness actually exist, in the way that dogs and pigs actually exist - and the case for moral objectivism is made.

But, of course, it can't be done. So morality isn't and can't be objective. OMG. How hard is this to understand and accept?

I think you might not even need to employ this dichotomy.

Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.
To a child it is a cartoon character. to some it is a filty dirty animal; to others the most higly intelligent farm animal greater even than a dog; a social and sociable pet to some; others it prepresents cash or a commission for sale; to a Man from New Guinea a pig is pure gold, as a man with no pigs is no man at all - a "rubbish man"; to many a pig is prospective food, an item to decide how high the oven should be set to; bacon or pork.

With all this diversity of view points, how can you say a pig is just a pig?
Then how much more difficult is "ethics", "honour", "murder", "hate" etc...

To take just one thing you say: 'Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.'

Whatever that means, 'how we apprehend it' doesn't matter. A pig is a real thing. Moral rightness and wrongness are not real things - to my knowledge. So if objectivity is to do with reality, since there are no moral things, morality can't be objective. Full stop.

You are missing the point. It really does not matter if a pig is real or not, humans observe the world subjectively. The dichotomy is not applicable.

Objectivity only applies when humans agree on arbitrary criteria. Then it only applies to remove personal opinions on the subject so that agreement can persist. Once all is pared away these agreements are historically and culturally determined and therefore subjective.

Add a different perspective, as from an additional person, then the "objectivity" crumbles away, unless a new agreement is forthcoming.
What we witness in the moral objectivist is actually an attempt to enforce the will of a "majority" (sometimes a minority) upon others with whom no agreement can be made.
The attempt at objectivity breaks down when one person makes an objection.
This is why morality and moral rules have a history.

None of this has anything to do with the concrete, and I see no point in bringing pigs into the discussion.
When you and I see a pig, we do not see the same thing, though we might agree that it has two ears and an odour. But not even a PIG is apprehended by us objectively. We will disagree with how bad or good the smell is; how good bacon tastes, or if you would rather have pork.
The same problems with objectivity exist in the concrete as in the abstract moral world too.

[Peter Holmes]

I think you might not even need to employ this dichotomy.

Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.
To a child it is a cartoon character. to some it is a filty dirty animal; to others the most higly intelligent farm animal greater even than a dog; a social and sociable pet to some; others it prepresents cash or a commission for sale; to a Man from New Guinea a pig is pure gold, as a man with no pigs is no man at all - a "rubbish man"; to many a pig is prospective food, an item to decide how high the oven should be set to; bacon or pork.

With all this diversity of view points, how can you say a pig is just a pig?
Then how much more difficult is "ethics", "honour", "murder", "hate" etc...

To take just one thing you say: 'Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.'

Whatever that means, 'how we apprehend it' doesn't matter. A pig is a real thing. Moral rightness and wrongness are not real things - to my knowledge. So if objectivity is to do with reality, since there are no moral things, morality can't be objective. Full stop.

You are missing the point. It really does not matter if a pig is real or not, humans observe the world subjectively. The dichotomy is not applicable.

Objectivity only applies when humans agree on arbitrary criteria. Then it only applies to remove personal opinions on the subject so that agreement can persist. Once all is pared away these agreements are historically and culturally determined and therefore subjective.

Add a different perspective, as from an additional person, then the "objectivity" crumbles away, unless a new agreement is forthcoming.
What we witness in the moral objectivist is actually an attempt to enforce the will of a "majority" (sometimes a minority) upon others with whom no agreement can be made.
The attempt at objectivity breaks down when one person makes an objection.
This is why morality and moral rules have a history.

None of this has anything to do with the concrete, and I see no point in bringing pigs into the discussion.
When you and I see a pig, we do not see the same thing, though we might agree that it has two ears and an odour. But not even a PIG is apprehended by us objectively. We will disagree with how bad or good the smell is; how good bacon tastes, or if you would rather have pork.
The same problems with objectivity exist in the concrete as in the abstract moral world too.

No, you're missing the point. What we call objectivity - independence from opinion when considering the facts - is what we say it is - as is what we call truth. The claim that they aren't is metaphysical nonsense.

And to say this has nothing to do with the concrete - real things? - is absurd. You seem to be channelling Russell's table nonsense which, sadly, still corrupts trainee philosphers' thinking.

[Sculptor]

To take just one thing you say: 'Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.'

Whatever that means, 'how we apprehend it' doesn't matter. A pig is a real thing. Moral rightness and wrongness are not real things - to my knowledge. So if objectivity is to do with reality, since there are no moral things, morality can't be objective. Full stop.

You are missing the point. It really does not matter if a pig is real or not, humans observe the world subjectively. The dichotomy is not applicable.

Objectivity only applies when humans agree on arbitrary criteria. Then it only applies to remove personal opinions on the subject so that agreement can persist. Once all is pared away these agreements are historically and culturally determined and therefore subjective.

Add a different perspective, as from an additional person, then the "objectivity" crumbles away, unless a new agreement is forthcoming.
What we witness in the moral objectivist is actually an attempt to enforce the will of a "majority" (sometimes a minority) upon others with whom no agreement can be made.
The attempt at objectivity breaks down when one person makes an objection.
This is why morality and moral rules have a history.

None of this has anything to do with the concrete, and I see no point in bringing pigs into the discussion.
When you and I see a pig, we do not see the same thing, though we might agree that it has two ears and an odour. But not even a PIG is apprehended by us objectively. We will disagree with how bad or good the smell is; how good bacon tastes, or if you would rather have pork.
The same problems with objectivity exist in the concrete as in the abstract moral world too.

No, you're missing the point. What we call objectivity - independence from opinion when considering the facts - is what we say it is - as is what we call truth. The claim that they aren't is metaphysical nonsense.

And to say this has nothing to do with the concrete - real things? - is absurd. You seem to be channelling Russell's table nonsense which, sadly, still corrupts trainee philosphers' thinking.

Try not to be a c*nt.

[Skepdick]

Are features of reality discovered or invented?

Invented. Obviously. Reality has no features. Show me a feature and a non-feature.

Do descriptions create or change the things being described? This is mystical codswallop.

Things are invented too. It is precisely descriptions which invent things. Show me a thing and a non-thing.

For "mystical codswallop" you sure practice it diligently.

[Skepdick]

Whatever that means, 'how we apprehend it' doesn't matter. A pig is a real thing. Moral rightness and wrongness are not real things.

There is nothing that isn't real in reality.

To reject morality (rightness and wrongness) as real is to argue for nihilism.

We've covered this. You reject nihilism, therefore morality is real.

[Terrapin Station]

Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.
To a child it is a cartoon character. to some it is a filty dirty animal; to others the most higly intelligent farm animal greater even than a dog; a social and sociable pet to some; others it prepresents cash or a commission for sale; to a Man from New Guinea a pig is pure gold, as a man with no pigs is no man at all - a "rubbish man"; to many a pig is prospective food, an item to decide how high the oven should be set to; bacon or pork.

With all this diversity of view points, how can you say a pig is just a pig?
Then how much more difficult is "ethics", "honour", "murder", "hate" etc...

Objectively, it is "just what it is."

That has nothing to do with how anyone perceives it. It doesn't have anything to do with whether there even are any people. That's irrelevant.

Basically, for any talk about objectivity/objective stuff, an easy "trick" to grasp the idea is to imagine that all people cease to exist. What's left is the objective stuff, and however that stuff is after people cease to exist is what that objective stuff is like, objectively.

As soon as you introduce people and how they perceive things, how they conceptualize things, etc. you're going to confuse yourself re talking about objectivity.

[Skepdick]

Basically, for any talk about objectivity/objective stuff, an easy "trick" to grasp the idea is to imagine that all people cease to exist. What's left is the objective stuff, and however that stuff is after people cease to exist is what that objective stuff is like, objectively.

You grasp nothing, you anthropocentric idiot.

Imagine all dinosaurs ceased to exist. What's left is the objective stuff and however that stuff is after dinosaurs cease to exist is what that objective stuff is like, objectively.

Repeat this dumb thought experiment from the PoV of any and all extinct species and humans are always part of the objective stuff.

Because we exist and we are part of the objective stuff.

[Sculptor]

Although clearly a pig is a real thing; people do not apprehend the pig objectively.
To a child it is a cartoon character. to some it is a filty dirty animal; to others the most higly intelligent farm animal greater even than a dog; a social and sociable pet to some; others it prepresents cash or a commission for sale; to a Man from New Guinea a pig is pure gold, as a man with no pigs is no man at all - a "rubbish man"; to many a pig is prospective food, an item to decide how high the oven should be set to; bacon or pork.

With all this diversity of view points, how can you say a pig is just a pig?
Then how much more difficult is "ethics", "honour", "murder", "hate" etc...

Objectively, it is "just what it is."

That has nothing to do with how anyone perceives it. It doesn't have anything to do with whether there even are any people. That's irrelevant.

Basically, for any talk about objectivity/objective stuff, an easy "trick" to grasp the idea is to imagine that all people cease to exist. What's left is the objective stuff, and however that stuff is after people cease to exist is what that objective stuff is like, objectively.

As soon as you introduce people and how they perceive things, how they conceptualize things, etc. you're going to confuse yourself re talking about objectivity.

But in the context of human understanding (which we are talking about), it is of no consequence that a pig is a pig is a thing-in-itself, because humans do not understand it that way.
When I see a pig, it is seen through the lens of my experience. I cannot see a pig the same way as a vegan would see the pig; or as Onkha from PNG would see the pig.

GIven that is the case, how much more difficult is it for each of us to conceive a moral principle, moral rule, or even a law.
Whilst we can objectively measure the length of a pig's snout, or agree that the definition of murder is the illegal killing of a human we are no closer to morals or pig being objective.

And so, if you were following the discussion, the dichotomy used by PH is not what it appears to be.
I do not have to know anything about you to be able to say that you cannot see a pig in the same way I do. Becasue you cannot.

[Terrapin Station]

But in the context of human understanding (which we are talking about),

When we're talking about objectivity, we are not talking about human understanding!

Objective stuff is the stuff that's person or more specifically mind-independent. So if we're talking about human understanding, we're not talking about something that's person or mind-independent.

Whilst we can objectively measure . . .

We're not objectively measuring anything. We're measuring the objective extension.