Is morality objective or subjective?

[Terrapin Station]

Great! That's sufficient for me to claim that metaphysically you consider separation in space-time as sufficient criterion for difference.

Yes. I told you long ago that I am a nominalist, by the way. This is part of the core view or nominalism.

Now tell me what's a sufficient criterion for "sameness".

I said this already. A single thing, at one spatiotemporal location.

What makes you refer to two necessarily-different things using the same word?

Nothing. You can refer to a single thing at one spatiotemporal location whether you're using the same word or different words.

But you don't ONLY use the "same token" to refer to "the same referent".

You can, but not necessarily, sure.

You use the "same token" to refer to a multitude of different spacio-temporal referents.

Again, you can, but not necessarily.

The relationship between token and referents is 1-to-Many, not 1-to-1. Grouping/classification.

It depends on the token(s), the referent, and how the person in question is thinking about it.

I imagine you refer to a whole lot of different things by the referent "facts"

It depends on whether we're talking about a definition or characterization or whether we're talking about what the term can "range over" in terms of particulars.

Is this ever going to get around to the thread topic, by the way?

[Skepdick]

Yes. I told you long ago that I am a nominalist, by the way. This is part of the core view or nominalism.

This is nonsensical.

If nominally everything is different from everything else, then ANY conception of "nominalism" is an OUGHT.

Implicitly.

I said this already. A single thing, at one spatiotemporal location.

Great. So where is morality located?

Nothing. You can refer to a single thing at one spatiotemporal location whether you're using the same word or different words.

So which spatio-temporal location are you referring to as "morality" ?

You can, but not necessarily, sure.

You use the "same token" to refer to a multitude of different spacio-temporal referents.

So what tokens do you propose we should use to distinguish A from А?

It depends on the token(s), the referent, and how the person in question is thinking about it.

The way YOU are thinking about them is that A and А are different in terms of spatio-temporal location. So, in so far as I understand how you are using the term "things" A and А are different things.

Beyond their spatio-temporal identity, is there any other difference between A and А?

It depends on whether we're talking about a definition or characterization or whether we're talking about what the term can "range over" in terms of particulars.

You can't even tell me what you mean by "sameness", adding more words to the equation isn't helping your case.

Is this ever going to get around to the thread topic, by the way?

From where I am looking it's on-topic. Just not according to your heuristic/interpretation of "topicality".

[Terrapin Station]

This is nonsensical.

If nominally everything is different from everything else, then ANY conception of "nominalism" is an OUGHT.

Holy crap are you a moron.

[Skepdick]

Holy crap are you a moron.

Well, if Philosophy is nominally done the way you claim it's done then apparently you just attacked the person and not their argument.

So... at least one of us is a moron.

Nominally, it's you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Any claim of moral rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety - whether with reference to intentions/purposes, or to consequences - or to programming supposedly hard-wired into the human brain - and so on - any such claim can only ever express a moral opinion, even if everyone holds that opinion.

There are no moral facts, but only facts about which there can be moral opinions. Whatever facts we use to explain a moral opinion, it remains an opinion. And others can use the same facts differently, or different facts, to explain a different moral opinion.

I think the quasi-religious determination (desperation?) of moral realists and objectivists to demonstrate the existence of moral facts has at least four related sources: we value what we call objectivity; we associate subjectivity with selfishness and irrationality; we care deeply about our moral values and judgements; and, to be consistent, we apply our moral values and judgements universally - not limited to time and place - so they feel objective. It's an understandable misunderstanding.

To me, the above is a strawman.
Note my views re morality-proper,

Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

• PH: Any claim of moral rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety - whether with reference to intentions/purposes, or to consequences - or to programming supposedly hard-wired into the human brain - and so on - any such claim can only ever express a moral opinion, even if everyone holds that opinion.

These are merely Judgments and Decisions, opinions and beliefs which do not belong to morality-proper.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Different people??

What is the question or confusion there?

You stated;

• The problems are that:
  (1) Being mental phenomena, they're not objective in the sense of being person/mind/belief/bias/etc.-independent.
  (2) The contents of the normatives are not universal. Different people feel that different things ought to be the case.
  (3) The normatives in question are only facts in the respect that particular individuals hold particular normatives.
  (4) The fact that an individual holds a normative implies no normative (not even the normative that the individual holds).
  (5) That any normatives are statistically normal, and even if any were universal, this wouldn't imply any normatives (not even the normatives in question).

I don't agree with (2).
The physical referent of normatives are universal in all humans, thus the same for all people.

You stated, "isn't there an "embedded" "should/ought" in ensuring human survival .."

Say what? I never said any such thing.

You stated,

Isn't there an "embedded" "should/ought" in ensuring human survival, improved human well-being and constructing a hospitable environment? And aren't there "embedded" "should/oughts" in what counts as human well-being?

Perhaps you want to retract or edit the above post?

To me the above is on the right tract to morality-proper.

Do all normal people with various differences feel differently in ensuring to survive?

I also didn't write anything like "all (x) people feel differently." It seems like you're not understanding what I'm writing and that you're even getting confused over what I'm writing versus what I'm quoting to respond to.

You are the one who had forgotten what you wrote.

Based on what you wrote, the embedded ought/should as embedded via the DNA/RNA, then all normal people will act from the same based of ought/should thus will not feel differently.
Only the abnormal [psychiatric cases] will feel differently.

In this case, the striving to survive is represented by its corresponding physical referent and mental processes.

That seems gobbledygooky to me.

That is because you don't have necessary depth in the neurosciences to understand the above.

In this case, it is so evident ALL normal human will strive to survive to avoid premature death.

What you're ignoring is that "normal humans strive to survive" HAS NO IMPLICATION FOR ANYTHING.

The opposite of surviving is death.
It is obvious striving to survive is to avoid premature death, for some it is avoiding eternal death.
Again you are ignorant of such basic facts.

This ought_ness is obviously a fact of human nature.

Again, that has no implication for anything, even that normative itself.

As explained above, the above oughtness to survive implies avoiding premature death and that is a fact of human nature.
Which 'normal' person would not strive to survive at least till inevitable natural death.
I am surprise you are in denial of the above which is so obvious.
This what the ideology of analytic philosophy do to its followers, i.e. make them blind.

[Peter Holmes]

Different people??

What is the question or confusion there?

You stated;

• The problems are that:
  (1) Being mental phenomena, they're not objective in the sense of being person/mind/belief/bias/etc.-independent.
  (2) The contents of the normatives are not universal. Different people feel that different things ought to be the case.
  (3) The normatives in question are only facts in the respect that particular individuals hold particular normatives.
  (4) The fact that an individual holds a normative implies no normative (not even the normative that the individual holds).
  (5) That any normatives are statistically normal, and even if any were universal, this wouldn't imply any normatives (not even the normatives in question).

I don't agree with (2).
The physical referent of normatives are universal in all humans, thus the same for all people.

You stated, "isn't there an "embedded" "should/ought" in ensuring human survival .."

Say what? I never said any such thing.

You stated,

Isn't there an "embedded" "should/ought" in ensuring human survival, improved human well-being and constructing a hospitable environment? And aren't there "embedded" "should/oughts" in what counts as human well-being?

Perhaps you want to retract or edit the above post?

To me the above is on the right tract to morality-proper.

Do all normal people with various differences feel differently in ensuring to survive?

I also didn't write anything like "all (x) people feel differently." It seems like you're not understanding what I'm writing and that you're even getting confused over what I'm writing versus what I'm quoting to respond to.

You are the one who had forgotten what you wrote.

Based on what you wrote, the embedded ought/should as embedded via the DNA/RNA, then all normal people will act from the same based of ought/should thus will not feel differently.
Only the abnormal [psychiatric cases] will feel differently.

In this case, the striving to survive is represented by its corresponding physical referent and mental processes.

That seems gobbledygooky to me.

That is because you don't have necessary depth in the neurosciences to understand the above.

In this case, it is so evident ALL normal human will strive to survive to avoid premature death.

What you're ignoring is that "normal humans strive to survive" HAS NO IMPLICATION FOR ANYTHING.

The opposite of surviving is death.
It is obvious striving to survive is to avoid premature death, for some it is avoiding eternal death.
Again you are ignorant of such basic facts.

This ought_ness is obviously a fact of human nature.

Again, that has no implication for anything, even that normative itself.

As explained above, the above oughtness to survive implies avoiding premature death and that is a fact of human nature.
Which 'normal' person would not strive to survive at least till inevitable natural death.
I am surprise you are in denial of the above which is so obvious.
This what the ideology of analytic philosophy do to its followers, i.e. make them blind.

'Nobody wants to die; therefore killing people is morally wrong.' Even if the premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow.

'Everybody wants to die; therefore killing people is not morally wrong.' Ditto. No factual premise can entail a moral conclusion.

[Skepdick]

'Nobody wants to die; therefore killing people is morally wrong.' Even if the premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow.

'Everybody wants to die; therefore killing people is not morally wrong.' Ditto. No factual premise can entail a moral conclusion.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

The conclusion is true - the premise doesn't matter.

[Peter Holmes]

So, killing people both is and is not morally wrong. So much for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't agree with (2).
The physical referent of normatives are universal in all humans, thus the same for all people.

For many commonly held "oughts" I'm a "different person."--I have a lot of unusual moral views. And for almost all others, I know some "different people"

Perhaps you want to retract or edit the above post?

Ah--I didn't remember typing exactly that, and it didn't make sense to me out of context.

Re the context: I was explaining to Skepdick that morality isn't morality (a la what the vast majority of people are talking about/doing with respect to what they're naming "morality") if we're not talking about normatives. He said "Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing. Morality is about constructing a hospitable environment . . ." So using his own wording (which is one thing that threw me off--that's not wording I'd ever use on my own; I used it because I was repeating it back to him), I was trying to say, although I didn't make this explicit enough, that the very idea of "ensuring human survival" has an "embedded" "ought" in it, because logically, one has to think or feel that "We ought to ensure human survival" in order to be focused on that. Otherwise one would be neutral about ensuring human survival or one might even think "We ought to NOT ensure human survival."

Based on what you wrote, the embedded ought/should as embedded via the DNA/RNA,

No, no, that's nothing like what I was saying. I was saying that logically, "Morality is the effort of ensuring continued human survival . . . well-being" etc. implies that one is thinking normatives a la "We OUGHT to ensure human survival," "We OUGHT to ensure well-being," "Such and such OUGHT to count as well-being," etc. One could just as well think, "We OUGHT to NOT ensure human survival" and so on (and some people do think that).

then all normal people will act from the same based of ought/should thus will not feel differently.
Only the abnormal [psychiatric cases] will feel differently.

There's nothing normative about statistical normalcy. You keep assuming that there is.

That is because you don't have necessary depth in the neurosciences to understand the above.

Holy crap are you continually patronizing, lol. Would you like to compare our academic backgrounds?

The opposite of surviving is death.

And?

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with normatives.

As explained above, the above oughtness to survive implies avoiding premature death

There is no ought to "avoiding premature death."

and that is a fact of human nature.

It might be a statistical norm, but STATISTICAL NORMS DO NOT IMPLY NORMATIVES. To suggest that they do is to fall to the argumentum ad populum fallacy. You keep simply assuming that statistical norms imply normatives, but they don't. It's simply falling prey to a tendency to be conformist.

[Skepdick]

I was trying to say, although I didn't make this explicit enough, that the very idea of "ensuring human survival" has an "embedded" "ought" in it, because logically, one has to think or feel that "We ought to ensure human survival" in order to be focused on that. Otherwise one would be neutral about ensuring human survival or one might even think "We ought to NOT ensure human survival."

It doesn't have an "embedded ought".

You are projecting your reference frame (your model-interpretation) onto my observations. You are embedding the "ought" where there isn't one and you lack the self-awareness to catch yourself doing it.

If people were neutral about ensuring human survival then you would observe that human longevity remains steady over time. It would neither improve nor worsen. Homeostasis.

If people were thinking we ought to NOT ensure human survival then you would've observed human longevity worsening over time.

Taken together with the free will theorem (our choices are not a function of the past) then at every moment in time humans made choices such that longevity improved.

That's not to say that every single decision was optimal towards this goal - some individuals would've certainly undermined it. We call those people bad/evil and we weed them out.

The nett result is as observed. The prediction is that this trend will continue. The future will keep getting better and better than the past.

OUGHT you continue this trend? Up to you... But if you go against it (try to harm people) - we'll fuck you up.

[Terrapin Station]

If people were neutral about ensuring human survival then you would observe that human longevity remains steady over time. Neither improves nor worsens.
If people were thinking we ought to NOT ensure human survival then you would observe that human longevity worsens over time.

Not supposed to be responding to you, but it's worth clearing up your confused thinking here:

If there are a million people and 990,000 think one thing where only 10,000 think something different,, and where we're talking about communal trends, the 10,000 outliers aren't going to have much of an effect on what happens.

This implies nothing about the fact that in order to work to ensure human survival, you have to think or feel that we OUGHT to do that contra alternatives.

[Skepdick]

Not supposed to be responding to you, but it's worth clearing up your confused thinking here:

If there are a million people and 990,000 think one thing where only 10,000 think something different,, and where we're talking about communal trends, the 10,000 outliers aren't going to have much of an effect on what happens.

Yeah! Which is why I said the sum total of choices.

And which is why I kept raking you over the coals over the causality of your moral predispositions.

Non-causal pre-dispositions are inconsequential. If you aren't willing to act on your beliefs - then your beliefs don't matter in practice.

This implies nothing about the fact that in order to work to ensure human survival, you have to think or feel that we OUGHT to do that contra alternatives.

Leave your arbitrary implications/interpretations out of this, moron.

There are three possible outcomes:

1. Longevity remains steady (homeostasis/indifference).
2. Longevity worsens (inherent value)
3. Longevity increases (inherent value)

Whatever humans do or don't do one of these three outcomes will reify.

Whether you are programmed to do it; or you are consciously choosing to do it depends on whether you believe in determinism of free will. But the fact of improvement in longevity obtains.

[Terrapin Station]

Not supposed to be responding to you, but it's worth clearing up your confused thinking here:

If there are a million people and 990,000 think one thing where only 10,000 think something different,, and where we're talking about communal trends, the 10,000 outliers aren't going to have much of an effect on what happens.

Yeah! Which is why I said the sum total of choices.

And which is why I kept raking you over the coals over the causality of your moral predispositions.

Non-causal pre-dispositions are inconsequential. If you aren't willing to act on your beliefs - then your beliefs don't matter in practice.

This implies nothing about the fact that in order to work to ensure human survival, you have to think or feel that we OUGHT to do that contra alternatives.

Leave your arbitrary implications/interpretations out of this, moron.

There are three possible outcomes:

1. Longevity remains steady (homeostasis/indifference).
2. Longevity worsens (inherent value)
3. Longevity increases (inherent value)

Whatever humans do or don't do one of these three outcomes will reify.

My comments about this stuff have nothing to do with whether anything "matters" or not. It's a fact that there are some people who think very different things when it comes to moral stances, and they're not getting something wrong in thinking that. Their very different opinions may have no impact on anything, they might not even act on them, and they might not "matter" in your opinion, but who cares? It's still a fact that they have the different moral stance and they're not getting anything wrong in having that different moral stance.

It's not a fact that they ought to have the more common moral stance.

[Skepdick]

My comments about this stuff have nothing to do with whether anything "matters" or not. It's a fact that there are some people who think very different things when it comes to moral stances, and they're not getting something wrong in thinking that. Their very different opinions may have no impact on anything, they might not even act on them, and they might not "matter" in your opinion, but who cares? It's still a fact that they have the different moral stance and they're not getting anything wrong in having that different moral stance.

You don't seem to grok the scale of the problem and you continue to confuse social norms with morality.

Morality is about individual and collective survival and well-being survival.
Social norms are about inter-personal boundaries.

Wearing a mask during a pandemic is about morality.
Wearing pants in public is about social norms.

There's nothing inherently wrong/harmful about NOT wearing pants in public, but you aren't free to do it and if that's the hill you want to die on - go for it. Fight for your rights! The court system awaits you and your money.