Is morality objective or subjective?

[Terrapin Station]

If we have a society consisting of, say, 100 million people, and there's a group 10,000 strong that says, "One ought to not supply alcohol to minors," that doesn't imply that one ought to not supply alcohol to minors.

And in that society, if 99,999,998 people say "One ought to not supply alcohol to minors," that doesn't imply that one ought to not supply alcohol to minors.

No matter how many people we're talking about, no matter what percentage of a society we're talking about, the fact that they say one ought to not do something doesn't imply that one ought to not do that thing.

Well duuuuh! When you conceptualise what people say as non-causal states of mind then nothing we say/think ever implies anything.

What would a "behavioral ought" even be? What would be an example of one?

[Skepdick]

What would a "behavioral ought" even be? What would be an example of one?

It's just word dude. You take yourself too seriously.

I ought to make coffee <--- I describe what I want the future to look like.
I make coffee <---- I reify my vision.

It's a future contingent with a reasonable degree of certainty.

[Terrapin Station]

What would a "behavioral ought" even be? What would be an example of one?

It's just word dude. You take yourself too seriously.

I ought to make coffee <--- I describe what I want the future to look like.
I make coffee <---- I reify my vision.

It's a future contingent with a reasonable degree of certainty.

This is a bit of a tangent but I was curious about your view about this earlier. What about, say, if someone says, "The military ought to not bomb civilians in foreign countries" and the person in question is a 70 year-old who isn't in the military? How do they "reify their vision" in your view?

[Skepdick]

This is a bit of a tangent but I was curious about your view about this earlier. What about, say, if someone says, "The military ought to not bomb civilians in foreign countries" and the person in question is a 70 year-old who isn't in the military? How do they "reify their vision" in your view?

They can't! Might is necessary for right.

It's wrong to bomb country X.
They ought not do it (so say we all).
And the military still does it.

You were powerless to prevent immoral outcomes.

Sucks for you.

[Terrapin Station]

This is a bit of a tangent but I was curious about your view about this earlier. What about, say, if someone says, "The military ought to not bomb civilians in foreign countries" and the person in question is a 70 year-old who isn't in the military? How do they "reify their vision" in your view?

They can't.

Might is necessary for right.

You gonna work your way up to God soon...

Okay, but so would you say that they just shouldn't bother even having an opinion about whether we bomb civilians, or what?

[Skepdick]

Okay, but so would you say that they just shouldn't bother even having an opinion about whether we bomb civilians, or what?

You are welcome to hold your opinion - nobody's going to stop you from having it.

But there's a continuum between bitching about the military bombing civilians and actively working towards reifying the preventive measures.

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, but so would you say that they just shouldn't bother even having an opinion about whether we bomb civilians, or what?

You are welcome to hold your opinion - nobody's going to stop you from having it.

But there's a continuum between bitching about the military bombing civilians and actively working towards reifying your belief.

Sure. I'm just asking you how they reify their belief. You'd say they can't, no? So they can't work towards it.

A lot of morality has to do with telling other people what they can and can't, should and shouldn't do. You seem to be looking at it solely as opinions about what oneself should do, where you see it only mattering if one then does what one thought one should do.

[Skepdick]

Sure. I'm just asking you how they reify their belief. You'd say they can't, no? So they can't work towards it.

I am not saying they can't. I am saying that bitching about it in the pub ain't reification.

A lot of morality has to do with telling other people what they can and can't, should and shouldn't do. You seem to be looking at it solely as opinions about what oneself should do, where you see it only mattering if one then does what one thought one should do.

So that requires other people act on your behalf no?

Otherwise, if it's just a circle jerk - we all agree with each other that what the military is doing is bad and still - nobody actually reifies the agreement/prevention.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure. I'm just asking you how they reify their belief. You'd say they can't, no? So they can't work towards it.

I am not saying they can't.

Sure. So how do they reify it?

[Skepdick]

Sure. So how do they reify it?

Ask them.

Explicitly ask: how do you know that your reification mechanism is working?

[Terrapin Station]

Sure. So how do they reify it?

Ask them.

Explicitly ask: how do you know that your reification mechanism is working?

So we can't say how someone would reify a normative stance like that? If it just depends on what they consider to be a reification, then how would any answer not count as a reification--even if it's just holding the view/just bitching at the bar?

[Skepdick]

So we can't say how someone would reify a normative stance like that?

You can! Ask them - they will tell you HOW they do it.

I do not have the information you are looking for (so I am redirecting your request to the people who do)

If it just depends on what they consider to be a reification, then how would any answer not count as a reification--even if it's just holding the view/just bitching at the bar?

Yeah, I can be totally cynical about it.

Some people don't want to reify their oughts.
They just want to vent their frustration given their inability to reify their oughts.

So, is debate a venting session or a reification session for you?

[Skepdick]

If you want a word for it... Anergy (from John Gall's systematics). A neologism of anger and energy.

Any state or condition of the Universe, or any portion of it, that requires the expenditure of human effort or ingenuity to bring it into line with human desires, needs, or pleasures is defined as an Anergy-State. Anergy is measured in units of effort required to bring about the desired change.
Now we are in the position to state a Theorem of sweeping generality: “The Total Amount Of Anergy In The Universe Is Fixed”.

[Terrapin Station]

Some people don't want to reify their oughts.
They just want to vent their frustration given their inability to reify their oughts.

But you won't even say what counts as reifying their oughts in the first place. So how can we say that they don't want to do so if we can't say what it is to do so? It's apparently just up to them.

[Skepdick]

But you won't even say what counts as reifying their oughts in the first place.

It's in the word "reification". Making the abstract concrete.

You can't tell what's the reification of OUGHT NOT murder? Stop a murder!
You can't tell what's the reification of improve longevity of human life? Save a life!