Is morality objective or subjective?

[Terrapin Station]

What in the world are you talking about? What sameness are you talking about?

YOU claimed that "choosing" is "deciding". You claimed sameness.

Provide the criterion which obtains.

I'm asking you why you wrote "Decisions require information."

Why are you saying that decisions require information? They require that based on what? How are you deciding that distinction, that they require information?

[Skepdick]

I'm asking you why you wrote "Decisions require information."

Why are you saying that decisions require information? They require that based on what? How are you deciding that distinction, that they require information?

By definition of what information is.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm asking you why you wrote "Decisions require information."

Why are you saying that decisions require information? They require that based on what? How are you deciding that distinction, that they require information?

By definition of what information is.

So it's a distinction decidable on the definition you're using?

[Skepdick]

So it's a distinction decidable on the definition you're using?

What do you think is being distinguished?

1 bit of information IS the answer to a yes/no question.

Is X the same as Y?

[Terrapin Station]

So it's a distinction decidable on the definition you're using?

What do you think is being distinguished?

A difference between choices and decisions, where we're giving a requirement for just one side.

[Skepdick]

A difference between choices and decisions, where we're giving a requirement for just one side.

It wasn't a requirement. They ARE different.

Since you are assuming "sameness" (e.g you are wrong) I offered you a counter-example to correct your misunderstanding.

[Terrapin Station]

A difference between choices and decisions, where we're giving a requirement for just one side.

It wasn't a requirement.

Then why did you write the word "require"?

[Skepdick]

Then why did you write the word "require"?

Because it's just one way of expressing it.

Do you want me to express it differently?

Information is an input to a decision.
Information resolves undecidability.
Decisions process information.

[Terrapin Station]

Then why did you write the word "require"?

Because it's just one way of expressing it.

It would be a weird way of expressing something that's not a requirement.

[Skepdick]

It would be a weird way of expressing something that's not a requirement.

So pick one of the other ways I gave you.

They are semantically equivalent.

[Terrapin Station]

It would be a weird way of expressing something that's not a requirement.

So pick one of the other ways I gave you.

They are semantically equivalent.

Okay, so if we don't have information, do we have a decision?

[Skepdick]

Okay, so if we don't have information, do we have a decision?

Observe, that's a yes/no question....

It's recursive.

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, so if we don't have information, do we have a decision?

Observe, that's a yes/no question....

It's recursive.

I don't get it. So is that a yes or no?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I don't at all think that this implies a lack of credibility. If we're talking about stuff that only exists as personal opinions, beliefs, feelings, etc. then that's no knock against that stuff. That's simply a fact about it. It's the nature of the stuff in question.

Whatever are personal opinions, beliefs, feeling, etc. cannot be fact until they are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

Note Kant continuum of what is fact;

• 1. Personal opinion = high subjectivity not verified nor justified.
  
  2. Belief = lower subjectivity, reasonable objectivity as verified and justified by self only,
  
  3. Fact or knowledge = no personal subjectivity, verified and justified within a credible FSK.

The most one can say with 1 & 2 is it a fact the person is having a personal opinion and belief, but,
2 can only be a fact when personal belief is verified and justified within a credible FSK.

This is common with scientific fact/truth/knowledge where the individual scientist has a hunch or intuition of a possible truth.
He then set about proving to himself and justifying it is true with his highest personal conviction.
But it can only be a scientific fact when it is processed within the scientific FSK.

Imagine one person exists and that's it.

That one person thinks to herself--"That's a lovely sunrise."

Is it a fact that she thought to herself "That's a lovely sunrise"?

Yes, it is a fact she was thinking,
but "That's a lovely sunrise" is not a fact itself. It is merely her subjective opinion.

But note, "That's a lovely sunrise"? can be a fact within an aesthetic FSK.
Where there is a large community of sunrise lovers via videos, photography, paintings and if the majority of them agreed 'that's a lovely sunrise' that is a fact but only conditioned within the specific aesthetic FSK.
It is objective and can be quantified if people are willing to bid and pay for 'that lovely sunrise' in photo, video or painting in Dollars.

Note, that
Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa, is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact, but only conditioned within the Miss Universe FSK.
Do you deny this is a fact, i.e. a Miss-Universe fact and historical fact?
It is objective and independent of individuals opinions and belief but conditioned upon the Miss Universe FSK.

[Skepdick]

I don't get it. So is that a yes or no?

Are you asking me for information so that you can decide?