Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Sure, so it's an action by ______ on _______?

The teacher on the student.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure, so it's an action by ______ on _______?

The teacher on the student.

But "being able to learn" is a capability of the student, no?

[Skepdick]

But "being able to learn" is a capability of the student, no?

Do you distinguish between able and wanting?

[Terrapin Station]

But "being able to learn" is a capability of the student, no?

Do you distinguish between able and wanting?

Sure.

(By the way, we can continue later, but I'm at the time when I need to see if my car is still on York Street.)

[Sculptor]

But:

"That donut is good"

and

"That painting is bad"

are not moral judgments, because they don't have anything to do with interpersonal behavior.

That ain't necessarily so.
Paintings that show the disembowlelling of an innocent child would attract many moral judgements.
Same for doughnoughts.
Nothing is completely apolitical.

[Skepdick]

That ain't necessarily so.
Paintings that show the disembowlelling of an innocent child would attract many moral judgements.
Same for doughnoughts.
Nothing is completely apolitical.

Only the thoughts you keep to yourself are apolitical.

Anything expressed will be mis-interpreted by somebody, somewhere, somewhen for somewhy.

[Sculptor]

film-eternal-jew.jpg

Oh look here's something Terrapin Station thinks can have no moral reaction.



Maybe this goes along with his clever idea that Hitler is not responsible for the holocaust, but only the grunts that shovelled the ovens and swirched on the Zyklon B.

[Terrapin Station]

But:

"That donut is good"

and

"That painting is bad"

are not moral judgments, because they don't have anything to do with interpersonal behavior.

That ain't necessarily so.
Paintings that show the disembowlelling of an innocent child would attract many moral judgements.
Same for doughnoughts.
Nothing is completely apolitical.

I wasn't saying it's impossible to make a moral judgment about artworks or food, but normally "That donut is good" and "That painting is bad" aren't moral judgments.

[VVilliam]

Morally is not objectively sourced, but subjectively sourced.

In that, human beings externalize the senses of mortality they go by, through projecting these onto the objective experience they are having.
In part, the morals which are subjectively built, have been influenced by the objective experience being had by humans, as they [often mistakenly] interpret the external world in relation to the firmly held morals each individual has established as a fixture in their makeup. The firmly held morals have become beliefs. Largely undebatable beliefs. [Beliefs not up for debate]

Whatever beliefs an individual has, if they are immovable fixtures, they create a feedback loop between the subjective mind and the objective experience that mind is going through.

The mind determines the outcome, but still has a vast job to do in relation to the all powerful universe it resides within.

We know the importance of being able to adjust laws which are made. [Those particular changes often grind at the slowest gear ratio, requiring lots of time wasting in discussion and debate. Meantime, "Witches are burned".]

Laws which remain fixed [such as religious ones - re 'belief' I have mentioned] spell eventual death to human beings.

The fluidity of the objective experience and the beliefs superimposed over that natural objective experience, force unnaturalism into the objective experience, attempting to slow or even halt the forward fluidity of the objective universe through fixtures [think "Water" as fluidity and "Dam" as fixture]

However - the silver lining in every cloud - is that with more fluidity, human beings would be empowered to work with, rather than against nature [the objective] whilst maintaining a moral presence otherwise missing from the objective...and missing, because human beings are resisting placing it therein.

So subjective morality does have a purpose in relation to objective experience, if only those with it could see it that way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

........
I choose to pay little attention to what if anything transcends what can be conceived which is why I call myself an atheist with regard to transcendent 'facts'. You , however believe in the existence of transcendent 'facts' but only if they are what you choose to name as 'moral' facts.

You are right that Peter believes in the existence of transcendent 'facts' i.e. facts that exist beyond the human conditions.
This is why Kant would call him an Empirical Idealist, i.e. what is ultimately empirically real to him is idealistic [transcendental] - i.e. mere words and names like 'that which is the case' 'a matter of a fact, state of affairs.

On the other hand, we Empirical Realists, i.e. whatever that is cognized [humanly] as real empirically and philosophically [not blindly] within a specific FSK is that which is real.

The universe existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone. It existed, exists and will exist 'beyond human conditions' - whatever that means. And its existence was not, is not and will not be transcendent - whatever that means.

Your nonsense comes from mistaking our ways of describing reality for the reality that we describe. Our descriptions are necessarily human, of course. We can have no other perspective. But the non-human WHAT that we describe is 'beyond human conditions'. Of course. What sort of idiocy would it be to think otherwise?

• PH: The universe existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone.

I agree with the above from the common sense and conventional perspective which is based on the assumption that reality is independent of the human conditions.

However at a higher level of philosophical consideration your above statement cannot be true.
One point is your claim is conditioned upon the terms 'before' and 'after' which are time-based.
It is argued 'time' is not an independent thing but conditioned upon human conditions.

The other point is,
human beings are intricately part and parcel of reality all-there-is as REALIZED reality.
Thus whatever is realized reality, it has to be conditioned to human beings.

If you insist at the higher philosophical consideration that,

• PH: The universe existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone.

that is a mere speculation.

There are other counters to argue your above assertion cannot be true at a more refined philosophical level.

This is like how QM's weird views of the physical world in contrast to common sense and conventional sense.

It is not easy to switch perspectives.
Your constipation of knowledge is because you are stuck in a dogmatic silo.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not anticipate at all your point is about only one person exists and there is no one else, which is an impossibility in reality.

It would have been more clear if you have stated "..ONLY one person exists and there are no others.'
If that is the case, I would not have agreed with such an unrealistic scenario.

Even in that misunderstanding, I only stated,
the fact is 'the fact that she is thinking' assuming there is community and related FSK.

Whatever note the general principle;
..whatever is a fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a community grounded FSK [of various degrees of credibility].

So first, it doesn't matter whether it's practically impossible. It's a thought experiment and you're supposed to use your imagination.

At that, it wouldn't be impossible. Let's say that a group of astronauts are on a Mars mission, or a deep space mission or something. Something happens on the mission where all wind up dead except for one. Meanwhile, a huge asteroid, or another planet's rogue satellite that can't be diverted is on a collision course with Earth and winds up destroying it. The lone astronaut is the last surviving person.

So on your view, nothing that astronaut does from that point, subjective phenomena or not, can be a fact. It's not a fact that the astronaut in question pushes a particular button, it's not a fact that the astronaut is at a particular location, it's not a fact that they think, "Holy crap--I'm the last person alive," and so on. Is this what you'd argue?

I am not interested in this thought experiment in particular.

Just a comment;
the astronaut would still have memory and faith in his past knowledge of what is fact, perhaps he still have a computer for reference and whatever he was familiar with e.g. his destroyed rocket, that would be a fact.

But if the astronaut came up with something that he is totally not familiar with [some thing strange to him] and not in his computer database, then it cannot be a fact specific to say the scientific FSK to verify and justify it as a scientific fact.

[Terrapin Station]

I did not anticipate at all your point is about only one person exists and there is no one else, which is an impossibility in reality.

It would have been more clear if you have stated "..ONLY one person exists and there are no others.'
If that is the case, I would not have agreed with such an unrealistic scenario.

Even in that misunderstanding, I only stated,
the fact is 'the fact that she is thinking' assuming there is community and related FSK.

Whatever note the general principle;
..whatever is a fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a community grounded FSK [of various degrees of credibility].

So first, it doesn't matter whether it's practically impossible. It's a thought experiment and you're supposed to use your imagination.

At that, it wouldn't be impossible. Let's say that a group of astronauts are on a Mars mission, or a deep space mission or something. Something happens on the mission where all wind up dead except for one. Meanwhile, a huge asteroid, or another planet's rogue satellite that can't be diverted is on a collision course with Earth and winds up destroying it. The lone astronaut is the last surviving person.

So on your view, nothing that astronaut does from that point, subjective phenomena or not, can be a fact. It's not a fact that the astronaut in question pushes a particular button, it's not a fact that the astronaut is at a particular location, it's not a fact that they think, "Holy crap--I'm the last person alive," and so on. Is this what you'd argue?

I am not interested in this thought experiment in particular.

Just a comment;
the astronaut would still have memory and faith in his past knowledge of what is fact, perhaps he still have a computer for reference and whatever he was familiar with e.g. his destroyed rocket, that would be a fact.

But if the astronaut came up with something that he is totally not familiar with [some thing strange to him] and not in his computer database, then it cannot be a fact specific to say the scientific FSK to verify and justify it as a scientific fact.

Is it a fact that the astronaut pushes a button when they're the lone surviving human or not?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not interested in this thought experiment in particular.

Just a comment;
the astronaut would still have memory and faith in his past knowledge of what is fact, perhaps he still have a computer for reference and whatever he was familiar with e.g. his destroyed rocket, that would be a fact.

But if the astronaut came up with something that he is totally not familiar with [some thing strange to him] and not in his computer database, then it cannot be a fact specific to say the scientific FSK to verify and justify it as a scientific fact.

Is it a fact that the astronaut pushes a button when they're the lone surviving human or not?

Note the general rule,
whatever is fact is conditioned upon a FSK, implying an existing FSK within a community of living humans.

In this imaginary case of a lone astronaut in another planet, there is no more existing FSK.
But for the astronaut based on his memory it would be a historical FSK.

It is no point asking me whether it is a fact since the astronaut is the only one existing and in that scenario I and everyone will not be around.

If the astronaut pushes a familiar button, we have to presume the astronaut would ask himself that question since there is no one around.
In that case, it would be a fact for himself only as based on the historical FSK in his memory.

[Terrapin Station]

I am not interested in this thought experiment in particular.

Just a comment;
the astronaut would still have memory and faith in his past knowledge of what is fact, perhaps he still have a computer for reference and whatever he was familiar with e.g. his destroyed rocket, that would be a fact.

But if the astronaut came up with something that he is totally not familiar with [some thing strange to him] and not in his computer database, then it cannot be a fact specific to say the scientific FSK to verify and justify it as a scientific fact.

Is it a fact that the astronaut pushes a button when they're the lone surviving human or not?

Note the general rule,
whatever is fact is conditioned upon a FSK, implying an existing FSK within a community of living humans.

In this imaginary case of a lone astronaut in another planet, there is no more existing FSK.
But for the astronaut based on his memory it would be a historical FSK.

It is no point asking me whether it is a fact since the astronaut is the only one existing and in that scenario I and everyone will not be around.

If the astronaut pushes a familiar button, we have to presume the astronaut would ask himself that question since there is no one around.
In that case, it would be a fact for himself only as based on the historical FSK in his memory.

Okay, and then if the astronaut died and some non-sentient object fell and hit the button you wouldn't say that's a fact, presumably.

Would you say that it happened that some non-sentient object fell and hit the button, but you just wouldn't award it with the term "fact"? Or would you say that it couldn't even happen?

[Sculptor]

But:

"That donut is good"

and

"That painting is bad"

are not moral judgments, because they don't have anything to do with interpersonal behavior.

That ain't necessarily so.
Paintings that show the disembowlelling of an innocent child would attract many moral judgements.
Same for doughnoughts.
Nothing is completely apolitical.

I wasn't saying it's impossible to make a moral judgment about artworks or food, but normally "That donut is good" and "That painting is bad" aren't moral judgments.

Wrong.
Normally those are in fact moral judgements.