Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Also, ignoring your ridiculously patronizing crap here, which you've been amping up lately, it's not simply a matter of whether we can appeal to some common/conventional wisdom notion. It's whether one is capable of supporting that notion against philosophical challenges, without simply appealing to consensus or authoritative conventions.

Medice, cura te ipsum!!!

Philosophy can't stand against its own challenges! Who gave Philosophy the authority to challenge anything?
The test for whether something can "stand up to the test" cannot stand up to any test! And it's not like anybody can meet a Philosophical challenge since the criteria for success are kept secret. That is - it is kept secret that there are no criteria.

The entire fucking repertoire is one self-appointing as an authority!

[Sculptor]

There is the scientific fact,
all humans are programmed not to kill other humans.

This is not a fact of any kind.

You think morality is like gravity.
Man, you do not get to chose ot have an opinion whether an apple fell off a tree.
One exception to the apple falling is a valid challenge to gravity.

[Skepdick]

You think morlity is like gravity.

It's exactly like gravity!

It has observable consequences, but it's not observable itself.

Man, you do not get to chose ot have an opinion whether an apple fell off a tree.

And you do not get to choose on the wrongness of murder.

One exception to the apple falling is a valid challenge to gravity.

So, apple trees on the space station then?

If you weren't a two-faced, double-standard-holding, contrarian, good-for-nothing Philosopher you would be dismissing gravity as subjective, surely?
Because humans choose not to obey it. With rockets and stuff!

[Redacted]


[Edited by iMod]

[Veritas Aequitas]

So your fantasy 'morality FSK' relies largely on 'inputs' from 'the scientific FSK'. What inputs are those? Perhaps they're putative facts about our brains? Perhaps the putative fact that we're programmed not to kill other humans? Is that one of those 'inputs'?

But, as you know, the fact that we're programmed not to kill other humans doesn't mean that, morally, we ought not to do so. The criterion for moral rightness and wrongness can't be what we're programmed to do. If it were, if we were programmed to kill other humans, it would be morally right to do so.

But wait...that's what you claim. Your claim that there are moral facts leads you to say that killing other humans can be morally both right and wrong.

WAFWOT.

There is the scientific fact,
all humans are programmed not to kill other humans.

As I stated many times, your using of moral rightness and wrongness is barking up the wrong tree.
How many '1000' times must I remind you of the following;

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

The point is there is a pattern of human behaviors most recognized and categorized as 'morality'.
However morality in general has been loosely defined.
I then defined what is morality-proper to be dealt with a moral FSK just like how other fields of knowledge are dealt within the specific FSK.

What I have done is to input the scientific facts into the credible moral FSK to justify the moral fact, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans", to be used as a moral standard to contribute to the progress of mankind.
Establishing the above moral fact as a moral standard is not about moral wrongness and rightness.

Note I did not claim there are moral fact, so "no human ought to kill humans" is about moral wrongness and rightness.
What is a moral fact is based on empirical evidence and then verified and justified within a moral framework to confirm it is a justified true moral fact.
Establishing the above moral fact as a moral standard is not about moral wrongness and rightness.

Please produce a definition of morality that doesn't mention rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety, or goodness and badness (or evil). Every definition you've produced so far mentions one or more of these things - so I'm puzzled.

If your invention 'morality-proper' doesn't involve rightness and wrongness, and so on, but merely involves consistency with programming, then you're not talking about morality at all. In itself, consistency with programming has no moral implication. It's just obeying orders.

I have already presented my definition of what is morality proper a "1000" times.
Here again,
Definition of morality Proper
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
defined in terms of 'good' and 'evil'.

Generally morality proper is striving for what is 'good' and avoiding 'evil.'

Morality-proper is definitely about alignment with "programing" i.e. doing good and avoiding evil, just as one must align with one's inherent 'program' of the oughtness to breathe.
It is very stupid [lack of intelligence] and stooping very low to say that aligning with one's inherent 'program' naturally is merely obeying orders.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It a matter of time management and efficiency.
Why should I waste time starting from scratch in this case if I think those points are sufficient.

You spend FAR more time making posts like this one, where they amount to simply treading water, so that we don't get anywhere.

THIS one?? where is it only two statements of 26 words??

I admit and I would like to avoid posting the same thing again and again a '1000' times plus the same thing to different people. [typical of any forum when new members enter the discussion] That is why I always cross reference to threads and posts I had already done. I have a prepared list of them.

What I am more interested are those that are novel and incremental to my knowledge base or as a refresher.

I have read Rorty in the past and gathered in general he was a pragmatist. But since PantFlasher prompted Rorty I am digging more deeply into Rorty, pragmatism, Gadamer, hermeneutics which are very relevant to counter the core philosophical principles of yours as inherited from the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.

Do you have any idea how the late-Wittgenstein, Quine, Sellars had killed classical analytic philosopher and left a big dent on post analytic philosophy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is the scientific fact,
all humans are programmed not to kill other humans.

This is not a fact of any kind.

You think morality is like gravity.
Man, you do not get to chose ot have an opinion whether an apple fell off a tree.
One exception to the apple falling is a valid challenge to gravity.

I agree with Skepdick's response to your above point.

The problem is 'what is fact' to you is a bastardized version of 'what is fact' adopted from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.
What you are claiming is 'Fact-in-Itself' i.e. absolute independent of mind.
Note my argument on this;
There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

I have presented 'what is fact' realistically here;

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

I anticipate you will not take the above seriously but will merely grunts and make noises.

[Terrapin Station]

Philosophy can't stand against its own challenges! Who gave Philosophy the authority to challenge anything?
The test for whether something can "stand up to the test" cannot stand up to any test! And it's not like anybody can meet a Philosophical challenge since the criteria for success are kept secret. That is - it is kept secret that there are no criteria.

The entire fucking repertoire is one self-appointing as an authority!

The rest of your post undermines your first sentence.

[Peter Holmes]

There is the scientific fact,
all humans are programmed not to kill other humans.

As I stated many times, your using of moral rightness and wrongness is barking up the wrong tree.
How many '1000' times must I remind you of the following;

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

The point is there is a pattern of human behaviors most recognized and categorized as 'morality'.
However morality in general has been loosely defined.
I then defined what is morality-proper to be dealt with a moral FSK just like how other fields of knowledge are dealt within the specific FSK.

What I have done is to input the scientific facts into the credible moral FSK to justify the moral fact, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans", to be used as a moral standard to contribute to the progress of mankind.
Establishing the above moral fact as a moral standard is not about moral wrongness and rightness.

Note I did not claim there are moral fact, so "no human ought to kill humans" is about moral wrongness and rightness.
What is a moral fact is based on empirical evidence and then verified and justified within a moral framework to confirm it is a justified true moral fact.
Establishing the above moral fact as a moral standard is not about moral wrongness and rightness.

Please produce a definition of morality that doesn't mention rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety, or goodness and badness (or evil). Every definition you've produced so far mentions one or more of these things - so I'm puzzled.

If your invention 'morality-proper' doesn't involve rightness and wrongness, and so on, but merely involves consistency with programming, then you're not talking about morality at all. In itself, consistency with programming has no moral implication. It's just obeying orders.

I have already presented my definition of what is morality proper a "1000" times.
Here again,
Definition of morality Proper
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
defined in terms of 'good' and 'evil'.

Generally morality proper is striving for what is 'good' and avoiding 'evil.'

Morality-proper is definitely about alignment with "programing" i.e. doing good and avoiding evil, just as one must align with one's inherent 'program' of the oughtness to breathe.
It is very stupid [lack of intelligence] and stooping very low to say that aligning with one's inherent 'program' naturally is merely obeying orders.

So here's your absurd argument.

P1 Morality-proper is alignment with programming.
P2 Humans are programmed to do good and avoid evil.
C Therefore, morality-proper is doing good and avoiding evil.

But humans are programmed to kill hostile outsiders and anti-social insiders. We've been doing it for millennia, and we're still doing it. So the empirical evidence for this 'humans-ought-to-kill-some-humans' programming is overwhelming.

Given this, your P2 states that killing hostile outsiders and anti-social insiders is good - because what counts as 'good' is alignment with programming.

Truth is, your criterion for what is good - alignment with programming - is very obviously immoral, bad, wicked or evil.

[Terrapin Station]

Please produce a definition of morality that doesn't mention rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety, or goodness and badness (or evil). Every definition you've produced so far mentions one or more of these things - so I'm puzzled.

If your invention 'morality-proper' doesn't involve rightness and wrongness, and so on, but merely involves consistency with programming, then you're not talking about morality at all. In itself, consistency with programming has no moral implication. It's just obeying orders.

I have already presented my definition of what is morality proper a "1000" times.
Here again,
Definition of morality Proper
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
defined in terms of 'good' and 'evil'.

Generally morality proper is striving for what is 'good' and avoiding 'evil.'

Morality-proper is definitely about alignment with "programing" i.e. doing good and avoiding evil, just as one must align with one's inherent 'program' of the oughtness to breathe.
It is very stupid [lack of intelligence] and stooping very low to say that aligning with one's inherent 'program' naturally is merely obeying orders.

So here's your absurd argument.

P1 Morality-proper is alignment with programming.
P2 Humans are programmed to do good and avoid evil.
C Therefore, morality-proper is doing good and avoiding evil.

But humans are programmed to kill hostile outsiders and anti-social insiders. We've been doing it for millennia, and we're still doing it. So the empirical evidence for this 'humans-ought-to-kill-some-humans' programming is overwhelming.

Given this, your P2 states that killing hostile outsiders and anti-social insiders is good - because what counts as 'good' is alignment with programming.

Truth is, your criterion for what is good - alignment with programming - is very obviously immoral, bad, wicked or evil.

He also continually assumes argumentum ad populums. It's always determined by consensus or commonality for him, but saying that consensus or commonality determines what's the case with respect to anything but what's the consensus or what's common is a fallacy.

[Skepdick]

The rest of your post undermines your first sentence.

It doesn't undermine it. It strengthens it.

You are interpreting it incorrectly.

[Skepdick]

He also continually assumes argumentum ad populums. It's always determined by consensus or commonality for him, but saying that consensus or commonality determines what's the case with respect to anything but what's the consensus or what's common is a fallacy.

And you are committing the fallacy fallacy right now.

What determines that this is red?

It must be a really uncomfortable question because you all keep avoiding it.

red.png

[Sculptor]

There is the scientific fact,
all humans are programmed not to kill other humans.

This is not a fact of any kind.

You think morality is like gravity.
Man, you do not get to chose ot have an opinion whether an apple fell off a tree.
One exception to the apple falling is a valid challenge to gravity.

I agree with Skepdick's response to your above point.

I do not read skeptics responses.

The problem is 'what is fact' to you is a bastardized version of 'what is fact' adopted from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers.
What you are claiming is 'Fact-in-Itself' i.e. absolute independent of mind.

I was not making a special point about facts.
I was criticising your ridiculous comparison between a moral phenomenon and a natural phenomenon.

Note my argument on this;... (deleted as not relevant)

I anticipate you will not take the above seriously but will merely grunts and make noises.

I anticipate that you will again ignore my criticism.

You say it is bad for people to kill people. You say we are programmed to NOT kill people. You say this is a natural fact, like gravity.
Apples fall from trees, and people do not kill people.

Gravity works whether you like it or not.
Sadly people DO IN FACT KILL PEOPLE.

Your attribution that morals are natural is false. Morals are cultural.

[Belinda]

Sculptor wrote:

Your attribution that morals are natural is false. Morals are cultural.

But nature is all that is the case except for supernature which is not here under discussion. Since nature is all that is the case then human cultures are natural.

If I remember you were rebutting Veritas Aequitas who usually claims morality, or specific moral tenets, is genetically inherent. I disagree with VA and agree with you and I object only to the above usage of 'natural'.

[Skepdick]

I do not read skeptics responses.

Ag, shame. Why is that? Is it because Skepdick keeps pointing out that Philosophers are a bigger dicks than the Skepdick?

I was criticising your ridiculous comparison between a moral phenomenon and a natural phenomenon.

If they are both phenomena then what's the difference?

Your attribution that morals are natural is false. Morals are cultural.

Special pleading. There is nothing that exists that isn't natural.

[Peter Holmes]

Ridiculous claim: morality is exactly like gravity, because both have observable effects, but neither is observable.

Chalk is also exactly like cheese, because both are physical substances. They really are!

Possible reactions when your argument is refuted: ignore the refutation and stick to your conclusion as an article of faith; abuse the person who refuted your argument; or change your mind.