Is morality objective or subjective?

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not sure where this is coming from, and maybe I'm missing some context or something, but re this:

how can we (English speakers) show/demonstrate/prove that what we call a red circle is indeed a red circle?

We can easily use devices, such as a computer (hooked up to a scanner, utilizing spectrometer data, etc.), to show that something is a red circle.

We can't do that with normatives, of course. All we can do is show that people have the normatives that they do.

[Terrapin Station]

I am aware SOME humans killed humans.
But how can you infer that is the natural proclivity of humans in general when in reality there are only a small percentage of killers say 0.5% [>35,000,000 million] compare to >7,000,000,000 humans.
Are there even 35 million killers at present? I don't think so.

Morality is decided by and for communities.
100% of polities mandate killing. If not capital punishment, but warfare, and justifyable suicide.
Every single country since the beginning of time has policies for appropriate killing.
Only a minority of countries have banned the death penalty.
Don't insult my intelligence with bogus and irrelevant stats.

As we do not measure cuisine by asking how many people eat MacDonald's, moral issues are not to be decided ad populum

But if you want to go down that route you will find that the majority of the people when asked support the death penalty or a return to it were wiser thinking has previously banned it.
When executions were public they were always enjoyed by massed crowds, who would cheer and jeer and bring picnics to watch.
You are naive

As he makes immediately explicit what I said earlier: "What he wound up arguing with me earlier is that he's appealing to statistical norms. But then he simply ignored that that amounts to forwarding an argumentum ad populum."

[Skepdick]

We can easily use devices, such as a computer (hooked up to a scanner, utilizing spectrometer data, etc.), to show that something is a red circle.

No you can't. Not without first teaching the device what "red" means and what "circle" means.

Lucky for us I work with computer vision and I can help you navigate around all of your misunderstanding.

We can't do that with normatives, of course. All we can do is show that people have the normatives that they do.

"Red" is a normative. You cannot prove that this is "red" without normative semantics.

red.png

[Skepdick]

As he makes immediately explicit what I said earlier: "What he wound up arguing with me earlier is that he's appealing to statistical norms. But then he simply ignored that that amounts to forwarding an argumentum ad populum."

Do you understand the difference between "argumentum ad populum" and "statistically significant results"?

Doesn't seem like it.

[Sculptor]

I am aware SOME humans killed humans.
But how can you infer that is the natural proclivity of humans in general when in reality there are only a small percentage of killers say 0.5% [>35,000,000 million] compare to >7,000,000,000 humans.
Are there even 35 million killers at present? I don't think so.

Morality is decided by and for communities.
100% of polities mandate killing. If not capital punishment, but warfare, and justifyable suicide.
Every single country since the beginning of time has policies for appropriate killing.
Only a minority of countries have banned the death penalty.
Don't insult my intelligence with bogus and irrelevant stats.

As we do not measure cuisine by asking how many people eat MacDonald's, moral issues are not to be decided ad populum

But if you want to go down that route you will find that the majority of the people when asked support the death penalty or a return to it were wiser thinking has previously banned it.
When executions were public they were always enjoyed by massed crowds, who would cheer and jeer and bring picnics to watch.
You are naive

As he makes immediately explicit what I said earlier: "What he wound up arguing with me earlier is that he's appealing to statistical norms. But then he simply ignored that that amounts to forwarding an argumentum ad populum."

Exactly. Yet stat norms that do not agree with his FuckSicKKrash of a moral system he rejects.
He's all over the place.

[Sculptor]

Morality is decided by and for communities.
100% of polities mandate killing. If not capital punishment, but warfare, and justifyable suicide.
Every single country since the beginning of time has policies for appropriate killing.
Only a minority of countries have banned the death penalty.
Don't insult my intelligence with bogus and irrelevant stats.

And yet, human longevity continues to increase!

How come??!?

WHy relevant??

Surely, if we are such murderous creatures human life expectancy should be decreasing, not increasing?

Not relevant. Capital punishment is not related to longevity.

Unless, of course you are trying to convinces that the more we murder people, the longer they live. I wouldn't put it past your level of stupid.

But if you want to go down that route you will find that the majority of the people when asked support the death penalty or a return to it were wiser thinking has previously banned it.
When executions were public they were always enjoyed by massed crowds, who would cheer and jeer and bring picnics to watch.
You are naive

And yet!

Public hangings ceased. Magic!!!

So what?
Does not make it worng or right. It makes it VARIABLE, relative and subjective.

[Skepdick]

Not relevant. Capital punishment is not related to longevity.

Your relevance filter is broken.

Anything that shortens or prolongs life is relevant to longevity.

Human longevity is increasing. How is that possible if our nature is to kill each other?

So what?
Does not make it worng or right. It makes it VARIABLE, relative and subjective.

Lets see how well you understand what "objective" means.

Human longevity is increasing.

According to your retard-brain is that an objective or a subjective claim?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am aware SOME humans killed humans.
But how can you infer that is the natural proclivity of humans in general when in reality there are only a small percentage of killers say 0.5% [>35,000,000 million] compare to >7,000,000,000 humans.
Are there even 35 million killers at present? I don't think so.

Morality is decided by and for communities.
100% of polities mandate killing. If not capital punishment, but warfare, and justifyable suicide.
Every single country since the beginning of time has policies for appropriate killing.
Only a minority of countries have banned the death penalty.
Don't insult my intelligence with bogus and irrelevant stats.

As we do not measure cuisine by asking how many people eat MacDonald's, moral issues are not to be decided ad populum

But if you want to go down that route you will find that the majority of the people when asked support the death penalty or a return to it were wiser thinking has previously banned it.
When executions were public they were always enjoyed by massed crowds, who would cheer and jeer and bring picnics to watch.
You are naive

Don't bullshit from jumping hastily to conclusion based on ignorance or else you are desperately deceptive.

Sculptor:Only a minority of countries have banned the death penalty.
Below is where you ignorance is exposed.

• Forty-eight countries retain capital punishment, 108 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes, seven have abolished it for ordinary crimes (while maintaining it for special circumstances such as war crimes), and 28 are abolitionist in practice.
  -wiki

Note the trend, from the beginning [200,000 years ago] almost all [99%] tribes, society then countries would have capital punishment [death penalty].
But now it is 31% which is the minority who still have capital punishments.

So what is the possible reasons and the root reason for this trend of reduction [from 99% to 31%]?
What is your explanation for the trend of reduction?

My views from taking into account various truths coherently,
the root cause the trend of reduction in capital punishment is due to the unfoldment and activation of the inherent moral functions of 'ought-not to kill humans'.

There is also a trend of reduction in wars and other serious violence.

If you read the News, the greatest issues with the highest and serious attention are related to deaths and potential threat of death to humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am aware SOME humans killed humans.
But how can you infer that is the natural proclivity of humans in general when in reality there are only a small percentage of killers say 0.5% [>35,000,000 million] compare to >7,000,000,000 humans.
Are there even 35 million killers at present? I don't think so.

Morality is decided by and for communities.
100% of polities mandate killing. If not capital punishment, but warfare, and justifyable suicide.
Every single country since the beginning of time has policies for appropriate killing.
Only a minority of countries have banned the death penalty.
Don't insult my intelligence with bogus and irrelevant stats.

As we do not measure cuisine by asking how many people eat MacDonald's, moral issues are not to be decided ad populum

But if you want to go down that route you will find that the majority of the people when asked support the death penalty or a return to it were wiser thinking has previously banned it.
When executions were public they were always enjoyed by massed crowds, who would cheer and jeer and bring picnics to watch.
You are naive

As he makes immediately explicit what I said earlier: "What he wound up arguing with me earlier is that he's appealing to statistical norms. But then he simply ignored that that amounts to forwarding an argumentum ad populum."

How come you are so bias in not reading Sculptor's claim objectively,

• Sculptor:
  .. you will find that the majority of the people when asked support the death penalty or a return to it were wiser thinking has previously banned it.
  When executions were public they were always enjoyed by massed crowds, who would cheer and jeer and bring picnics to watch.

Meanwhile I have always provided statistics which can be objectively verified to the real sources, in this case, enacted laws of the said countries, i.e.

• Forty-eight countries retain capital punishment, 108 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes, seven have abolished it for ordinary crimes (while maintaining it for special circumstances such as war crimes), and 28 are abolitionist in practice.
  -wiki

[Peter Holmes]

I'm not sure where this is coming from, and maybe I'm missing some context or something, but re this:

how can we (English speakers) show/demonstrate/prove that what we call a red circle is indeed a red circle?

We can easily use devices, such as a computer (hooked up to a scanner, utilizing spectrometer data, etc.), to show that something is a red circle.

We can't do that with normatives, of course. All we can do is show that people have the normatives that they do.

Agreed. I was trying to nail the stupidity of the red circle fallacy in relation to morality. It's supposed to be a gotcha to show that, since it's a fact that what we call a red circle is indeed a red circle, even though we can't prove that it is, so it can be a fact that abortion is morally wrong, even though we can't prove that it is.

I think this mistakes what we say about things for the things themselves, so that a description creates or changes the thing being described: it's only a red circle because we call it a red circle. The problem that, if an English speaker calls it a blue square, it's still a red circle seems not to disturb the delusion - whereas calling abortion morally wrong or morally right doesn't incur this difficulty. We can cheerfully and rationally call it either.

[Skepdick]

I think this mistakes what we say about things for the things themselves.... The problem that, if an English speaker calls it a blue square, it's still a red circle.

In the first sentence he warns about confusing what things ARE with what we SAY about them, and in the next sentence he goes on insisting that this is a "red circle" even if we call it a "blue square. I guess you really want it to be a "red circle", eh? I thought Philosophy was no place for motivated reasoning...

Let me translate for the audience what this amounts to: Peter Holes believes he can say what things are but you can't! Peter Holmes has direct access to the things-in-themselves, but you don't!

- whereas calling abortion morally wrong or morally right doesn't incur this difficulty. We can cheerfully and rationally call it either.

Exactly like we can cheerfully and rationally call this a "blue square". I don't understand why you are having any difficulty with this.

red.png

[Sculptor]

I am aware SOME humans killed humans.
But how can you infer that is the natural proclivity of humans in general when in reality there are only a small percentage of killers say 0.5% [>35,000,000 million] compare to >7,000,000,000 humans.
Are there even 35 million killers at present? I don't think so.

Morality is decided by and for communities.
100% of polities mandate killing. If not capital punishment, but warfare, and justifyable suicide.
Every single country since the beginning of time has policies for appropriate killing.
Only a minority of countries have banned the death penalty.
Don't insult my intelligence with bogus and irrelevant stats.

As we do not measure cuisine by asking how many people eat MacDonald's, moral issues are not to be decided ad populum

But if you want to go down that route you will find that the majority of the people when asked support the death penalty or a return to it were wiser thinking has previously banned it.
When executions were public they were always enjoyed by massed crowds, who would cheer and jeer and bring picnics to watch.
You are naive

Don't bullshit from jumping hastily to conclusion based on ignorance or else you are desperately deceptive.

You are pointless.
You hysterical responses are not going to serve your (ahem!!) "argument".

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not sure where this is coming from, and maybe I'm missing some context or something, but re this:

how can we (English speakers) show/demonstrate/prove that what we call a red circle is indeed a red circle?

We can easily use devices, such as a computer (hooked up to a scanner, utilizing spectrometer data, etc.), to show that something is a red circle.

We can't do that with normatives, of course. All we can do is show that people have the normatives that they do.

Agreed. I was trying to nail the stupidity of the red circle fallacy in relation to morality. It's supposed to be a gotcha to show that, since it's a fact that what we call a red circle is indeed a red circle, even though we can't prove that it is, so it can be a fact that abortion is morally wrong, even though we can't prove that it is.

I think this mistakes what we say about things for the things themselves, so that a description creates or changes the thing being described: it's only a red circle because we call it a red circle. The problem that, if an English speaker calls it a blue square, it's still a red circle seems not to disturb the delusion - whereas calling abortion morally wrong or morally right doesn't incur this difficulty. We can cheerfully and rationally call it either.

I just interpret the big red dot as a sort of traffic signal telling me that the current post doen't need to be read. it's quite a useful service in that respect.

[Skepdick]

I just interpret the big red dot as a sort of traffic signal telling me that the current post doen't need to be read. it's quite a useful service in that respect.

Well, if you want a useful dismissiveness heuristics ... If the address bar of the title of a website contains the word "Philosophy" you can probably ignore the content.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm not sure where this is coming from, and maybe I'm missing some context or something, but re this:

We can easily use devices, such as a computer (hooked up to a scanner, utilizing spectrometer data, etc.), to show that something is a red circle.

We can't do that with normatives, of course. All we can do is show that people have the normatives that they do.

Agreed. I was trying to nail the stupidity of the red circle fallacy in relation to morality. It's supposed to be a gotcha to show that, since it's a fact that what we call a red circle is indeed a red circle, even though we can't prove that it is, so it can be a fact that abortion is morally wrong, even though we can't prove that it is.

I think this mistakes what we say about things for the things themselves, so that a description creates or changes the thing being described: it's only a red circle because we call it a red circle. The problem that, if an English speaker calls it a blue square, it's still a red circle seems not to disturb the delusion - whereas calling abortion morally wrong or morally right doesn't incur this difficulty. We can cheerfully and rationally call it either.

I just interpret the big red dot as a sort of traffic signal telling me that the current post doen't need to be read. it's quite a useful service in that respect.

You are running away from the facts I presented as if you are Dracula running away from daylight.

Note the currency here is valid, solid and sound arguments to be transacted.
You have provided none of the above.