What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

A charge of special pleading? (False, as it happens - but still...)

Can we smell the distinctive gobfart of a dumb fucking philosopher?

[Skepdick]

A charge of special pleading? (False, as it happens - but still...)

Can we smell the distinctive gobfart of a dumb fucking philosopher?

Dumb fucking philsoopher indeed.

The logical/deductive implication of the descriptive statement "there are no contradictions in reality" is the literal non-existence of contradictions.

If a "contradiction" is not a contradiction because contradictions don't exist, then what is that thing which we call a "contradiction"? Do you even know?

You could always go ahead and confess that non-contradiction is prescriptive. An ought.

How does it feel knowing that you've wasted your life on a dead-end discipline?

[Peter Holmes]

Yawn.

Outside language, reality isn't linguistic, so of course there are no contradictions ('speakings against') in reality, outside language. Or are we victims of a correspondence theory of truth, derived from and demonstrating the myth of propositions at work? Shurely shum mishtake!

But yes - why waste time on a dead-end discipline? Better to get on with important and useful things.

Do us all - and yourself - a favour.

[Skepdick]

Yawn.

Outside language, reality isn't linguistic, so of course there are no contradictions ('speakings against') in reality, outside language. Or are we victims of a correspondence theory of truth, derived from and demonstrating the myth of propositions at work? Shurely shum mishtake!

But yes - why waste time on a dead-end discipline? Better to get on with important and useful things.

Do us all - and yourself - a favour.

Since you are no victim of any correspondence theory, and you could never make such a trivial mistake (having just warned us against it) then please care to tell us....

What the fuck is "reality", outside of language?!?!?

[Peter Holmes]

Profound, sparkly and stupid 'philosophical' question: what is reality outside language?

Ooo. But hey: what is reality anyway? Ooo.

The vast history of metaphysical delusion stretches back: mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

[Skepdick]

Profound, sparkly and stupid 'philosophical' question: what is reality outside language?

Ooo. But hey: what is reality anyway? Ooo.

The vast history of metaphysical delusion stretches back: mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

Such wisdom. So much profoundness. It's no use warning us, if you are going to keep deluding yourself!

The picture isn't a red circle. We just say that it's a red circle.
Murder isn't objectively wrong. We just say that it's objectively wrong.

Such mystery. So much stupid.

red.png

[Veritas Aequitas]

Profound, sparkly and stupid 'philosophical' question: what is reality outside language?

Ooo. But hey: what is reality anyway? Ooo.

The vast history of metaphysical delusion stretches back: mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

'What is reality' is indeed a profound question!

All you insist on saying is 'reality is the way things are' i.e. linguistic.
But what is 'that way' that things are?
or
What is 'that way' that things-are-by-themselves?

It is not a question of mistaking what things are or the way things are.
You are delusional in reifying 'that way' that things are without any proof of its reality at all.
If not show me your proof, 'that way' that things are is really real?

Actually is your above delusional thinking that is a bottleneck in any progress of higher philosophical thinking in the current issue of 'moral realism is objective'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Profound, sparkly and stupid 'philosophical' question: what is reality outside language?

Ooo. But hey: what is reality anyway? Ooo.

The vast history of metaphysical delusion stretches back: mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

Such wisdom. So much profoundness. It's no use warning us, if you are going to keep deluding yourself!

The picture isn't a red circle. We just say that it's a red circle.
Murder isn't objectively wrong. We just say that it's objectively wrong.

Such mystery. So much stupid.

red.png

The above "circle" is really "red" but such proposition must be heavily qualified as true ONLY within the condition of a community of people and its conditions, humans collectively and the relevant history [FSK or FSR].

[Peter Holmes]

Profound, sparkly and stupid 'philosophical' question: what is reality outside language?

Ooo. But hey: what is reality anyway? Ooo.

The vast history of metaphysical delusion stretches back: mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

Such wisdom. So much profoundness. It's no use warning us, if you are going to keep deluding yourself!

The picture isn't a red circle. We just say that it's a red circle.
Murder isn't objectively wrong. We just say that it's objectively wrong.

Such mystery. So much stupid.

red.png

The above "circle" is really "red" but such proposition must be heavily qualified as true ONLY within the condition of a community of people and its conditions, humans collectively and the relevant history [FSK or FSR].

Claim: that thing - say, the colour red - is what it is only because there are people around. Obviously not. That thing is what it is, how ever it's named and described - which it can be in countless different ways. A truth-claim exists within a descriptive context. But a description doesn't create or change the thing being described. Do you disagree with any of these assertions?

[Terrapin Station]

Such wisdom. So much profoundness. It's no use warning us, if you are going to keep deluding yourself!

The picture isn't a red circle. We just say that it's a red circle.
Murder isn't objectively wrong. We just say that it's objectively wrong.

Such mystery. So much stupid.

red.png

The above "circle" is really "red" but such proposition must be heavily qualified as true ONLY within the condition of a community of people and its conditions, humans collectively and the relevant history [FSK or FSR].

Claim: that thing - say, the colour red - is what it is only because there are people around. Obviously not. That thing is what it is, how ever it's named and described - which it can be in countless different ways. A truth-claim exists within a descriptive context. But a description doesn't create or change the thing being described. Do you disagree with any of these assertions?

He's not going to go off-script to really address anything you're asking (or to even really bother thinking about it).

One place where he's weaker than telemarketers, though: they'll at least modify their scripts to achieve sales.

[Peter Holmes]

The above "circle" is really "red" but such proposition must be heavily qualified as true ONLY within the condition of a community of people and its conditions, humans collectively and the relevant history [FSK or FSR].

Claim: that thing - say, the colour red - is what it is only because there are people around. Obviously not. That thing is what it is, how ever it's named and described - which it can be in countless different ways. A truth-claim exists within a descriptive context. But a description doesn't create or change the thing being described. Do you disagree with any of these assertions?

He's not going to go off-script to really address anything you're asking (or to even really bother thinking about it).

One place where he's weaker than telemarketers, though: they'll at least modify their scripts to achieve sales.

Agreed. Changing your mind can be very hard, especially if you're deeply invested in a belief. It can be like losing religious faith. For me, abandoning moral objectivism was a penny-drop moment after months of discussion with kind and patient people.

[Skepdick]

Agreed. Changing your mind can be very hard, especially if you're deeply invested in a belief. It's can be like losing religious faith. For me, abandoning moral objectivism was a penny-drop moment after months of discussion with kind and patient people.

Been there. Done that. It was after months that I abandoned moral objectivism - it was pretty trivial, really. Nothing but skepticism required.

It took me years to figure out that I was wrong. But you can't get there until you abandon Philosophy - the practice is a prison for your mind.

Keep at it. If you aren't as stupid as you act, you'll figure it out too.

[henry quirk]

Changing your mind can be very hard, especially if you're deeply invested in a belief. It can be like losing religious faith. For me, abandoning moral objectivism was a penny-drop moment after months of discussion with kind and patient people.

I understand completely.

I was a moral non-realist -- a position I held on to hard -- till conversations with a patient soul had me reconsider.

[Peter Holmes]

Why we believe things is what matters - and therefore why we change our minds. So it's back to evidence and arguments. I apologise for my testamentary digression. Perhaps those of us who were moral objectivists and have changed their minds can explain what exactly changed their minds - what evidence or argument for moral objectivity convinced them. What brought them to the light?

[Skepdick]

Why we believe things is what matters - and therefore why we change our minds. So it's back to evidence and arguments.

That's what I am asking you!!!

Why do you believe that this is "red"? Back it up with evidence and arguments.

I apologise for my testamentary digression. Perhaps those of us who were moral objectivists and have changed their minds can explain what exactly changed their minds - what evidence or argument for moral objectivity convinced them. What brought them to the light?

What evidence or argument for "redness" convinced you that this is red? What brought you to the light?

red.png