Is morality objective or subjective?

[tillingborn]

You don't like objective, mathematical truth?

About murder? I'm all ears.

And I am the dick?

Frankly, yes.

[Skepdick]

About murder? I'm all ears.

You keep being a plonker even though we already agree.

The question of "Why?" is as non-sensical as "Why is this red?"

Because that's what we say about it! Why do we say that about it? Because that's what we agreed to say about it!

You are welcome to disagree and call it the square blue, or call murder right.

[tillingborn]

Is red a shade of blue? If not, why not?

Semantically, it doesn't matter! They are different things.

[Skepdick]

Is red a shade of blue? If not, why not?

Semantically, it doesn't matter! They are different things.

They aren't different things. They are the same thing. Light.

They used to teach this in school.

[tillingborn]

Because that's what we say about it! Why do we say that about it? Because that's what we agreed to say about it!

You are welcome to disagree and call it the square blue, or call murder right.

It really isn't that difficult. Some people call abortion murder, some don't. Who can you say attributes morality to shapes and colours?

[tillingborn]

They aren't different things. They are the same thing. Light.

So is euthanasia murder?

[Skepdick]

It really isn't that difficult. Some people call abortion murder, some don't.

I know! It's trivial. Some people call the square red, some don't.

Who can you say attributes morality to shapes and colours?

Who can say what attributes anything to anything?

Oh, right. Only humans say stuff.

[Skepdick]

So is euthanasia murder?

You can say that euthanasia is murder.
You can say that euthanasia isn't murder.
You can say that this is blue.
You can say that this isn't blue.

You can say whatever you want!

And yet you say that this is red. WHY?

red.png

[Terrapin Station]

Agreeing to say something doesn't make anything objective. If not-P is objectively the case, we can all agree that P, and we can all be mistaken, which we can discover as we learn how to better observe that P, as we learn why we had the illusion that not-P, etc. When we discover that we were wrong, there may be very few people who realize this or accept it at first, and maybe in perpetuity. Agreement doesn't make anything the case aside from it being the case that we agree.

[Skepdick]

Agreeing to say something doesn't make anything objective.

Great!

Then please tell us what makes this "objectively red". And, mind you, I want you to explain what made it "objectively red" before Newton gave us any insights in 1672.

Least you are trying to convince us that this wasn't "objectively red" before we had a theory of colors.

red.png

[Skepdick]

Agreement doesn't make anything the case aside from it being the case that we agree.

What makes anything "the case" then?

[Peter Holmes]

Just for the record, I think murder and capital punishment are morally wrong, and I can explain why I think that.

I also think abortion is not wrong, and I can explain why I think that.

But I don't think my moral opinions are 'true', so that opposing opinions are 'false'. How arrogant and egotistical would that be?

No such reservations about the red circle. Given the way we English speakers use the words 'red' and 'circle', that thing is a red circle, and the factual assertion 'that is a red circle' is true-trousers. And, for the same reason, the factual assertion 'that is a blue square' is false-falsies.

What sort of dumb fucking philosopher would argue otherwise?

[Skepdick]

If not-P is objectively the case, we can all agree that P, and we can all be mistaken, which we can discover as we learn how to better observe that P, as we learn why we had the illusion that not-P, etc.

OK, so how might we discover that this isn't red? What might we observe to convince us that we were all, collectively mistaken all along?

red.png

[Skepdick]

Just for the record, I think murder and capital punishment are morally wrong, and I can explain why I think that.

I also think abortion is not wrong, and I can explain why I think that.

No such reservations about the red circle. Given the way we English speakers use the words 'red' and 'circle', that thing is a red circle, and the factual assertion 'that is a red circle' is true-trousers. And, for the same reason, the factual assertion 'that is a blue square' is false-falsies.

What sort of dumb fucking philosopher would argue otherwise?

Special pleading. Given the way we English speakers use the word "wrong" and "murder" the assertion "murder is wrong" is true.

This is not appealing to any truth-theory. This is simply appealing to the fact that "murder is wrong" is true in the conventional way that we use the word "true". And for the same reason, the assertion "murder is not wrong" is false.

With "truth" having a wide range of meanings, some of which are "I agree with this emotional sentiment".

[Terrapin Station]

Just for the record, I think murder and capital punishment are morally wrong, and I can explain why I think that.

I also think abortion is not wrong, and I can explain why I think that.

But I don't think my moral opinions are 'true', so that opposing opinions are 'false'. How arrogant and egotistical would that be?

No such reservations about the red circle. Given the way we English speakers use the words 'red' and 'circle', that thing is a red circle, and the factual assertion 'that is a red circle' is true-trousers. And, for the same reason, the factual assertion 'that is a blue square' is false-falsies.

What sort of dumb fucking philosopher would argue otherwise?

And I don't I know if a point is being made about what we call anything, but that doesn't matter. With a red circle, what it is for it to be the case is that it has particular em wavelengths/frequencies and spatial extensional relations--whatever we call it.