What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

A simpler and absolutely perfect argument is this;
OUGHTs exist.
There is nowhere for OUGHTs to come from but ISes.
Therefore, all OUGHTs come from ISes.

You understand that is an absurdly shit argument, right?

If by "absurdly shit" you mean "undeniably true", then i agree.

Two questions, with requests for information, about this undeniably true conclusion of this undeniably sound argument.

1 What and where are 'oughts', and in what way do they exist? If they don't exist physically, please explain the non-physical meaning of the word 'exist'.

2 How does an 'ought' come from an 'is''? Is the connection causal? If so, please explain the causal mechanism.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=566628 time=1648878499 user_id=15099]
1 What and where are 'oughts', and in what way do they exist? If they don't exist physically, please explain the non-physical meaning of the word 'exist'.

2 How does an 'ought' come from an 'is''? Is the connection causal? If so, please explain the causal mechanism.
[/quote]

1. All things are a pattern in a mind - a set of attributes and/or boundary conditions by which it is distinguished from other things according to a purpose. So long as any two people share a sufficient understanding of OUGHT to do real-would work with it, it has proven it's existence sufficient for their purposes. And since OUGHT is in dictionaries and had been used for many generations in many languages, books, and minds, questioning of it's very existence can only be disingenuous.

2. The relationship is nothing to do with causal and you bloody well know it. It's contingent. All languages are descriptive and OUGHT describes the basis of morality - the kinds of behaviors that lead to the best outcomes. It is a useful concept to the extent priorities are shared.

[RCSaunders]

2 How does an 'ought' come from an 'is''? Is the connection causal? If so, please explain the causal mechanism.

You've put your finger on exactly what is wrong with all that is called morality. Every view of morality, from the religious to the philosophical, assumes some intrinsic view of values, the idea that something is just right, good, or important (because god, or society, or some mystical mandaate says so). In that sense, there cannot be any, "ought."

Real values are relationships, and do not exist sans some objective, goal, or purpose. Things only have a value, are only right, good, or important, if they will achieve, benefit, or are necessary to a chosen objective or goal. "Ought," only has meaning relative to an objective and identifies what one, "ought," to do to achieve their objective. The, "is," that determines the, "ought," is all of reality and what is possible or not possible and what must be done, or not done, to achieve or realize an objective.

The real question of morality is not, "how does what is determine an ought," (ala Hume), because every ought is determined by what is. It is reality that determines what one must do to achieve any objective, that is, "if you want to achieve this objective you not only, ought to do such'n'such, but absolutely must, or fail." The question of morality is, what is the objective?

[Peter Holmes]

1 What and where are 'oughts', and in what way do they exist? If they don't exist physically, please explain the non-physical meaning of the word 'exist'.

2 How does an 'ought' come from an 'is''? Is the connection causal? If so, please explain the causal mechanism.

1. All things are a pattern in a mind - a set of attributes and/or boundary conditions by which it is distinguished from other things according to a purpose.

Unsubstantiated idealism. Mystical woo.

So long as any two people share a sufficient understanding of OUGHT to do real-would work with it, it has proven it's existence sufficient for their purposes.

That we know how to use a word doesn't demonstrate the existence of the thing the word supposedly names.

And since OUGHT is in dictionaries and had been used for many generations in many languages, books, and minds, questioning of it's very existence can only be disingenuous.

So the word ought appears in dictionaries; therefore oughts exist. Genius. No explanation of the word 'exist', as requested.

2. The relationship is nothing to do with causal and you bloody well know it. It's contingent. All languages are descriptive and OUGHT describes the basis of morality - the kinds of behaviors that lead to the best outcomes. It is a useful concept to the extent priorities are shared.

What? Causation and contingency aren't mutually exclusive. And again, no explanation of the connection between an is and an ought - a factual premise and a moral conclusion.

Thanks, but nothing to see here.

[FlashDangerpants]

You understand that is an absurdly shit argument, right?

If by "absurdly shit" you mean "undeniably true", then i agree.

Two questions, with requests for information, about this undeniably true conclusion of this undeniably sound argument.

1 What and where are 'oughts', and in what way do they exist? If they don't exist physically, please explain the non-physical meaning of the word 'exist'.

2 How does an 'ought' come from an 'is''? Is the connection causal? If so, please explain the causal mechanism.

Let me help you out here. Advocate once gave himself similar praise for successfully proving that there is such a thing as a True Scotsman, supposing that this fixed the "No True Scotsman" problem. He never wondered if NTS was shorthand for anything and is oblivious to the fact that his answer wasn't actually useful. I believe to this day, being an fairly obvious narcissist, he still thinks he fixed a problem there.

You shouldn't assume he understands what the is-ought gap actually refers to before he congratulates himself for being the greatest philosopher of all time and fixing that problem too.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=566694 time=1648919821 user_id=11800]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=566628 time=1648878499 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=566458 time=1648740670 user_id=15238]


If by "absurdly shit" you mean "undeniably true", then i agree.
[/quote]
Two questions, with requests for information, about this undeniably true conclusion of this undeniably sound argument.

1 What and where are 'oughts', and in what way do they exist? If they don't exist physically, please explain the non-physical meaning of the word 'exist'.

2 How does an 'ought' come from an 'is''? Is the connection causal? If so, please explain the causal mechanism.
[/quote]
Let me help you out here. Advocate once gave himself similar praise for successfully proving that there is such a thing as a True Scotsman, supposing that this fixed the "No True Scotsman" problem. He never wondered if NTS was shorthand for anything and is oblivious to the fact that his answer wasn't actually useful. I believe to this day, being an fairly obvious narcissist, he still thinks he fixed a problem there.

You shouldn't assume he understands what the is-ought gap actually refers to before he congratulates himself for being the greatest philosopher of all time and fixing that problem too.
[/quote]

That the answers are semantic does not make them any less true or perfect. If your want something else, have at it, but it cannot be as practical.

[Peter Holmes]

Two questions, with requests for information, about this undeniably true conclusion of this undeniably sound argument.

1 What and where are 'oughts', and in what way do they exist? If they don't exist physically, please explain the non-physical meaning of the word 'exist'.

2 How does an 'ought' come from an 'is''? Is the connection causal? If so, please explain the causal mechanism.

Let me help you out here. Advocate once gave himself similar praise for successfully proving that there is such a thing as a True Scotsman, supposing that this fixed the "No True Scotsman" problem. He never wondered if NTS was shorthand for anything and is oblivious to the fact that his answer wasn't actually useful. I believe to this day, being an fairly obvious narcissist, he still thinks he fixed a problem there.

You shouldn't assume he understands what the is-ought gap actually refers to before he congratulates himself for being the greatest philosopher of all time and fixing that problem too.

That the answers are semantic does not make them any less true or perfect. If your want something else, have at it, but it cannot be as practical.

Outside language, the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do semantics. To think otherwise is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - the original mistake of and in philosophy.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=566775 time=1648981570 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=566701 time=1648922277 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=566694 time=1648919821 user_id=11800]

Let me help you out here. Advocate once gave himself similar praise for successfully proving that there is such a thing as a True Scotsman, supposing that this fixed the "No True Scotsman" problem. He never wondered if NTS was shorthand for anything and is oblivious to the fact that his answer wasn't actually useful. I believe to this day, being an fairly obvious narcissist, he still thinks he fixed a problem there.

You shouldn't assume he understands what the is-ought gap actually refers to before he congratulates himself for being the greatest philosopher of all time and fixing that problem too.
[/quote]

That the answers are semantic does not make them any less true or perfect. If your want something else, have at it, but it cannot be as practical.
[/quote]
Outside language, the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do semantics. To think otherwise is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - the original mistake of and in philosophy.
[/quote]

What we say about things is as close to the way they are as we can get. Some more than others.

[Gary Childress]

I think if there were a God and God clearly said to us, this is what morality is, then it would be objective. Otherwise, there are a lot of conflicting notions in morality that can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. I mean, just look at the commandment, though shalt not kill. What happens if you accidentally kill someone? Or what happens if you have to defend yourself from someone who doesn't give a flying rats ass about the commandment? Of course, some say, it's not "though shalt not kill", it's "thou shalt not murder". Congrats. Now we've opened up an impossibly expansive realm of interpretation in terms of what constitutes "justified killing" vs "unjustified killing." So just when we thought it was hard enough to abide by "thou shalt not kill" along comes the subjective term "murder".

[Gary Childress]

Actually, if morality were objective, then we could measure and analyze what is moral and what isn't. I know of no court on Earth that has demonstrated the capability of that. There's a reason why laws are vague and up for interpretation. It's because they AREN'T objective.

[Peter Holmes]

I think if there were a God and God clearly said to us, this is what morality is, then it would be objective.

I disagree. The only fact would be that this god said this is morally right and this is morally wrong. And since these are merely opinions, that wouldn't mean morality is objective - that there are moral facts. Indeed, if there were moral facts, what a god or anyone else said would be irrelevant. The claim 'this is morally right/wrong simply because a god - or anyone else - says it is' has no place in a rational moral discussion. We'd laugh it out of court.

[Gary Childress]

I think if there were a God and God clearly said to us, this is what morality is, then it would be objective.

I disagree. The only fact would be that this god said this is morally right and this is morally wrong. And since these are merely opinions, that wouldn't mean morality is objective - that there are moral facts. Indeed, if there were moral facts, what a god or anyone else said would be irrelevant. The claim 'this is morally right/wrong simply because a god - or anyone else - says it is' has no place in a rational moral discussion. We'd laugh it out of court.

Morality is never going to be objective. You can't measure it, quantify it or anything else. It's a vain endeavor to try to objectify morality.

[Peter Holmes]

I think if there were a God and God clearly said to us, this is what morality is, then it would be objective.

I disagree. The only fact would be that this god said this is morally right and this is morally wrong. And since these are merely opinions, that wouldn't mean morality is objective - that there are moral facts. Indeed, if there were moral facts, what a god or anyone else said would be irrelevant. The claim 'this is morally right/wrong simply because a god - or anyone else - says it is' has no place in a rational moral discussion. We'd laugh it out of court.

Morality is never going to be objective. You can't measure it, quantify it or anything else. It's a vain endeavor to try to objectify morality.

Agreed. The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of moral facts - moral features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion. And there aren't and can't be such things. The very expression 'moral fact' is a contradiction or oxymoron.

But the nonsense goes on. For some, it's obviously terribly important to insist that their own moral opinions are facts.

[RCSaunders]

Morality is never going to be objective. You can't measure it, quantify it or anything else. It's a vain endeavor to try to objectify morality.

If something has no characteristics or attributes at all, it is nothing. If what you say about morality is true, there is no such thing as morality.

Is that your point?

If not. What is morality?

In different words, this is the same question I asked Peter Holmes (which he never answered):

The real question of morality is not, "how does what is determine an ought," (ala Hume), because every ought is determined by what is. It is reality that determines what one must do to achieve any objective, that is, "if you want to achieve this objective you not only, ought to do such'n'such, but absolutely must, or fail." The question of morality is, what is the objective?

In other words, what is it morality pertains to? If there were no morality or if no one every observed any so-called morality, what difference would it make?

Everyone is certain some kind of morality is necessary, but no one ever explains or even questions, "what for?"

[Peter Holmes]

Morality is never going to be objective. You can't measure it, quantify it or anything else. It's a vain endeavor to try to objectify morality.

If something has no characteristics or attributes at all, it is nothing. If what you say about morality is true, there is no such thing as morality.

Is that your point?

If not. What is morality?

In different words, this is the same question I asked Peter Holmes (which he never answered):

The real question of morality is not, "how does what is determine an ought," (ala Hume), because every ought is determined by what is. It is reality that determines what one must do to achieve any objective, that is, "if you want to achieve this objective you not only, ought to do such'n'such, but absolutely must, or fail." The question of morality is, what is the objective?

In other words, what is it morality pertains to? If there were no morality or if no one every observed any so-called morality, what difference would it make?

Everyone is certain some kind of morality is necessary, but no one ever explains or even questions, "what for?"

This isn't hard.

What is morality? Well, what we call morality is a discourse about the difference between what we call good and bad, or right and wrong behaviour. Any dictionary will explain this.

So, what is morality for? Well, as social animals, we've developed (and are still developing) rules for what we call good and bad or right and wrong behaviour - because we need such rules for social groups to survive and progress. And we want social groups to survive and progress, because, as individuals, our survival and progression depends on the group. It's collective self-interest.

Note: If goal-consistency is all that moral 'ought' refers to, then if our goal is male supremacy, women ought to be subjugated. So much for moral objectivity. Fact is, goal-consistency is not what moral 'ought' refers to - that's a silly argument, and it's not what moral objectivists mean when they claim there are moral facts.