What could make morality objective?

[Age]

I thought I was pretty clear, you don't merit a hatred so you can't have any.

In what words of YOURS, EXACTLY, would they make you think you were pretty clear here?

You are very boring and annoying and that's why most people who use ignore lists will have you on their list.

So, it is now NOT EVERY one, as you just previously CLAIMED it was, correct?

I'm sure the same must be true of TRokenmaaerierl and that weird nutter who calles everyone player as well.

Who calls EVERY one "player"?

Also, how 'sure' are you here?

All of that is an example of you being boring and irritating. I don't care if you find my answers satisfactory, you have had what you will be getting.

GREAT. You absolute LACK of ability to CLARIFY and to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS here made your words rather WORTHLESS and USELESS anyway, to say the least.

[Sculptor]

LOL

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here could NOT be MORE Wrong, AGAIN.

This is your third post to me here now and the third ASSUMPTION that IS TOTALLY Wrong.

So, I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that you CLARIFY what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct, BEFORE you even begin to make these most ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, like you have been here.

There are no assumptions here, just questions.

This IS True, THIS TIME.

Glad to SEE you took my advice and sought CLARIFICATION, FINALLY.

Can you answer a question of not?

OF COURSE I CAN.

And your question here is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS considering what has ACTUALLY transpired here above in this forum. Anyway;

What do you think morality is?

'Morality', like EVERY "other" thing in the Universe, IS whatever one wants 'it' to be, but what the word 'morality' refers to, to me, is the behavior human beings do in relation to what is classed as being right and/wrong, in Life.

How do you define the 'morality' word "sculptor"?

Is morality objective?

AGAIN, things are WHATEVER one SEES them to be or wants them to be.

But to answer your question here, Yes, to me.

Is morality subjective?

To me, Yes.

But BEFORE you JUMP to ANY ASSUMPTIONS or CONCLUSIONS here I, AGAIN, suggest that you gain CLARIFICATION, FIRST. That way you will NOT be Wrong, AGAIN.

And, if you keep GAINING CLARIFICATION, FIRST, BEFORE you make ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL, then you could NEVER be Wrong EVER AGAIN.

Is morality objective, to you, "sculptor"?

You are a fucking idiot.

[Age]

There are no assumptions here, just questions.

This IS True, THIS TIME.

Glad to SEE you took my advice and sought CLARIFICATION, FINALLY.

Can you answer a question of not?

OF COURSE I CAN.

And your question here is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS considering what has ACTUALLY transpired here above in this forum. Anyway;

What do you think morality is?

'Morality', like EVERY "other" thing in the Universe, IS whatever one wants 'it' to be, but what the word 'morality' refers to, to me, is the behavior human beings do in relation to what is classed as being right and/wrong, in Life.

How do you define the 'morality' word "sculptor"?

Is morality objective?

AGAIN, things are WHATEVER one SEES them to be or wants them to be.

But to answer your question here, Yes, to me.

Is morality subjective?

To me, Yes.

But BEFORE you JUMP to ANY ASSUMPTIONS or CONCLUSIONS here I, AGAIN, suggest that you gain CLARIFICATION, FIRST. That way you will NOT be Wrong, AGAIN.

And, if you keep GAINING CLARIFICATION, FIRST, BEFORE you make ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL, then you could NEVER be Wrong EVER AGAIN.

Is morality objective, to you, "sculptor"?

You are a fucking idiot.

ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of WHY the human race STALLED in becoming wiser, during the days when this was being written.

WITHOUT GAINING CLARIFICATION FIRST, they just ASSUMED they ALREADY KNEW what was true and right.

What MADE morality, and other things, OBJECTIVE was YET to be LEARNT, by the people in the days when this was being written. But then again they ALREADY KNEW what the Truth was. One just only has to READ the words that they USED to DISCOVER this.

Although, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, NONE of them could formulate a sound and valid argument here, but that did NOT stop them from BELIEVING that they ALREADY KNEW what was true and right.

[Sculptor]

This IS True, THIS TIME.

Glad to SEE you took my advice and sought CLARIFICATION, FINALLY.



OF COURSE I CAN.

And your question here is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS considering what has ACTUALLY transpired here above in this forum. Anyway;


'Morality', like EVERY "other" thing in the Universe, IS whatever one wants 'it' to be, but what the word 'morality' refers to, to me, is the behavior human beings do in relation to what is classed as being right and/wrong, in Life.

How do you define the 'morality' word "sculptor"?



AGAIN, things are WHATEVER one SEES them to be or wants them to be.

But to answer your question here, Yes, to me.


To me, Yes.

But BEFORE you JUMP to ANY ASSUMPTIONS or CONCLUSIONS here I, AGAIN, suggest that you gain CLARIFICATION, FIRST. That way you will NOT be Wrong, AGAIN.

And, if you keep GAINING CLARIFICATION, FIRST, BEFORE you make ANY ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL, then you could NEVER be Wrong EVER AGAIN.

Is morality objective, to you, "sculptor"?

You are a fucking idiot.

ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of WHY ...

... you really are a fucking idiot

[Age]

You are a fucking idiot.

ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of WHY ...

... you really are a fucking idiot

Okay, if that is all you are able to say, and are NOT even able to define 'morality'' “yourself", then so be it.

[Peter Holmes]

Anti-realism: the mechanism of an intellectual trap

A dichotomy requires two options, and a contrast between them. Remove one of the options, and there's no longer a dichotomy.

So, if there's no such thing as 'reality-as-it-really-is', then there's no contrast between it and reality as we perceive, know and describe it.

As I understand the issue, anti-realists aren't 'opposed to reality', because that would be stupid. Instead, what they oppose is the claim that we can perceive, know and describe reality-as-it-really-is - because there's no such thing. So they both deny the dichotomy and invoke it to attack realism.

This is wanting to have your cake and eat it. The anti-realist case against realism amounts to a straw man.

[FlashDangerpants]

Anti-realism: the mechanism of an intellectual trap

A dichotomy requires two options, and a contrast between them. Remove one of the options, and there's no longer a dichotomy.

So, if there's no such thing as 'reality-as-it-really-is', then there's no contrast between it and reality as we perceive, know and describe it.

As I understand the issue, anti-realists aren't 'opposed to reality', because that would be stupid. Instead, what they oppose is the claim that we can perceive, know and describe reality-as-it-really-is - because there's no such thing. So they both deny the dichotomy and invoke it to attack realism.

This is wanting to have your cake and eat it. The anti-realist case against realism amounts to a straw man.

In so far as I bother worrying about metaphysical antirealism at all, it doesn't have any of the importance that VA ascribes to it. If it did it would be bogged down in discussion about solipsism and never be permitted to discuss anything else. It's second order stuff about how we can talk about reality, it doesn't interfere with reality as first order experience in the form of all <--- THIS ---> stuff around us that we live in.

No modern treatment of antirealism by a professional philosopher or talented amateur is so lumpen and clumsy as to justify the foolish claptrap VA tries to use it for. But VA isn't talented, and his work is never going to be burdened with subtlety. He substitutes persistence for everything he lacks including education, understanding and ability.

[Peter Holmes]

Anti-realism: the mechanism of an intellectual trap

A dichotomy requires two options, and a contrast between them. Remove one of the options, and there's no longer a dichotomy.

So, if there's no such thing as 'reality-as-it-really-is', then there's no contrast between it and reality as we perceive, know and describe it.

As I understand the issue, anti-realists aren't 'opposed to reality', because that would be stupid. Instead, what they oppose is the claim that we can perceive, know and describe reality-as-it-really-is - because there's no such thing. So they both deny the dichotomy and invoke it to attack realism.

This is wanting to have your cake and eat it. The anti-realist case against realism amounts to a straw man.

In so far as I bother worrying about metaphysical antirealism at all, it doesn't have any of the importance that VA ascribes to it. If it did it would be bogged down in discussion about solipsism and never be permitted to discuss anything else. It's second order stuff about how we can talk about reality, it doesn't interfere with reality as first order experience in the form of all <--- THIS ---> stuff around us that we live in.

No modern treatment of antirealism by a professional philosopher or talented amateur is so lumpen and clumsy as to justify the foolish claptrap VA tries to use it for. But VA isn't talented, and his work is never going to be burdened with subtlety. He substitutes persistence for everything he lacks including education, understanding and ability.

Okay. Understood. On the plus side, I've found that rebutting and refuting his (and others') claims and arguments - such as they are - and seeing how you and others do it - has helped me to clarify my thinking. So I'm mostly grateful to everyone for engaging.

[Sculptor]

ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of WHY ...

... you really are a fucking idiot

Okay, if that is all you are able to say, and are NOT even able to define 'morality'' “yourself", then so be it.

What do you mean "morality"?

[Age]

... you really are a fucking idiot

Okay, if that is all you are able to say, and are NOT even able to define 'morality'' “yourself", then so be it.

What do you mean "morality"?

I HAVE ALREADY answered. It is YOU who has NOT.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a thought.

Defining terms is vital for a discussion to be productive. So defining the word 'morality' is necessary if we want to discuss what we call morality.

But to define a sign such as a word can be merely to explain how we use it. Whereas to define a thing is to describe it, which is a radically different operation. And to confuse or conflate the two different uses of the word 'definition' is a mistake. Mistaking the use of a word for the thing we (if only supposedly) name with the word leads to no end of philosophical muddle.

And dictionaries reinforce the muddle. Look up a definition of the word 'dog', and you'll find a generalised description of a dog - as though the meaning of a noun is the thing we name with it. (A dog is a real thing - a feature of reality - not the meaning of a word. What an absurd idea!)

So does the question 'what is morality?' want an explanation of how we use the word 'morality' and its cognates, such as 'moral' and 'immoral'? Or does it want a description of a thing of some kind? And if so, what kind of thing is morality?

I think the whole, vast failure of the philosophical enterprise - the failure to answer seemingly profound philosophical questions - what is knowledge? what is truth? what is identity? - comes from this banal, ridiculous misunderstanding.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just a thought.

Defining terms is vital for a discussion to be productive. So defining the word 'morality' is necessary if we want to discuss what we call morality.

But to define a sign such as a word can be merely to explain how we use it.
Whereas to define a thing is to describe it, which is a radically different operation.
And to confuse or conflate the two different uses of the word 'definition' is a mistake. Mistaking the use of a word for the thing we (if only supposedly) name with the word leads to no end of philosophical muddle.

Note we are doing "Philosophy" in this forum, i.e.

• Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
  
  3 Branches of philosophy
  3.1 Aesthetics
  3.2 Ethics
  3.3 Epistemology
  3.4 Metaphysics
  3.5 Logic
  3.6 Mind and language
  3.7 Philosophy of science
  3.8 Political philosophy
  3.9 Philosophy of religion
  3.10 Metaphilosophy
  3.11 Other subdivision
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

The task of definition is merely a very small part of Philosophy. You are giving sign-word definition too much emphasis.
Definitions are one of the prerequisite of doing philosophy which is basic but it must be followed by the other tasks of philosophy, e.g. epistemology, metaphysics, etc.
As such any average person doing philosophy would not conflate sign-word definition with defining and understanding the 'thing' within reality which is confined to epistemology, metaphysics, etc.

And dictionaries reinforce the muddle. Look up a definition of the word 'dog', and you'll find a generalised description of a dog - as though the meaning of a noun is the thing we name with it. (A dog is a real thing - a feature of reality - not the meaning of a word. What an absurd idea!)

As I had stated, dictionaries [general, philosophical, knowledge-specific] are essential as a starting point, but simultaneously must be covered by their related philosophical subjects within epistemology, metaphysics, etc.

Yes, the word 'dog' is merely a universal not a particular thing as such dealing with it [word] merely represent a half-truth.
What is more real is the "particular" dog in conventional reality [science and the likes] which must be verified and justified within a specific FSK as "obtain".
But at a more higher level of reflection regarding what is really most real, one will find there is no dog-in-itself outside words and specific FSKs; it does not obtain at this higher level of of reality.

In his Problems of Philosophy, Russell had already justified the issue when he argued 'perhaps there is no real table out there at all.'
So in your example above, 'perhaps there is no real "dog" at all'; which sound absurd but most true when reflected at a higher level of philosophy.
It is not likely you will understand this point since you are dogmatically stuck within your 100 meter tall silo.

In doing Philosophy we must qualify all the above circumstances without being dogmatically clinging to merely one aspects of it.

So does the question 'what is morality?' want an explanation of how we use the word 'morality' and its cognates, such as 'moral' and 'immoral'? Or does it want a description of a thing of some kind? And if so, what kind of thing is morality?

I think the whole, vast failure of the philosophical enterprise - the failure to answer seemingly profound philosophical questions - what is knowledge? what is truth? what is identity? - comes from this banal, ridiculous misunderstanding.

To understand "what is morality" we need to exhaust all the meanings of the word 'morality' in how it is used which can be referenced here, note the list of the category below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Morality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

which is also linked with Ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethics

Thus 'what is morality' is covered within the sphere of how the word is used within the categories.

Whatever problem you think there is, it is due to your ignorance and dogmatic clinging to narrow understanding of what philosophy should be doing.

Within the whole range of issues raised within the Morality and Ethics community, they can be reduced the various branches of philosophy [listed above] which is mainly on issues of epistemology, metaphysics and philosophy of language.

From the beginning, Ethics & Morality is about doing Good and avoiding Evil [as defined].
It is also from the beginning that theists claim their morality [commands of ought_s] is real and objective from a God.
It was Hume who threw in a spanner to the above theistic claim and Hume also extended his argument 'no ought from is' [NOFI] to all other objective claims of morality, i.e. as from pure reason.
But due to his ignorance [of his time] which Hume admitted, he was not aware the possibility of the inherent physical moral potential within the human brain.

But there were loads of people who believe [intuitively] there are objective moral facts based on their intuitions as abduced from evidence of everyday experiences.
Unfortunately they are having a hard time arguing against Hume's Guillotine [NOFI] where their opponents could easily counter claim their unjustified intuitions as subjective opinions and beliefs. This is the bandwagon you have been riding on which is merely dogmatic based on ignorance and arrogance.

But the tide is turning, there is an exponential expansion of knowledge in many advanced fields, especially in the neurosciences. It is from these advances that I had argued,
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

It is time for you to "Wake Up from your Dogmatic Slumber!!"

[FlashDangerpants]

Just a thought.

Defining terms is vital for a discussion to be productive. So defining the word 'morality' is necessary if we want to discuss what we call morality.

But to define a sign such as a word can be merely to explain how we use it. Whereas to define a thing is to describe it, which is a radically different operation. And to confuse or conflate the two different uses of the word 'definition' is a mistake. Mistaking the use of a word for the thing we (if only supposedly) name with the word leads to no end of philosophical muddle.

And dictionaries reinforce the muddle. Look up a definition of the word 'dog', and you'll find a generalised description of a dog - as though the meaning of a noun is the thing we name with it. (A dog is a real thing - a feature of reality - not the meaning of a word. What an absurd idea!)

So does the question 'what is morality?' want an explanation of how we use the word 'morality' and its cognates, such as 'moral' and 'immoral'? Or does it want a description of a thing of some kind? And if so, what kind of thing is morality?

I think the whole, vast failure of the philosophical enterprise - the failure to answer seemingly profound philosophical questions - what is knowledge? what is truth? what is identity? - comes from this banal, ridiculous misunderstanding.

According to this little scene on British TV there is no way to define what is a fish?. But the average dictionary will still include that word as both noun and verb because we do all know what a fish actually is, sort of. We know how to use the word and all share a similar competence with a language game that makes the concept useful.

What's problematic is creating a definition that includes all the important things it needs to include, but which doesn't accidentally import anything that importantly should not be there. Many of the worst works published on this forum seem to begin with somebody failing this test, often on purpose, to define things as diverse as "what is philosophy", "what is fact", "what is objectivity" and "what is morality". That obviously makes it sound like I'm pointing the finger at one specific idiot, but it's a mistake that gets around quite a bit once you notice it.

The more nebulous a concept is, the more appropriate it becomes to apply the logic of Justice Potter Stuart in Roth v U.S. who knew what porno was, perhaps could not define it fully, but "I know it when I see it".

What I recommend we make sure to avoid in particular is stealing the name of something that everybody understands on the basis of the above, and trying to replace it with some ersatz whittled down replacement. That is fraud. Thus...

• If you need to publish an argument in which it is a Fact that some Truth is True while also being Untrue, you need to stop misusing the word fact because you have stolen it and replaced it with a shitty imitation.

• If you need to use that abominable fake fact thing to justify a reduced fat inferior version of Objectivity in which the objective quality is derived from nothing but the combination of many subjects' subjective opinions and the Objective Fact thus derived is somehow considered True even though contrary objective facts created out of other individuals' shared subjective opinions which are also True assert that your Objective Fact is FALSE ... you done fucked up BIG.

• And if finally, you need to promote some derisory little alternative "morality" that no longer has enough juice to define things as good or bad ... well that's just pathetic. Put that cancerous little weasel out of its misery.

All that self-harm arises from the sophistry of incompetent little men who would prefer to make the word mean something they can do than just admit that they can't do what the word means.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a thought.

Defining terms is vital for a discussion to be productive. So defining the word 'morality' is necessary if we want to discuss what we call morality.

But to define a sign such as a word can be merely to explain how we use it. Whereas to define a thing is to describe it, which is a radically different operation. And to confuse or conflate the two different uses of the word 'definition' is a mistake. Mistaking the use of a word for the thing we (if only supposedly) name with the word leads to no end of philosophical muddle.

And dictionaries reinforce the muddle. Look up a definition of the word 'dog', and you'll find a generalised description of a dog - as though the meaning of a noun is the thing we name with it. (A dog is a real thing - a feature of reality - not the meaning of a word. What an absurd idea!)

So does the question 'what is morality?' want an explanation of how we use the word 'morality' and its cognates, such as 'moral' and 'immoral'? Or does it want a description of a thing of some kind? And if so, what kind of thing is morality?

I think the whole, vast failure of the philosophical enterprise - the failure to answer seemingly profound philosophical questions - what is knowledge? what is truth? what is identity? - comes from this banal, ridiculous misunderstanding.

According to this little scene on British TV there is no way to define what is a fish?. But the average dictionary will still include that word as both noun and verb because we do all know what a fish actually is, sort of. We know how to use the word and all share a similar competence with a language game that makes the concept useful.

What's problematic is creating a definition that includes all the important things it needs to include, but which doesn't accidentally import anything that importantly should not be there. Many of the worst works published on this forum seem to begin with somebody failing this test, often on purpose, to define things as diverse as "what is philosophy", "what is fact", "what is objectivity" and "what is morality". That obviously makes it sound like I'm pointing the finger at one specific idiot, but it's a mistake that gets around quite a bit once you notice it.

The more nebulous a concept is, the more appropriate it becomes to apply the logic of Justice Potter Stuart in Roth v U.S. who knew what porno was, perhaps could not define it fully, but "I know it when I see it".

What I recommend we make sure to avoid in particular is stealing the name of something that everybody understands on the basis of the above, and trying to replace it with some ersatz whittled down replacement. That is fraud. Thus...

• If you need to publish an argument in which it is a Fact that some Truth is True while also being Untrue, you need to stop misusing the word fact because you have stolen it and replaced it with a shitty imitation.

• If you need to use that abominable fake fact thing to justify a reduced fat inferior version of Objectivity in which the objective quality is derived from nothing but the combination of many subjects' subjective opinions and the Objective Fact thus derived is somehow considered True even though contrary objective facts created out of other individuals' shared subjective opinions which are also True assert that your Objective Fact is FALSE ... you done fucked up BIG.

• And if finally, you need to promote some derisory little alternative "morality" that no longer has enough juice to define things as good or bad ... well that's just pathetic. Put that cancerous little weasel out of its misery.

All that self-harm arises from the sophistry of incompetent little men who would prefer to make the word mean something they can do than just admit that they can't do what the word means.

Nicely put. Reminds me of Tarski's useless solution to a non-existent problem: needing a meta-language to define what we call truth. Explanations come to an end. That we can always say more doesn't mean we can never say enough.

[Skepdick]

Nicely put. Reminds me of Tarski's useless solution to a non-existent problem: needing a meta-language to define what we call truth. Explanations come to an end. That we can always say more doesn't mean we can never say enough.

Given that you are such an ignoramus your argument from ignorance is no longer surpsising...

That which you call an "explanation" is precisely what Tarski calls a meta-language.

Language: The apple fell from the tree.
Why did the apple fall from the tree? ...

The answer following the above question produces an explanation/meta-language.

The theory of gravity - a meta-linguistic construct. An ontology.