What could make morality objective?

[Belinda]

The " that" changes from species to species and from culture to culture. The "that" vis a vis powered flight changed for most people after Wilbur and Orville Wright did it.

I can't speak for other species, but from human perspective I don't think the "that" changes. Birds fly. Airplanes fly.

HOW they fly differs, but not THAT they fly.

But we are talking about specifically human bodies getting airborne. Human bodies were not in any way capable of flight until the Wright brothers did it. The THAT is not a constant unless you take the view from eternity.

Either we talk within the frame of relative time and space(and ,it follows, history) or we talk within the frame of eternity.

[Skepdick]

But we are talking about specifically human bodies getting airborne. Human bodies were not in any way capable of flight until the Wright brothers did it. The THAT is not a constant unless you take the view from eternity.

Either we talk within the frame of relative time and space(and ,it follows, history) or we talk within the frame of eternity.

Even in the historical order of events human flight predates the Wright brothers by 2500 years. Humans have been wanting to fly for a while...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-lifti ... ly_history

[CIN]

I don't think slavery IS always wrong — not if the slaves are happy.

So, if a child, for example, is happy when they are being ABUSED, then this ABUSE is NOT wrong, correct?

Do you have any evidence that children are ever happy when they are being abused?

[CIN]

But moral oughts are categorical, not hypothetical.

That's not a descriptive statement. That's a prescriptive statement.

Moral oughts are whatever moral oughts are.

What you are really saying is that "moral oughts OUGHT TO BE categorical..."

I do love it when people tell me what I am really saying. What they really mean is that they WISH that was what I was really saying, so that they could be right and not me.

Here's a moral ought;
A. 'You ought to keep your promises'.
B. Statement A is clearly categorical, not hypothetical.
C. Statement B is clearly descriptive, not prescriptive.

Next patient please.

[CIN]

Suppose two people are arguing about a painting. One says it's beautiful, and the other says it's ugly. Would it be reasonable for the admirer to claim the painting is objectively beautiful, or the detractor that it's objectively ugly? What facts could either point to in order to settle the argument? And if there aren't any, does that mean that what each person says is meaningless?

I agree that a painting cannot be objectively beautiful or objectively ugly. I think this is irrelevant to the moral issue.

The expression 'objectively beautiful/ugly' is as incoherent as the expression 'subjectively beautiful/ugly'.

I don't understand you. Why are these expressions incoherent?

And exactly the same incoherence appears in the expressions 'objectively morally right/wrong' and 'subjectively morally right/wrong'.

As I said, I think the aesthetic and moral issues differ. You can't settle the moral issue by assuming that an analogy with the aesthetic issue holds, you can only do it either by showing that the analogy holds, or by discarding the aesthetic issue and simply proving that moral subjectivism is correct.

We can usually explain why we think a thing is beautiful or ugly, or why we think an action is morally right or wrong. But to believe those are properties that exist 'factually' - independent from opinion - is a delusion.

It is true that some supposed explanations would not show objectivism to be true, but this does not prove that there are NO explanations that would prove this. You have to take each supposed explanation on its merits.

Here's what I see as the problem with your statements quoted above:
You said, regarding slavery, 'I think it is always wrong.' You also said ' whether slavery (or anything else) is morally right or wrong - and always or only sometimes - is a matter of belief, judgement or opinion.' Now if you say 'I think it is always wrong', and you also say that whether it is right or wrong is a matter of belief, then this strongly implies that you believe that the statement 'slavery is wrong' is true. But the only way 'slavery is wrong' can be true is if slavery is wrong, which would be a moral fact. So you have strongly implied that you accept that there are moral facts. And yet you have often claimed in these forums that there aren't any moral facts. Your position therefore appears to be inconsistent.

I was trying to give you the opportunity to explain your statement 'I think [slavery] is always wrong' in some way which would avoid this inconsistency. You have sidestepped my question, and introduced an analogy which I think is not relevant, or which, at least, you have not shown is relevant.

Frankly, I think you are guilty of holding an objectivist view about slavery — that it is wrong — while falsely claiming to be a subjectivist.

Over to you.

1 Here are two assertions between which there's no logical contradiction:
There are no moral facts. Slavery is morally wrong.
I assume you understand why there's no contradiction.

Okay, I'll parody this argument of yours.
Here are two assertions between which there is no logical contradiction:
There are no physical facts. The earth is physically round.
I assume you now understand why your argument is crap.

2 If there are no moral facts, then a moral assertion doesn't make a factual claim with a truth-value.
I assume you understand the function of a hypothetical premise.

You haven't yet shown that there are no moral facts, so the antecedent of your hypothetical premise has not been satisfied.

3 In the expression 'X is subjectively morally wrong', the modifier 'subjectively' is grammatically misattached, because it doesn't refer to the moral wrongness of X. It refers to the status or function of the assertion that X is morally wrong.
I assume you're familiar with grammatical misattachments, such as abstract noun and true belief.

Okay. So 'X is subjectively morally wrong' should be rewritten as 'the assertion that X is morally wrong is subjective.' This is false, because 'X is morally wrong' makes a factual claim, and is therefore objective. Compare 'the assertion that the earth is physically round is subjective.' This is also false, for the same reason.

4 The analogy between aesthetic and moral assertions is precise. Both express value-judgements with no factual truth-value. Since beauty and ugliness are not independent properties, neither are moral rightness and wrongness.

You have provided no support for your assertion 'Both express value-judgements with no factual truth-value', so this reply gets you precisely nowhere.

The trouble with your posts, Peter, is that, on analysis, they always turn out to ASSUME that subjectivism is true. If you merely stated that you were unaware of any moral facts, that statement would be unexceptionable; but you go much further, and make the substantive claim that there are NO moral facts. You can't expect anyone to accept this claim if you don't provide reasonable grounds for believing that it is true, and you're just not doing this. Also, it would be unexceptionable for you, as a supposed subjectivist, to say something like 'I strongly disapprove of slavery'; that would be okay, because it would be merely a statement about you, and not about slavery (though of course, for that reason, it would be of no real interest to anyone else in a forum like this). But you muddy the waters by saying things like 'I think slavery is wrong', which, in a forum like this where people must be assumed to understand the implications of the words they use, can only reasonably be taken as a statement that you think this is a fact.

[Age]

I don't think slavery IS always wrong — not if the slaves are happy.

So, if a child, for example, is happy when they are being ABUSED, then this ABUSE is NOT wrong, correct?

Do you have any evidence that children are ever happy when they are being abused?

YES

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't think slavery IS always wrong — not if the slaves are happy.

So, if a child, for example, is happy when they are being ABUSED, then this ABUSE is NOT wrong, correct?

Do you have any evidence that children are ever happy when they are being abused?

It is hugely unwise to go down the road of proposing ethical enhancements to child abuse such as laughing gas and better hand puppets to keep the little tykes amused while you do your business.

[Skepdick]

I do love it when people tell me what I am really saying.

What they really mean is...

The phallus of irony seems so succulent! Cup the balls while you are at it.

[Peter Holmes]

I agree that a painting cannot be objectively beautiful or objectively ugly. I think this is irrelevant to the moral issue.


I don't understand you. Why are these expressions incoherent?


As I said, I think the aesthetic and moral issues differ. You can't settle the moral issue by assuming that an analogy with the aesthetic issue holds, you can only do it either by showing that the analogy holds, or by discarding the aesthetic issue and simply proving that moral subjectivism is correct.


It is true that some supposed explanations would not show objectivism to be true, but this does not prove that there are NO explanations that would prove this. You have to take each supposed explanation on its merits.

Here's what I see as the problem with your statements quoted above:
You said, regarding slavery, 'I think it is always wrong.' You also said ' whether slavery (or anything else) is morally right or wrong - and always or only sometimes - is a matter of belief, judgement or opinion.' Now if you say 'I think it is always wrong', and you also say that whether it is right or wrong is a matter of belief, then this strongly implies that you believe that the statement 'slavery is wrong' is true. But the only way 'slavery is wrong' can be true is if slavery is wrong, which would be a moral fact. So you have strongly implied that you accept that there are moral facts. And yet you have often claimed in these forums that there aren't any moral facts. Your position therefore appears to be inconsistent.

I was trying to give you the opportunity to explain your statement 'I think [slavery] is always wrong' in some way which would avoid this inconsistency. You have sidestepped my question, and introduced an analogy which I think is not relevant, or which, at least, you have not shown is relevant.

Frankly, I think you are guilty of holding an objectivist view about slavery — that it is wrong — while falsely claiming to be a subjectivist.

Over to you.

1 Here are two assertions between which there's no logical contradiction:
There are no moral facts. Slavery is morally wrong.
I assume you understand why there's no contradiction.

Okay, I'll parody this argument of yours.
Here are two assertions between which there is no logical contradiction:
There are no physical facts. The earth is physically round.
I assume you now understand why your argument is crap.

Your parody demonstrates my point precisely. Since the shape of the earth is indeed a physical fact, the claim 'there are no physical facts' is false - and the two assertions are contradictory.

2 If there are no moral facts, then a moral assertion doesn't make a factual claim with a truth-value.
I assume you understand the function of a hypothetical premise.

You haven't yet shown that there are no moral facts, so the antecedent of your hypothetical premise has not been satisfied.

So my assumption was incorrect: you don't understand the function of a hypothetical premise. The premise 'If X is the case, then Y is the case' doesn't assume that X is the case. That's the whole point. It merely asserts a hypothesis: if...then... And I think my hypothesis is correct. If you disagree, by all means explain why you think it's incorrect: why the subsequent doesn't follow from the antecedent.

3 In the expression 'X is subjectively morally wrong', the modifier 'subjectively' is grammatically misattached, because it doesn't refer to the moral wrongness of X. It refers to the status or function of the assertion that X is morally wrong.
I assume you're familiar with grammatical misattachments, such as abstract noun and true belief.

Okay. So 'X is subjectively morally wrong' should be rewritten as 'the assertion that X is morally wrong is subjective.' This is false, because 'X is morally wrong' makes a factual claim, and is therefore objective. Compare 'the assertion that the earth is physically round is subjective.' This is also false, for the same reason.

This merely begs the question, by assuming that a moral assertion makes a factual claim with a truth-value. And the assertion 'the earth is physically round [sic]' is objective - and therefore has a truth-value - precisely because it claims something about reality that may or may not be the case, regardless of opinion.

4 The analogy between aesthetic and moral assertions is precise. Both express value-judgements with no factual truth-value. Since beauty and ugliness are not independent properties, neither are moral rightness and wrongness.

You have provided no support for your assertion 'Both express value-judgements with no factual truth-value', so this reply gets you precisely nowhere.

Not so. I've been consistently supporting my assertion for ages through this interminable discussion.

The trouble with your posts, Peter, is that, on analysis, they always turn out to ASSUME that subjectivism is true. If you merely stated that you were unaware of any moral facts, that statement would be unexceptionable; but you go much further, and make the substantive claim that there are NO moral facts. You can't expect anyone to accept this claim if you don't provide reasonable grounds for believing that it is true, and you're just not doing this. Also, it would be unexceptionable for you, as a supposed subjectivist, to say something like 'I strongly disapprove of slavery'; that would be okay, because it would be merely a statement about you, and not about slavery (though of course, for that reason, it would be of no real interest to anyone else in a forum like this). But you muddy the waters by saying things like 'I think slavery is wrong', which, in a forum like this where people must be assumed to understand the implications of the words they use, can only reasonably be taken as a statement that you think this is a fact.

I agree that there are two parts to my argument - but they're intimately connected. I, and other skeptics, ask for evidence for the existence of even one moral fact: one supposed moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion. Rational response comes there none. Nothing but question-begging and/or equivocatory rubbish.

And I argue that the reason for this moral realist/objectivist failure is the absurdity of the claim that there even could be a moral fact; that the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent; that it represents an extraordinary category error; that such a thing doesn't exist because it can't exist.

Moral realists/objectivists claim that it's a fact that, say, abortion is/is not morally wrong. That it must be one or the other, so that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' is true or false. And I'm saying that's a ridiculous idea.

By all means, have a go at demolishing my argument at a stroke, by producing one moral fact and showing that it is indeed a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion. That's all it would take. Put your money where your mouth is. Over to you.

[Skepdick]

Your parody demonstrates my point precisely. Since the shape of the earth is indeed a physical fact, the claim 'there are no physical facts' is false - and the two assertions are contradictory.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Shapes are not physical - they are geometric/mental constructs which we project onto the world.

What we call "facts" about the shape of Earth is a sufficient description for a particular purpose.

If you are making a coffee table "Earth is flat." is a fact.

[Belinda]

But we are talking about specifically human bodies getting airborne. Human bodies were not in any way capable of flight until the Wright brothers did it. The THAT is not a constant unless you take the view from eternity.

Either we talk within the frame of relative time and space(and ,it follows, history) or we talk within the frame of eternity.

Even in the historical order of events human flight predates the Wright brothers by 2500 years. Humans have been wanting to fly for a while...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-lifti ... ly_history

But several times I called it "powered flight". If my memory serves that did not happen till someone invented the pedal bicycle mechanism, and subsequently the internal combustion engine.
The main point is that information you linked to is about natural thermal updraughts , gravity, and the concept of men flying. Icarus is a man of myth. Powered flight was only a concept until a historical man did it.

[Skepdick]

But several times I called it "powered flight". If my memory serves that did not happen till someone invented the pedal bicycle mechanism, and subsequently the internal combustion engine.
The main point is that information you linked to is about natural thermal updraughts , gravity, and the concept of men flying. Icarus is a man of myth. Powered flight was only a concept until a historical man did it.

Surely all flight is "powered"? By inertia; or wind, or hot air, or propellers, or jet engines.

This is in the nature of physics. All work requires energy.

[Belinda]

But we are talking about specifically human bodies getting airborne. Human bodies were not in any way capable of flight until the Wright brothers did it. The THAT is not a constant unless you take the view from eternity.

Either we talk within the frame of relative time and space(and ,it follows, history) or we talk within the frame of eternity.

Even in the historical order of events human flight predates the Wright brothers by 2500 years. Humans have been wanting to fly for a while...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-lifti ... ly_history

But several times I called it "powered flight". If my memory serves that did not happen till someone invented the pedal bicycle mechanism, and subsequently the internal combustion engine.
The main point is that information you linked to is about natural thermal updraughts , gravity, and the concept of men flying. Icarus is a man of myth. Powered flight was only a concept until a historical man did it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to ... red_flight

[Skepdick]

Even in the historical order of events human flight predates the Wright brothers by 2500 years. Humans have been wanting to fly for a while...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-lifti ... ly_history

But several times I called it "powered flight". If my memory serves that did not happen till someone invented the pedal bicycle mechanism, and subsequently the internal combustion engine.
The main point is that information you linked to is about natural thermal updraughts , gravity, and the concept of men flying. Icarus is a man of myth. Powered flight was only a concept until a historical man did it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to ... red_flight

That framing is non-sensical to me. In the spirit of competition, glory and social status people mangle or restrict the meaning of "power" just so that they can include themselves in the definition and exclude others; and emerge as heroes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

All flight is powered.

[Belinda]

So, if a child, for example, is happy when they are being ABUSED, then this ABUSE is NOT wrong, correct?

Do you have any evidence that children are ever happy when they are being abused?

It is hugely unwise to go down the road of proposing ethical enhancements to child abuse such as laughing gas and better hand puppets to keep the little tykes amused while you do your business.

Freedom is more than happiness, and often brings the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and the unhappiness of martyrdom in the cause of freedom.
Children are not small adults but are not capable of the degree of freedom that adults should have, so we shelter them within benign authority; the shelter includes freedom from sexualisation.