What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Would anyone like to have a civilised conversation about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case.

I think this a non sequitur fallacy. But does anyone think it isn't?

[Skepdick]

Would anyone like to have a civilised conversation about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case.

I think this a non sequitur fallacy. But does anyone think it isn't?

Yep. You think it isn't.

For X in [ "the rules of classical deductive logic", "the rules of chess", "the rules of grammar" ]

What else could the rules of classical deductive logic be except what we think they are?
What else could the rules of chess be except what we think they are?
What else could the rules of grammar be except what we think they are?

[henry quirk]

Would anyone like to have a civilised conversation about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case.

I think this a non sequitur fallacy. But does anyone think it isn't?

Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

For example...

Joe: Why is cannibalism wrong?

Stan: Becuz we, as a group, a community, a society, have declared it so.

Joe: But, why is it wrong?

Stan: Well, it's not wrong, in any objective way. It's wrong becuz the majority, probably for a variety of individual reasons and preferences, sez it's wrong.

Joe: So, if the majority decided cannibalism were a-ok, it would be?

Stan: Yes.

[Skepdick]

Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

If I/we/all of us think that water boils at 100 degrees celsius then water boils at 100 degrees celsius.
If I/we/all of us think that water boils at 29 degrees celsius then water boils at 29 degrees celsius.

That's how objectivity works amongst humans.

[Peter Holmes]

Would anyone like to have a civilised conversation about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case.

I think this a non sequitur fallacy. But does anyone think it isn't?

Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

For example...

Joe: Why is cannibalism wrong?

Stan: Becuz we, as a group, a community, a society, have declared it so.

Joe: But, why is it wrong?

Stan: Well, it's not wrong, in any objective way. It's wrong becuz the majority, probably for a variety of individual reasons and preferences, sez it's wrong.

Joe: So, if the majority decided cannibalism were a-ok, it would be?

Stan: Yes.

Thanks, Henry. What do you think about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

Do you think that's a valid argument - that the conclusion follows from the premise?

[Skepdick]

Would anyone like to have a civilised conversation about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case.

I think this a non sequitur fallacy. But does anyone think it isn't?

Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

For example...

Joe: Why is cannibalism wrong?

Stan: Becuz we, as a group, a community, a society, have declared it so.

Joe: But, why is it wrong?

Stan: Well, it's not wrong, in any objective way. It's wrong becuz the majority, probably for a variety of individual reasons and preferences, sez it's wrong.

Joe: So, if the majority decided cannibalism were a-ok, it would be?

Stan: Yes.

Thanks, Henry. What do you think about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

Do you think that's a valid argument - that the conclusion follows from the premise?

Of course it's a valid and sound argument.

If we all think that a valid argument is an argument of the form which makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false then an argument of the form which makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false is a valid argument.

If we all think a sound argument is an argument which is valid and its premises are true then a valid argument with true premises is a sound argument.

Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to morality? The rules (of morality; or argumentation) are what we say they are.

[Peter Holmes]

Would anyone like to have a civilised conversation about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case.

I think this a non sequitur fallacy. But does anyone think it isn't?

Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

For example...

Joe: Why is cannibalism wrong?

Stan: Becuz we, as a group, a community, a society, have declared it so.

Joe: But, why is it wrong?

Stan: Well, it's not wrong, in any objective way. It's wrong becuz the majority, probably for a variety of individual reasons and preferences, sez it's wrong.

Joe: So, if the majority decided cannibalism were a-ok, it would be?

Stan: Yes.

Thanks, Henry. Do you think the following argument is valid?

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

[henry quirk]

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

Do you think that's a valid argument - that the conclusion follows from the premise?

As i say: Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

The subjectivist sez what we think, what we opine, is the basis of morality, and if the majority say x is wrong, then it's wrong.

[Skepdick]

Would anyone like to have a civilised conversation about the following argument?

I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case.

I think this a non sequitur fallacy. But does anyone think it isn't?

Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

For example...

Joe: Why is cannibalism wrong?

Stan: Becuz we, as a group, a community, a society, have declared it so.

Joe: But, why is it wrong?

Stan: Well, it's not wrong, in any objective way. It's wrong becuz the majority, probably for a variety of individual reasons and preferences, sez it's wrong.

Joe: So, if the majority decided cannibalism were a-ok, it would be?

Stan: Yes.

Thanks, Henry. Do you think the following argument is valid?

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

Of course it's a valid and sound argument.

If we all think that a valid argument is an argument of the form which makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false then an argument of the form which makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false is a valid argument.

If we all think a sound argument is an argument which is valid and its premises are true then a valid argument with true premises is a sound argument.

Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to morality? The rules (of morality; or logic; or chess; or grammar) are what we say they are.

[Skepdick]

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

Do you think that's a valid argument - that the conclusion follows from the premise?

As i say: Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

The subjectivist sez what we think, what we opine, is the basis of morality, and if the majority say x is wrong, then it's wrong.

That's what we call "objectivity" in science. Looks like you don't know how to use those words.

[Peter Holmes]

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

Do you think that's a valid argument - that the conclusion follows from the premise?

As i say: Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

The subjectivist sez what we think, what we opine, is the basis of morality, and if the majority say x is wrong, then it's wrong.

Please, Henry. Do you agree that the following argument is invalid?

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

If not, please explain why you think it's valid?

[henry quirk]

I've answered the question, Pete.

[Skepdick]

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

Do you think that's a valid argument - that the conclusion follows from the premise?

As i say: Isn't I/we/all of us think X is the case; therefore, X is the case the basis of of a subjectivist group morality?

The subjectivist sez what we think, what we opine, is the basis of morality, and if the majority say x is wrong, then it's wrong.

Please, Henry. Do you agree that the following argument is invalid?

I/we/all of us think X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.

If not, please explain why you think it's valid?

Do you agree that the following argument is invalid; and/or unsound?

I/we/all of us think that a valid argument with true premises is sound; therefore a valid argument with true premises is sound.

If not, please explain why you think it's valid and/or sound?

[Peter Holmes]

I've answered the question, Pete.

Beg to differ. And I'm wondering why you won't say the argument is invalid. What's the problem? To me, it's obviously invalid.

[Skepdick]

I've answered the question, Pete.

Beg to differ. And I'm wondering why you won't say the argument is invalid. What's the problem? To me, it's obviously invalid.

So why isn't this invalid then?

I/we/all of us think that a valid argument with true premises is sound; therefore a valid argument with true premises is sound.