Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

It's not on topic when we first need to establish whether or not we even agree that the true nature can be inherently moral or immoral.

Funny. You didn't seem to be so strict with establishing such things when you asked the question which pre-supposes that it is possible.

Again: why couldn't an omnipotent God make the 'true nature and essence of things' inherently moral?

Or better yet, why couldn't the 'true nature and essence of things' be inherently moral even without any God?

[Atla]

It's not on topic when we first need to establish whether or not we even agree that the true nature can be inherently moral or immoral.

Funny. You didn't seem to be so strict with establishing such things when you asked the question which pre-supposes that it is possible.

Again: why couldn't an omnipotent God make the 'true nature and essence of things' inherently moral?

Or better yet, why couldn't the 'true nature and essence of things' be inherently moral even without any God?

I think it's probably possible. Maybe PH thinks it's not possible and can show why. Any more confusions of yours you need cleared up?

[Skepdick]

It's not on topic when we first need to establish whether or not we even agree that the true nature can be inherently moral or immoral.

Funny. You didn't seem to be so strict with establishing such things when you asked the question which pre-supposes that it is possible.

Again: why couldn't an omnipotent God make the 'true nature and essence of things' inherently moral?

Or better yet, why couldn't the 'true nature and essence of things' be inherently moral even without any God?

I think it's probably possible. Maybe PH thinks it's not possible and can show why. Any more confusions of yours you need cleared up?

But you don't need PH to make progress and untangle your own confusion.

If you believe that it's possible the world is inherently moral then you also believe that it's possible the world is inherently immoral.

So... what's the epistemic difference between.

1. A world that's inherently moral (but you don't know that).
2. A world that it's inherently immoral (but you don't know that)
3. A world that has no inherent moral properties (and so you have no knowledge of inherent morality)

In all cases the result is exactly the same - absence of knowledge.

Hence... me pointing out the epistemic problem right from the start.

Because epistemology.

How would you know whether the true esence of things is moral or immoral? Irrespective of origin.

[Atla]

Funny. You didn't seem to be so strict with establishing such things when you asked the question which pre-supposes that it is possible.

I think it's probably possible. Maybe PH thinks it's not possible and can show why. Any more confusions of yours you need cleared up?

But you don't need PH to make progress and untangle your own confusion.

If you believe that it's possible the world is inherently moral then you also believe that it's possible the world is inherently immoral.

So... what's the epistemic difference between.

1. A world that's inherently moral (but you don't know that it's moral).
2. A world that it's inherently immoral (but you don't know that it's immoral)
3. A world that has no inherent moral properties (and so you have no knowledge of inherent morality)

Hence... me pointing out the epistemic problem right from the start.

Again, that's another topic. What gave you the impression that I want to discuss it with you? (Or the original topic, for that matter.)

[Skepdick]

Again, that's another topic. What gave you the impression that I want to discuss it with you? (Or the original topic, for that matter.)

It's not another topic. It's the exact same topic.

Given the infinitude of possible worlds how do you know which world we live in?

Do we live in a world which is inherently moral?
Do we live in a world which is inherently immoral?
Do we live in a world which has no inherent moral properties?

I don't give a shit if you discuss it with me or not.

I am just here to point out the inherenet undecidability of the game you are playing.

Isn't it strange how the average teenager understands this intuitively thanks to the popularity of computers in the 21st century, and yet the average philosopher doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

[Atla]

Again, that's another topic. What gave you the impression that I want to discuss it with you? (Or the original topic, for that matter.)

It's not another topic. It's the exact same topic.

Given the infinitude of possible worlds how do you know which world we live in?

Do we live in a world which is inherently moral?
Do we live in a world which is inherently immoral?
Do we live in a world which has no inherent moral properties?

I don't give a shit if you discuss it with me or not.

I am just here to point out the inherenet undecidability of the game you are playing.

Isn't it strange how the average teenager understands this intuitively thanks to the popularity of computers in the 21st century, and yet the average philosopher doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

Now that's like 4 additional topics in one comment, half nonsensically strung together, plus an ad hom based on them.

[Skepdick]

Again, that's another topic. What gave you the impression that I want to discuss it with you? (Or the original topic, for that matter.)

It's not another topic. It's the exact same topic.

Given the infinitude of possible worlds how do you know which world we live in?

Do we live in a world which is inherently moral?
Do we live in a world which is inherently immoral?
Do we live in a world which has no inherent moral properties?

I don't give a shit if you discuss it with me or not.

I am just here to point out the inherenet undecidability of the game you are playing.

Isn't it strange how the average teenager understands this intuitively thanks to the popularity of computers in the 21st century, and yet the average philosopher doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

Now that's like 4 additional topics in one comment, half nonsensically strung together, plus an ad hom based on them.

You can't even count... It's the exact same topic.

You should have that brain of yours checked out. It definitely struggles with contextualization and recontextualization.

[Atla]

It's not another topic. It's the exact same topic.

Given the infinitude of possible worlds how do you know which world we live in?

Do we live in a world which is inherently moral?
Do we live in a world which is inherently immoral?
Do we live in a world which has no inherent moral properties?

I don't give a shit if you discuss it with me or not.

I am just here to point out the inherenet undecidability of the game you are playing.

Isn't it strange how the average teenager understands this intuitively thanks to the popularity of computers in the 21st century, and yet the average philosopher doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem

Now that's like 4 additional topics in one comment, half nonsensically strung together, plus an ad hom based on them.

You can't even count... It's the exact same topic.

You should have that brain of yours checked out. It definitely struggles with contextualization and recontextualization.

Well no, it's really not the same topic. At this point, everything would be the same topic.

[Skepdick]

Now that's like 4 additional topics in one comment, half nonsensically strung together, plus an ad hom based on them.

You can't even count... It's the exact same topic.

You should have that brain of yours checked out. It definitely struggles with contextualization and recontextualization.

Well no, it's really not the same topic. At this point, everything would be the same topic.

Maybe your brain's problem is that you keep forgetting the context? Let me remind you.

You think it may be possible for reality to have an inherent moral nature and you don't know of any reason why that would be impossible (which is why you asked for PH's input).

So if your epistemology admits the possibility that reality could be inherently moral, and you don't know of any reason that's impossible then on what grounds did you eliminate the possibility that reality could also be inherently immoral?

[Atla]

You can't even count... It's the exact same topic.

You should have that brain of yours checked out. It definitely struggles with contextualization and recontextualization.

Well no, it's really not the same topic. At this point, everything would be the same topic.

Maybe your brain's problem is that you keep forgetting the context? Let me remind you.

You think it may be possible for reality to have an inherent moral nature and you don't know of any reason why that would be impossible (which is why you asked for PH's input).

So if your epistemology admits the possibility that reality could be inherently moral, and you don't know of any reason that's impossible then on what grounds did you eliminate the possibility that reality could also be inherently immoral?

Wrong and wrong. I can also come up with arguments against an inherently moral nature. And an inherently moral nature can also mean partial or complete immorality. "Moral" was implicitly used in two senses here.

This is an example of you not being able to process meaning/context.

[Skepdick]

Wrong and wrong. I can also come up with arguments against an inherently moral nature. And an inherently moral nature can also mean partial or complete immorality. "Moral" was implicitly used in two senses here.

This is an example of you not being able to process meaning/context.

Why are you changing the subject/topic to arguments now?

I am pointing at your questions not your arguments.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's a surprising concession from one of our colleagues:

'The thing with facts is that they are true whether you believe them or not.'

It's confused, because it's factual assertions that have truth value - not the features of reality they assert, which just do or don't exist. And this conflation of two radically different uses for the word fact is highly significant, in my opinion.

But leaving that aside, it's a standard explanation of what we call facts - things that are or were the case, regardless of belief or opinion - and, therefore, what we call objectivity.

And this demolishes the 'this-is-how-we-use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity. And it demolishes the denial of the difference between what we call facts and opinions. And it demolishes any kind of consensus theory of truth.

I call that progress.

[Atla]

Wrong and wrong. I can also come up with arguments against an inherently moral nature. And an inherently moral nature can also mean partial or complete immorality. "Moral" was implicitly used in two senses here.

This is an example of you not being able to process meaning/context.

Why are you changing the subject/topic to arguments now?

I am pointing at your questions not your arguments.

What questions of mine. You just keep making them up.

[Skepdick]

Here's a surprising concession from one of our colleagues:

'The thing with facts is that they are true whether you believe them or not.'

It's confused, because it's factual assertions that have truth value - not the features of reality they assert, which just do or don't exist. And this conflation of two radically different uses for the word fact is highly significant, in my opinion.

But leaving that aside, it's a standard explanation of what we call facts - things that are or were the case, regardless of belief or opinion - and, therefore, what we call objectivity.

And this demolishes the 'this-is-how-we-use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity. And it demolishes the denial of the difference between what we call facts and opinions. And it demolishes any kind of consensus theory of truth.

I call that progress.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes really struggles with nuance.

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between one person using the term "blue" while everybody else uses the term "red"; and everybody using the term "blue".

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes genuinely believes that this color would still be red even if everybody used the term "blue" to refer to it.

So it's necessarily true that this color is red whether you believe it's blue, but it's NOT necessarily true that this color is red even if WE believe it's blue.

[Atla]

Here's a surprising concession from one of our colleagues:

'The thing with facts is that they are true whether you believe them or not.'

It's confused, because it's factual assertions that have truth value - not the features of reality they assert, which just do or don't exist. And this conflation of two radically different uses for the word fact is highly significant, in my opinion.

But leaving that aside, it's a standard explanation of what we call facts - things that are or were the case, regardless of belief or opinion - and, therefore, what we call objectivity.

And this demolishes the 'this-is-how-we-use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity. And it demolishes the denial of the difference between what we call facts and opinions. And it demolishes any kind of consensus theory of truth.

I call that progress.

'True' also means 'is the case', it's perfectly normal to say that facts are true whether we believe them or not. In other words, features of reality are the case, no matter what anyone thinks. (assuming an objective reality)