What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

I should have been clearer, in my post above. I wrote the following:

'There's no reason to think that changing what we humans believe, know and say about reality would change reality. And, to my knowledge, there's no evidence that it does.'

And that does look self-defeating, because we humans are part of reality. For which, apologies. But later I wrote the following:

'My proposal. Begin with and stick to a clear methodological distinction - a way of thinking and talking - between features of reality that are or were the case, and what we humans perceive, believe, know and say about them. (Of course, what we humans perceive, etc, are also features of reality, so this distinction is methodological only.)'

I think that last sentence in parenthesis explains what I expressed badly in the first sentence. And a simple example is this: our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality didn't change reality. But VA's useless fsk theory amounts to claiming that it did - which is silly.

PS. Glad to know that 'basic deduction' is useful - when it's convenient to champion it.

[Skepdick]

PS. Glad to know that 'basic deduction' is useful - when it's convenient to champion it.

You'd know all about the convenience to abandon it, wouldn't you?


P1. Murder is wrong
C. Murder is wrong.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a thought. If any declarative can assert a fact, and if, by changing criteria, any declarative can be true or false - so that classical identity and truth-value collapse - what price moral objectivity?

When you eat the cake, it's gone. If you blow up the bridge, you can't go back over it to the other side.

[Skepdick]

Just a thought. If any declarative can assert a fact, and if, by changing criteria, any declarative can be true or false - so that classical identity and truth-value collapse - what price moral objectivity?

When you eat the cake, it's gone. If you blow up the bridge, you can't go back over it to the other side.

Look! He gets it.

What price the subjective-objective distinction?

When you value facts more than you value values you always get yourself into this mess...

[Veritas Aequitas]

I should have been clearer, in my post above. I wrote the following:

'There's no reason to think that changing what we humans believe, know and say about reality would change reality. And, to my knowledge, there's no evidence that it does.'

And that does look self-defeating, because we humans are part of reality. For which, apologies. But later I wrote the following:

'My proposal. Begin with and stick to a clear methodological distinction - a way of thinking and talking - between features of reality that are or were the case, and what we humans perceive, believe, know and say about them. (Of course, what we humans perceive, etc, are also features of reality, so this distinction is methodological only.)'

I think that last sentence in parenthesis explains what I expressed badly in the first sentence. And a simple example is this: our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality didn't change reality.
But VA's useless fsk theory amounts to claiming that it did - which is silly.

PS. Glad to know that 'basic deduction' is useful - when it's convenient to champion it.

You do not dare to counter my points I highlighted in the above post?
viewtopic.php?p=662062#p662062
repeated a "1000" times elsewhere.

What is your 'reality' that did not change?
Note the saying 'the only constant is change'
for you to invoke a reality that didn't change is thus a falsehood in the sense of what is really real.

My argument is your sense of reality in this case is grounded on an illusion, i.e. you are dealing with Metaphysics here, not what is really real.

Let's take a real thing in your sense of reality, say an 'apple'.
Demonstrate to me there is an absolute mind-independent apple that didn't or will not change, thus independent of human beliefs of it.
The reality is the real state [feature of reality] of "the apple" is changing every nano-second till it is eaten or rotten to its changing states of molecules, atoms and quarks as conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

Even if you take a piece of diamond which on crude appearances where its appeared-reality do not change, there are changes at the molecular, electron and quarks levels which are changing all the time.
At the molecular, electron and quarks levels, it is a different diamond at t2, from t1 and so on.

Thus your "our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality didn't change reality" is false because the reality did change.
That change in reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSK which is based on beliefs of empirical verification, justification, and rationality.

[Peter Holmes]

Thus your "our shift from a classical to a relativistic to a quantum mechanical explanation of reality didn't change reality" is false because the reality did change.
That change in reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSK which is based on beliefs of empirical verification, justification, and rationality.

There's the rub. When we mistake what we say for the way things are, we end up with your utterly ridiculous conclusion.

[Harbal]

PS. Glad to know that 'basic deduction' is useful - when it's convenient to champion it.

You'd know all about the convenience to abandon it, wouldn't you?


P1. Murder is wrong
C. Murder is wrong.

What is wrong with murder?

[Skepdick]

What is wrong with murder?

And voila - the idiot-skeptics take it a step too far and you can just ignore them.

[Peter Holmes]

So. 'Moral objectivism is dead in the water, drowned along with any other kind of objectivism.'

Got there. What could make morality objective? Nothing.

[Harbal]

What is wrong with murder?

And voila - the idiot-skeptics take it a step too far and you can just ignore them.

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

[Skepdick]

So. 'Moral objectivism is dead in the water, drowned along with any other kind of objectivism.'

Got there. What could make morality objective? Nothing.

But that's only half the truth.

What would make morality subjective? Also nothing.

Because fighting over what adjective to prefix morality with does nothing to change morality.

[Skepdick]

What is wrong with murder?

And voila - the idiot-skeptics take it a step too far and you can just ignore them.

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

To actually answer people who ask stupid questions like "What's wrong with murder?" and "Are you sure Earth isn't flat?" is to give credibility to their questions...

[Harbal]

And voila - the idiot-skeptics take it a step too far and you can just ignore them.

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

To actually answer people who ask stupid questions like "What's wrong with murder?" and "Are you sure Earth isn't flat?" is to give credibility to their questions...

I didn't say anything about the shape of the Earth. If we say something is wrong, we should also be able to say in what way it is wrong. You say murder is wrong, but if you can't explain how or why it is wrong, you are the one lacking credibility.

[Skepdick]

If we say something is wrong, we should also be able to say in what way it is wrong.

Is that really true? Show us!

If we say something is red, we should also be able to say in what way it is red.

In what way is this color red? Say it for us.

square-xxl.png

You say murder is wrong, but if you can't explain how or why it is wrong, you are the one lacking credibility.

We say this color is red, but you can't explain how or why it's red.

I think you are over-stating my lack of credibility.

[Age]

I didn't say anything about the shape of the Earth. If we say something is wrong, we should also be able to say in what way it is wrong.

Is that really true? Show me!

YES. That is; IF one wants to be AGREED WITH, and ACCEPTED. Otherwise, just SAYING, 'you are wrong', WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY, REALLY IS just a complete and utter WASTE.

If we say something is red, we should also be able to say in what way it is red.

WHY would you ASSUME such A 'thing'?

If 'you' SAY some 'thing' is 'red', then 'that' IS what 'that is', TO 'you'.

IF, however, 'you' SPOKE ACTUALLY Truthfully, INSTEAD, then there would BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING here.

In what way is this color red?

'you' STILL seem to NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND that what is 'red' TO 'you' "skepdick" maybe what IS 'green' TO 'me', for example.

AND, FOREVER MORE, OBVIOUSLY, 'we' WILL NEVER KNOW.

square-xxl.png

You say murder is wrong, but if you can't explain how or why it is wrong, you are the one lacking credibility.

If you say that this color is red but you can't explain hor or why it's red, you are no more credible than I am.

What A Truly ABSURD and STUPID ATTEMPT AT 'counter-arguing'.

If ANY one SAYS, 'this color is red', then SO WHAT and WHO ACTUALLY CARES?

There may well be DIFFERING 'shades' or colors that absolutely NO one could even SEE anyway, let alone the Fact that A color 'you' SEE could well be A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 'color' to "another", AGAIN ANYWAY.

BUT if ABSOLUTELY ANY one WANTS TO CLAIM some 'thing' like, 'murder iS wrong', then UNLESS 'you' EXPLAIN WHY, then, REALLY, WHY even BOTHER EXPRESSING what IS JUST BELIEVED TRUE?