Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

There's a green square on the screen!

square-xxl.png

'Pending evidence, I reject your claim.'

'What kind of evidence would you accept?'

'Well, for a start, try offering the evidence that convinces you - and I'll let you know.'

OK. The green square on the screen convinces me. Let me know.

'But what epistemic model do you use to decide what counts as evidence?'

The model where there is a green square on the screen.

'Well, explain your epistemic model, and we can take it from there. After all, you made the claim.'

OK. There is a green square the screen.

Since you are the one rejecting the claim, perhaps you should explain your epistemic model?

What would accept as evidence for the green square on the screen?

A not unreasonable argument that the label "green" (or red for that matter) contains within it, some element of opinion and thus subjectivity.

But your logic then label “objective” contains an element of subjectivity!

So the objective is subjective. What?!?

[LuckyR]

There's a green square on the screen!

square-xxl.png


'What kind of evidence would you accept?'


OK. The green square on the screen convinces me. Let me know.


The model where there is a green square on the screen.


OK. There is a green square the screen.

Since you are the one rejecting the claim, perhaps you should explain your epistemic model?

What would accept as evidence for the green square on the screen?

A not unreasonable argument that the label "green" (or red for that matter) contains within it, some element of opinion and thus subjectivity.

But your logic then label “objective” contains an element of subjectivity!

So the objective is subjective. What?!?

Please explain the "logic" behind your (cryptic) analysis of what I wrote.

I don't want to make wild assumptions.

[Skepdick]

Please explain the "logic" behind your (cryptic) analysis of what I wrote.

I don't want to make wild assumptions.

Your analysis concludes that identifying or asserting color is subjective.

Despite majority consensus amongst humans existing that the color is red, not green.
Despite the existence of scientific measurement devices which can determine the color on the screen is what most people (but not the person making the argument) is red.

In short - most people and most scientists would agree that there is an objective truth on the color of the square; and they would agree on what that objective truth is.

So if scientific consensus is NOT sufficient for objectivity to you; then what sort of "objectivity" do you have in mind? Are humans and scientists deluded when they use the word "objective"? What's going on here?

[LuckyR]

Please explain the "logic" behind your (cryptic) analysis of what I wrote.

I don't want to make wild assumptions.

Your analysis concludes that identifying or asserting color is subjective.

Despite majority consensus amongst humans existing that the color is red, not green.
Despite the existence of scientific measurement devices which can determine the color on the screen is what most people (but not the person making the argument) is red.

In short - most people and most scientists would agree that there is an objective truth on the color of the square; and they would agree on what that objective truth is.

So if scientific consensus is NOT sufficient for objectivity to you; then what sort of "objectivity" do you have in mind? Are humans and scientists deluded when they use the word "objective"? What's going on here?

Thanks for that.

A measurement of 700nm wavelength of light reflected is objective (to my way of thinking). Deciding to label my perception of this color "red" is my opinion. I could label it "scarlet" or say I'm colorblind I could (accurately) label it "green", or even if I'm not colorblind, just contrarian, I could still label it "green", heck I could label it "Martha". That's subjective to my way of thinking. The fact that 87% of those asked choose to use the label "red" is objective (just as also observing that 13% of folks don't is also objective).

This just another version of the example that 6 feet 6 inches of height is objective, but making the choice to call that "tall" is subjective.

[Skepdick]

Thanks for that.

A measurement of 700nm wavelength of light reflected is objective (to my way of thinking). Deciding to label my perception of this color "red" is my opinion. I could label it "scarlet" or say I'm colorblind I could (accurately) label it "green", or even if I'm not colorblind, just contrarian, I could still label it "green", heck I could label it "Martha". That's subjective to my way of thinking. The fact that 87% of those asked choose to use the label "red" is objective (just as also observing that 13% of folks don't is also objective).

This just another version of the example that 6 feet 6 inches of height is objective, but making the choice to call that "tall" is subjective.

OK, so it seems to me that the presence of choice in the placeholder used to refer to any particular phenomenon is a sufficient condition to sway you away from the objectivity of a description?

Would you say that this is 700nm light (having chosen base 10); 1274nm light (having chosen base 8 ) or 1010111100 nm light (having chosen base 2)?

square-xxl.png

I could also label it 1 meter having chosen to re-define the unit-meter as the period of the lightwave of the color above. Because all measurement units are chosen arbitrary...

[LuckyR]

Thanks for that.

A measurement of 700nm wavelength of light reflected is objective (to my way of thinking). Deciding to label my perception of this color "red" is my opinion. I could label it "scarlet" or say I'm colorblind I could (accurately) label it "green", or even if I'm not colorblind, just contrarian, I could still label it "green", heck I could label it "Martha". That's subjective to my way of thinking. The fact that 87% of those asked choose to use the label "red" is objective (just as also observing that 13% of folks don't is also objective).

This just another version of the example that 6 feet 6 inches of height is objective, but making the choice to call that "tall" is subjective.

OK, so it seems to me that the presence of choice in the placeholder used to refer to any particular phenomenon is a sufficient condition to sway you away from the objectivity of a description?

Would you say that this is 700nm light (having chosen base 10); 1274nm light (having chosen base 8 ) or 1010111100 nm light (having chosen base 2)?

square-xxl.png

I could also label it 1 meter having chosen to re-define the unit-meter as the period of the lightwave of the color above. Because all measurement units are chosen arbitrary...

Apples and oranges, my friend. Your examples are akin to "red" in English and "roja" in Spanish, that is they're equivalent just written in different "languages", (similar to base 10 and base 8 being different numerical "languages"). "Red" and "Martha" aren't equivalent.

[Skepdick]

Apples and oranges, my friend. Your examples are akin to "red" in English and "roja" in Spanish, that is they're equivalent just written in different "languages", (similar to base 10 and base 8 being different numerical "languages"). "Red" and "Martha" aren't equivalent.

And that's different from my example with the "green" square how?

[LuckyR]

Apples and oranges, my friend. Your examples are akin to "red" in English and "roja" in Spanish, that is they're equivalent just written in different "languages", (similar to base 10 and base 8 being different numerical "languages"). "Red" and "Martha" aren't equivalent.

And that's different from my example with the "green" square how?

If you meant "green" as the honest and accurate OPINION of a colorblind person, then the (subjective) use of an alternative label to take into account atypical perception is a reasonable and logical and subjective choice not dissimilar to "red" to a normal sighted person. If you meant "green" as a deliberate attempt of a normal sighted person to deceive others, then it doesn't imply anything, identical to someone manning the spectrograph who reports to others that the reading of "700 nm" is "500 nm". If you meant a normal sighted alternative language person who has called the appearance of what we call red, "green" and has done so all of his life for his own reasons, that is an extreme example of his subjective choice to use a label. From the perspective of my previous post it would be akin to calling red, "Martha".

[Skepdick]

If you meant "green" as the honest and accurate OPINION of a colorblind person, , then the (subjective) use of an alternative label to take into account atypical perception is a reasonable and logical and subjective choice not dissimilar to "red" to a normal sighted person.

No, I mean it as an honest and accurate ostensive definition of the color in question.

If you meant "green" as a deliberate attempt of a normal sighted person to deceive others

That's an uncharitable interpretation. Defining things differently isn't deception.

Who's to say "red" is not deceptive?

[LuckyR]

If you meant "green" as the honest and accurate OPINION of a colorblind person, , then the (subjective) use of an alternative label to take into account atypical perception is a reasonable and logical and subjective choice not dissimilar to "red" to a normal sighted person.

No, I mean it as an honest and accurate ostensive definition of the color in question.

If you meant "green" as a deliberate attempt of a normal sighted person to deceive others

That's an uncharitable interpretation. Defining things differently isn't deception.

Who's to say "red" is not deceptive?

Funny how you chose to address the two of three meanings that weren't how you were using "green", yet ignored the one that does.

"If you meant a normal sighted alternative language person who has called the appearance of what we call red, "green" and has done so all of his life for his own reasons, that is an extreme example of his subjective choice to use a label. From the perspective of my previous post it would be akin to calling red, "Martha".

[Skepdick]

Funny how you chose to address the two of three meanings that weren't how you were using "green", yet ignored the one that does.

"If you meant a normal sighted alternative language person who has called the appearance of what we call red, "green" and has done so all of his life for his own reasons, that is an extreme example of his subjective choice to use a label. From the perspective of my previous post it would be akin to calling red, "Martha".

Funny how in a dialogue about objectivity you have shifted all your focus, energy and attention on something as subjective as meaning.
All you are doing is equating the meaning of different labels across languages, while failing to notice the bigger picture - meaning happens in heads.

So are you at any point going to address the discrepancy between the fact that color is a phenomenon which occurs in heads too (like meaning), and the fact that people (and by that I mean non-philosophers) still consider the color below to be objectively red.

What's going on here? Are normal people just confused about the use of words? Are philosophers so wise and clear-headed that they can observe the stupidity of mere mortals in confusing the subjective for the objective; and bring us to our senses about our abuse of terms?

square-xxl.png

[Peter Holmes]

"Now look here, chaps. Meaning happens in heads, like colour and, well, reality. So let's have no more metaphysical nonsense, please. No more misconstrued metaphors, thank you. No more dumb philosophical claptrap. Over and out."

[Skepdick]

"Now look here, chaps. Meaning happens in heads, like colour and, well, reality. So let's have no more metaphysical nonsense, please. No more misconstrued metaphors, thank you. No more dumb philosophical claptrap. Over and out."

Of all the dumb things Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes has said this one ranks up right at the top.

Idiot still can't grasp that what the experiment actually demonstrates is that mind-dependence doesn't preclude objectivity blowing his entire paradigm off the playing field.

He not only has no idea what objectivity is, but also has absolutely no clue how to handle the evidence signaling his own ignorance.

[Will Bouwman]

He not only has no idea what objectivity is...

Me neither. Fill us in, Skepdick.

[Skepdick]

He not only has no idea what objectivity is...

Me neither. Fill us in, Skepdick.

Wow. I thought you read the books you recommend.