Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

An argument.

1 Meaning happens in heads.
2 'What happens in heads' = 'mind-dependent'.
3 Meaning is mind-dependent.
4 Facts - and therefore objectivity - are mind-dependent.

[Skepdick]

An argument.

1 Meaning happens in heads.
2 'What happens in heads' = 'mind-dependent'.
3 Meaning is mind-dependent.
4 Facts - and therefore objectivity - are mind-dependent.

He makes up random arguments then rolls his eyes at them...

At least he's self-entertaining. Like a toddler.

[Will Bouwman]

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

Me neither. Fill us in, Skepdick.

Wow. I thought you read the books you recommend.

Indeed, and I am very happy to do so again: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paper ... bjectivity
The case they make, in essence, is that objectivity, at least as it relates to science, is essentially agreement among a particular community. The beliefs of any community, their paradigm if you like, as usual are underdetermined. Long story short: objectivity is subjective.
What's your take, Skepdick. Happy to be persuaded if you have anything better.

[Skepdick]

The case they make, in essence, is that objectivity, at least as it relates to science, is essentially agreement among a particular community. The beliefs of any community, their paradigm if you like, as usual are underdetermined.

And what's wrong with that?

Long story short: objectivity is subjective.

And that's objectively true only within the particular community known as "philosophy".

But it's a small community. Outside of philosophy it's not a generally-held consnesus.

What's your take, Skepdick. Happy to be persuaded if you have anything better.

Which community's take on "betterness" is floating about in your mind?

[Will Bouwman]

Which community's notion of "better" are you using?

Mine. I'm happy to judge your notion of objectivity according to my own standards. If I prefer yours to Daston and Galison's, well done and thank you.

[Skepdick]

Which community's notion of "better" are you using?

Mine. I'm happy to judge your notion of objectivity according to my own standards. If I prefer yours to Daston and Galison's, well done and thank you.

Von Neumann once lashed out at a person telling him that machines can't do this or that "You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!"

And so, you philosophers have a weird dysfunction. You want people to keep throwing stuff at you until something sticks.

Why can't you be exaxct and tell us what your standards of judgment are; and what you'd expect a "better" objectivity to do over and above what we already have?

And then we'll go and invent you an objectivity that does EXACTLY that!

[Will Bouwman]

Why can't you just tell us what your standards of judgment are; and what you'd expect a "better" objectivity to do over and above what we already have?

And then we'll go and invent you an objectivity that does EXACTLY that!

Anyone can invent an objectivity for a specific function. That's basically D&G's point, and what makes it subjective.

[Skepdick]

Why can't you just tell us what your standards of judgment are; and what you'd expect a "better" objectivity to do over and above what we already have?

And then we'll go and invent you an objectivity that does EXACTLY that!

Anyone can invent an objectivity for a specific function. That's basically D&G's point, and what makes it subjective.

Another one of your dysfunctions is you have the attention span of a gold fish.

You were trying to tell me what "better objectivity" (that what we currently have) would look like and you succeeded at failing.

[Will Bouwman]

Another one of your dysfunctions is you have the attention span of a gold fish.

You were trying to tell me what "better objectivity" (that what we currently have) would look like and you succeeded at failing.

No, apparently you have forgotten, I was asking about your take on objectivity.

[Skepdick]

No, apparently you have forgotten, I was asking about your take on objectivity.

Apparently you have forgotten. You said you didn't know what objectivity is.

And then you gave us a take on objectivity.

[Harbal]

No, apparently you have forgotten, I was asking about your take on objectivity.

Apparently you have forgotten. You said you didn't know what objectivity is.

And then you gave us a take on objectivity.

And then he asked what your take on objectivity is, so why not just tell him what it is?

[Skepdick]

No, apparently you have forgotten, I was asking about your take on objectivity.

Apparently you have forgotten. You said you didn't know what objectivity is.

And then you gave us a take on objectivity.

And then he asked what your take on objectivity is, so why not just tell him what it is?

Because it's no different to the one he already lied not knowing about.

[Harbal]

Apparently you have forgotten. You said you didn't know what objectivity is.

And then you gave us a take on objectivity.

And then he asked what your take on objectivity is, so why not just tell him what it is?

Because it's no different to the one he already lied not knowing about.

I don't know if that is a satisfactory answer, because I haven't been paying much attention.

[Will Bouwman]

No, apparently you have forgotten, I was asking about your take on objectivity.

Apparently you have forgotten. You said you didn't know what objectivity is.

And then you gave us a take on objectivity.

That's right, Daston and Galison's.

And then he asked what your take on objectivity is, so why not just tell him what it is?

Because it's no different to the one he already lied not knowing about.

Ah, so you agree with a pair of philosophers. That's gotta sting. Bit strong you calling me a liar though. If as Daston, Galison and you claim, objectivity is agreement among a specific group, then it isn't what I take many people to mean by objectivity. It seems to me that there is an appeal to something demonstrable that all witnesses would interpret in the same way. Aware that I might sound like a broken record, I repeat that, in my view, all interpretations are underdetermined, so I really have no idea what that sort of objectivity would entail. And unless you do, then not only do you agree with Daston and Galison, you agree with me.

[Skepdick]

Ah, so you agree with a pair of philosophers. That's gotta sting.

I do? Let me inform (checks notes) every single person who understands that objectivity in practice is group consensus that it's Daston and Galison's objectivity they are subscribing to.

Bit strong you calling me a liar though.

What should I call it when you lied about not knowing what objectivity is?

If as Daston, Galison and you claim

Weird how you keep leaving yourself out of views you keep promoting; and even claim to be agreeing with.

objectivity is agreement among a specific group, then it isn't what I take many people to mean by objectivity.
It seems to me that there is an appeal to something demonstrable that all witnesses would interpret in the same way.

So when a group of witnesses agrees on a demonstrable interpretation that isn't like Daston and Galison's view because their objectivity is about agreement in the group?

I know that the principle of charity requires that I say something like "It seems like you are intentionally distinguishing between the two views to maintain philosophical disagreement", but the interpretation I am strongly leaning towards is that you are just stupid.

Aware that I might sound like a broken record, I repeat that, in my view, all interpretations are underdetermined, so I really have no idea what that sort of objectivity would entail.

Why should it entail anything different? Underdetermination doesn't undermine group consensus e.g it doesn't undermine objectivity.

And unless you do, then not only do you agree with Daston and Galison, you agree with me.

But you disagree with yourself. So where to from here?