Is morality objective or subjective?

[Will Bouwman]

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.

Do you always promote views you don't hold?

Frequently. As I have said, philosophy is fundamentally story telling, and I like stories, including many that I don't believe.

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 social consensus that it's Daston and Galison's objectivity they are subscribing to.

One thing you apparently don't understand is just how many stories can account for the same phenomenon. There can be a lot of overlap, so while the broad outline might be the same, the details will vary. Social consensus isn't limited to Daston and Galison.

Bit strong you calling me a liar though.

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

Ah well, now you're assuming that objectivity is social consensus. Not everyone subscribes to that, and while I haven't seen an argument that persuades me, there might be something to this notion of universal objectivity.

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.

So when the group of witnesses agrees on an interpretation that isn't like Daston and Galison's view which merely amounts to agreement in the group?

And how would a group of witnesses agreeing on an interpretation not be like Daston and Galison's view?

I don't know if you are stupid or whether you intentionally miss the point to encourage philosophising.

Too bad you're not clever enough to work it out.

[Harbal]

Bit strong you calling me a liar though.

Remind him about the policeman incident if he wants to get into the subject of lying.

[Dontaskme]

[Dontaskme]

Remind him about the policeman incident.

[Harbal]

[Immanuel Can]

What you presumably mean is that your data set is strong enough that you find it conclusive.

...as would any fair-minded and rational person, I would say. But you'd have to choose to research the relevant data, which include not only the purely logical and rational arguments, but also existential experience, of course. What would a faith in God be worth, if it had no reality for existential being?

I mean, if there is absolutely NO way you would accept ANY evidence, under ANY circumstances, then can it be surprising at all that you've arrived at the conviction that God does not exist, and that that seems the only possible conclusion to you?

I have said several times now that, in my view, God is an underdetermined hypothesis..."

"Underdetermined?"

Well, the standard definition of that word is, "Having too few constraints to specify a unique solution." But that can't be what you mean, since there's no way for a person who lacks data to say what data he might lack...far less that there's too little of it "to specify a unique solution."

If I'm an ignorant tribesman who thinks the world is flat, I certainly lack data...but I'm in no position to tell modern people that they can't "specify" that the world is "uniquely" spherical. All I can say is that I, personally, am ignorant of the relevant data. Moreover, I can know for sure, even if I'm an ignorant tribesman, that either the world is flat, or it is not; and that at least that one of us is bound to be wrong -- even if I'm not able to know more than that.

The conventional use of that term can't therefore be what you mean. So maybe you can explain exactly what you are trying to say when you do use that term. And maybe I'll even agree with you, if I can understand what claim you're aiming to make.

[FlashDangerpants]

On a scale of 7 to 10... how certain are we that Mannie is soon going to tell Willy B that he has the two dogmas on his desk ready to go, but that he will somehow never learn what underdetermination means in context?

[Skepdick]

One thing you apparently don't understand is just how many stories can account for the same phenomenon.

Apparently I understand it much better than you do. Infinitely many stories can account for the exact same data.

There can be a lot of overlap, so while the broad outline might be the same, the details will vary. Social consensus isn't limited to Daston and Galison.

Of course it's not limited to Daston and Galison. In fact - a whole lot of philosophers seem to agree even when they pretend to be disagreeing.

It's a cute little dance of keeping the dialogue alive despite everything having been said.

Ah well, now you're assuming that objectivity is social consensus.

I am not assuming that. I am assuming you are assuming it (which you said you are).

Not everyone subscribes to that

I mean, a whole lot of people claim not to subscribe to that. And then they disagree with themselves.

and while I haven't seen an argument that persuades me, there might be something to this notion of universal objectivity.

Yeah, I am not convinced arguments do that sort of thing - persuasion. If the facts//evidence is to be believed people don't change their minds based on such things...

And how would a group of witnesses agreeing on an interpretation not be like Daston and Galison's view?

I have no idea - that's why I am asking you. Sure seems like there's broad conseus in society (at large) about a whole lot of stuff. And thus we have objectivity.

But you seem to think there's some other kind of objectivity that people are pursuing.

Too bad you're not clever enough to work it out.

Well, I am smart enough to know that I am stupid and you can't be much smarter than me. So you must be stupid too.

Just like me.

[Harbal]

Take the moral issue of sex outside marriage: Some people believe that sexual activity is only morally acceptable when practiced between a married couple of opposite sexes, while others believe it is morally fine for anyone to shag anyone. And there are countless opinions that fall somewhere between those two extremes. Is there any ultimate authority, or source of truth, that can settle the matter? I think not.

[Skepdick]

Take the moral issue of sex outside marriage...Is there any ultimate authority, or source of truth, that can settle the matter? I think not.

Assuming that sex outside marriage is some kind of an issue. What authority did you consult to determine that it's a "moral" issue?

[Immanuel Can]

Take the moral issue of sex outside marriage: Some people believe that sexual activity is only morally acceptable when practiced between a married couple of opposite sexes, while others believe it is morally fine for anyone to shag anyone. And there are countless opinions that fall somewhere between those two extremes. Is there any ultimate authority, or source of truth, that can settle the matter? I think not.

Then the same would be true of rape, pedophilia, torture, slavery and murder, all of which have not merely been practiced but celebrated and valorized for a long time by some culture, subculture or nation.

Do you still think not?

[Harbal]

Take the moral issue of sex outside marriage: Some people believe that sexual activity is only morally acceptable when practiced between a married couple of opposite sexes, while others believe it is morally fine for anyone to shag anyone. And there are countless opinions that fall somewhere between those two extremes. Is there any ultimate authority, or source of truth, that can settle the matter? I think not.

Then the same would be true of rape, pedophilia, torture, slavery and murder, all of which have not merely been practiced but celebrated and valorized for a long time by some culture, subculture or nation.

Yes, the same is true of any moral issue, at least in principle. Some -what might be called- serious moral issues do have more or less complete agreement within a particular social group, but, as you say, another culture could well have a different prevailing moral outlook. Moral right and wrong are only right and wrong in relation to an arbitrary rule.

Do you still think not?

Well, you know I don't believe in God, but God's rules would also be arbitrary, so yes, I still think not.

[Harbal]

Take the moral issue of sex outside marriage...Is there any ultimate authority, or source of truth, that can settle the matter? I think not.

Assuming that sex outside marriage is some kind of an issue. What authority did you consult to determine that it's a "moral" issue?

I'm sworn to secrecy, I'm afraid.

[Skepdick]

Take the moral issue of sex outside marriage...Is there any ultimate authority, or source of truth, that can settle the matter? I think not.

Assuming that sex outside marriage is some kind of an issue. What authority did you consult to determine that it's a "moral" issue?

I'm sworn to secrecy, I'm afraid.

You aren't very good at keeping those.

Everybody knows it's a moral issue now.

[Immanuel Can]

Take the moral issue of sex outside marriage: Some people believe that sexual activity is only morally acceptable when practiced between a married couple of opposite sexes, while others believe it is morally fine for anyone to shag anyone. And there are countless opinions that fall somewhere between those two extremes. Is there any ultimate authority, or source of truth, that can settle the matter? I think not.

Then the same would be true of rape, pedophilia, torture, slavery and murder, all of which have not merely been practiced but celebrated and valorized for a long time by some culture, subculture or nation.

Yes, the same is true of any moral issue, at least in principle. Some -what might be called- serious moral issues do have more or less complete agreement within a particular social group, but, as you say, another culture could well have a different prevailing moral outlook. Moral right and wrong are only right and wrong in relation to an arbitrary rule.

That's not a logical conclusion.

The fact that people choose different answers doesn't rationalize the conclusion that there's no right answer. It only tells us that some people are confused. And we know that, if by no other means, simply by Aristotle's impartial Law of Non-Contradiction, so we don't even need a source of authority to tell us the truth of that.

If there are a billion possible different answers to the question, "What is 2+2?" (and in truth, there are an infinite number of such wrong answers), that doesn't mean there's no right answer.