Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

An answer doesn't have to be "indisputable" to be "absolute." Even 2+2 isn't "indisputable." People will "dispute" anything; and there is no essential link between the popularity of a particular answer and its truthfulness.

I'll settle for an answer that is verifiably true.

How do you want to "verify" it? What's the method you'd find convincing?

I can't even imagine what an "objective" source of morality -or a source of objective morality- could possibly be, so I have no idea.

[Skepdick]

I'll settle for an answer that is verifiably true.

How do you want to "verify" it? What's the method you'd find convincing?

I can't even imagine what an "objective" source of morality -or a source of objective morality- could possibly be, so I have no idea.

OK, so lets try someting easier and more subjective then?

How do you verify this color?
If two people verify it differently and get different answers - how do you determine who's right and wrong?

square-xxl.png

[Peter Holmes]

Here are two assertions.

1 The best ice cream flavour is vanilla.

2 The best ice cream flavour is not vanilla.

Leaving aside the relevance for morality - do objectivists here think there's a fact of the matter that settles this disagreement?

For example, if everyone agreed with 1, would that make it a fact that the best ice cream flavour is vanilla?

Or if humans were neurologically programmed with 'vanilla-is-best', would that make it a fact that the best ice cream flavour is vanilla?

[Skepdick]

Here are two assertions.

1 The best ice cream flavour is vanilla.

2 The best ice cream flavour is not vanilla.

Leaving aside the relevance for morality - do objectivists here think there's a fact of the matter that settles this disagreement?

For example, if everyone agreed with 1, would that make it a fact that the best ice cream flavour is vanilla?

Or if humans were neurologically programmed with 'vanilla-is-best', would that make it a fact that the best ice cream flavour is vanilla?

Here are two assertions.

1. This color is blue.

2. This color is red.

Leaving aside the relevance of morality - does Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes think there's a fact on the matter that settles this disagreement?

For example, if everyone agreed with 1, would that make it a fact that this color is blue?

Why does somebody who keeps repeating "What we say about things is not what they are" repetitively fail to answer this question?
It's like he purposefuly ignores Quine's work on the inscrutability of reference.

square-xxl.png

[Will Bouwman]

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.

Are you defining "fair-minded" as agreeing with you? Could any fair-minded and rational person come to an alternative conclusion?

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."

The key word here is 'unique'. Long story short: if you are to demonstrate that yours is the only conclusion, or even the most probable, you need some evidence that is unique to the God hypothesis. What evidence do you have for God that cannot fair-mindedly and rationally be attributed to some other explanation?

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.

If you were such a tribesman, I wouldn't waste any time asking:

What are you willing to accept? What would constitute the kind of evidence that would persuade you? What are you looking for?

Why do you do that with God?

[Will Bouwman]

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.

Ah good, you've caught up.

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.

Perhaps I'm wrong and everyone who says objective really means consensual, but it seems to me that there are people who believe that some things are true regardless of who believes them.

[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.

Ah good, you've caught up.

It took you this long to grok that I've been caught up all along?

Perhaps I'm wrong and everyone who says objective really means consensual, but it seems to me that there are people who believe that some things are true regardless of who believes them.

I mean, you'd have to agree with their conception of what it means for something to be true first...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are two assertions.

1 The best ice cream flavour is vanilla.

2 The best ice cream flavour is not vanilla.

Leaving aside the relevance for morality - do objectivists here think there's a fact of the matter that settles this disagreement?

For example, if everyone agreed with 1, would that make it a fact that the best ice cream flavour is vanilla?

Or if humans were neurologically programmed with 'vanilla-is-best', would that make it a fact that the best ice cream flavour is vanilla?

The fundamental principle is;
what is fact is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.

As there must be a proper FSR-FSK, say a human based Vanilla-tasting-FSK, in place to start with.
If everyone agree therein, 'The best ice cream flavour is vanilla' then it is a fact as conditioned upon the human based Vanilla-tasting-FSK which is objective.
But the objectivity of the fact is relative to the credibility and reliability of the FSK.

If the FSR-FSK is based on scientific evidences from testing of the specific neural correlates, e.g. when a person acknowledges the vanilla is the best flavour the activity intensity of the neural correlates is higher than other tastes EVERY TIME, this will reinforce the fact that 'The best ice cream flavour is vanilla' is an objective fact.
However, this objective fact is not absolute but always qualify against its specific human-based FSK it is conditioned upon.

There are many ways the above tests and can be done and repeated to get the same results.

If say, 2 The best ice cream flavour is not vanilla, this can be verified and justified via a specific human based FSK based on the intensities of of its neural correlates in comparison with other tastes.

So, IF humans were neurologically programmed with 'vanilla-is-best', and this is verified and justified via a credible scientific based FSK, then that would that make it a fact that the best ice cream flavour is vanilla as qualified to that specific FSK.

WHO ARE YOU TO SAY OTHERWISE?

ALL humans are neurologically programmed to favor [tastes and feelings] sugar.
Thus is a fact [biological fact] that all humans favor the taste of sugar.
This is an objective fact and not something that is subjective.
This can be scientifically tested to its specific neural correlates.
But of course this must be qualified to a human-based FSR-FSK to ensure credibility and a high degree of objectivity.

Human preference for sweet foods is universal, with hedonic responses changing over a person’s lifetime [1]. Sweet molecules in nature are sugars found primarily in plants (i.e., fructose, sucrose, and glucose), in addition to lactose found in many species’ milk, all of which provide a source of energy and sweetness. It has been hypothesized that sweetness preference may exist to identify energy-rich foods (i.e., containing readily available glucose) [2], which provides necessary metabolic fuel for the brain [3].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7146214/

[Harbal]

How do you want to "verify" it? What's the method you'd find convincing?

I can't even imagine what an "objective" source of morality -or a source of objective morality- could possibly be, so I have no idea.

OK, so lets try someting easier and more subjective then?

How do you verify this color?
If two people verify it differently and get different answers - how do you determine who's right and wrong?

square-xxl.png

It isn't a matter of getting it right or wrong, it is a matter of individual perception. If person A perceives the colour differently to person B, what more is there to say? The same goes for morality.

[Skepdick]

It isn't a matter of getting it right or wrong, it is a matter of individual perception. If person A perceives the colour differently to person B, what more is there to say? The same goes for morality.

The whole talk about "perceiving the same" vs "perceiving differently" is precisely the confused gobledygook of philosophers I am talking about.

Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same yet we say different things about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it differently but we say exactly the same thing about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same and we say exactly the same thing about it.
Suppose everybody perceives it differently and we say different things about it.

And then?

[Sculptor]

It isn't a matter of getting it right or wrong, it is a matter of individual perception. If person A perceives the colour differently to person B, what more is there to say? The same goes for morality.

The whole talk about "perceiving the same" vs "perceiving differently" is precisely the confused gobledygook of philosophers I am talking about.

Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same but we say different things about it.

We are not talking about billard balls.
Use your fucking imagination dipwit.
Do you really think a Muslim sees the same moral values as a Hindu or Buddhist?
If you don't like philosophy then fuck off

[Skepdick]

It isn't a matter of getting it right or wrong, it is a matter of individual perception. If person A perceives the colour differently to person B, what more is there to say? The same goes for morality.

The whole talk about "perceiving the same" vs "perceiving differently" is precisely the confused gobledygook of philosophers I am talking about.

Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same but we say different things about it.

We are not talking about billard balls.
Use your fucking imagination dipwit.
Do you really think a Muslim sees the same moral values as a Hindu or Buddhist?
If you don't like philosophy then fuck off

Never mind billiard balls, you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about; or why you are talking about it!

You have no fucking idea what criteria for "sameness" and "difference" you are using. You can't even concptualize the sacred first law of thought - identity.

You can't even tell whether I am doing philosophy or not.

Fucking idiot.

[Sculptor]

The whole talk about "perceiving the same" vs "perceiving differently" is precisely the confused gobledygook of philosophers I am talking about.

Suppose everybody perceives it exactly the same but we say different things about it.

We are not talking about billard balls.
Use your fucking imagination dipwit.
Do you really think a Muslim sees the same moral values as a Hindu or Buddhist?
If you don't like philosophy then fuck off

At any given point in time you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about; or why you are talking about it!

You have no fucking idea what criteria for "sameness" and "difference" you are using. You can't even concptualize the sacred first law of thought - identity.

But you want to philosophize.

Yeah as I though. Not one single thought.
Fuck the fucking fuck off you fucking moron. You are just running down what little is left of the Forum.
Go on a quest for your missing brain.

[Skepdick]

Yeah as I though. Not one single thought.

If you could count above 1 you would've spotted the mulitiple thoughts.

Fuck the fucking fuck off you fucking moron. You are just running down what little is left of the Forum.

That impossible. Every place you are at has hit rock bottom.

[Will Bouwman]

Infinitely many stories can account for the exact same data.

Ah good, you've caught up.

It took you this long to grok that I've been caught up all along?

Well, you've made a few strides since your TimeSeeker days. Back then you couldn't tell undetermined from underdetermined.

Perhaps I'm wrong and everyone who says objective really means consensual, but it seems to me that there are people who believe that some things are true regardless of who believes them.

I mean, you'd have to agree with their conception of what it means for something to be true first...

Where did you get this idea that to understand someone, you have to agree with them? Clearly you're still a work in progress. Stick with us, Skepdick and, screaming and kicking no doubt, we'll get you there.