What could make morality objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

You cropped my statement, which misrepresents it.

Gonna need to hold onto that one for searchability purposes. It might come in handy some time.

[Harbal]

But we don't...

But you agreed with me that we do, not long ago. You agreed twice, in fact.

You cropped my statement, which misrepresents it. I said that we don't do so consistently, and manifestly, that's true. We don't.

You and I don't agree about the moral status of morality, even.

People are quite often inconsistent; I don't dispute that.

[Immanuel Can]

But you agreed with me that we do, not long ago. You agreed twice, in fact.

You cropped my statement, which misrepresents it. I said that we don't do so consistently, and manifestly, that's true. We don't.

You and I don't agree about the moral status of morality, even.

People are quite often inconsistent; I don't dispute that.

Well, the goal of moral discussion is to become consistent and to arrive at answers. If it's only to arrive at how one feels or what one's vague and merely subjective opinion is, then there is nothing to discuss. One knows that already.

[Harbal]

You cropped my statement, which misrepresents it. I said that we don't do so consistently, and manifestly, that's true. We don't.

You and I don't agree about the moral status of morality, even.

People are quite often inconsistent; I don't dispute that.

Well, the goal of moral discussion is to become consistent and to arrive at answers. If it's only to arrive at how one feels or what one's vague and merely subjective opinion is, then there is nothing to discuss. One knows that already.

Well, if you choose to look at it that way.

[Immanuel Can]

People are quite often inconsistent; I don't dispute that.

Well, the goal of moral discussion is to become consistent and to arrive at answers. If it's only to arrive at how one feels or what one's vague and merely subjective opinion is, then there is nothing to discuss. One knows that already.

Well, if you choose to look at it that way.

No part of that isn't obvious, so "choosing" doesn't really enter the question. It's how it is.

[Harbal]

Well, the goal of moral discussion is to become consistent and to arrive at answers. If it's only to arrive at how one feels or what one's vague and merely subjective opinion is, then there is nothing to discuss. One knows that already.

Well, if you choose to look at it that way.

No part of that isn't obvious, so "choosing" doesn't really enter the question. It's how it is.

If that is your experience, then I guess you are bound to see things as you do. Maybe it is something to do with the sort of people you associate with. Just a thought.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if you choose to look at it that way.

No part of that isn't obvious, so "choosing" doesn't really enter the question. It's how it is.

If that is your experience, then I guess you are bound to see things as you do.

It's yours too. Whether you recognize it or not.

[Harbal]

No part of that isn't obvious, so "choosing" doesn't really enter the question. It's how it is.

If that is your experience, then I guess you are bound to see things as you do.

It's yours too. Whether you recognize it or not.

No, I don't recognise it.

[iambiguous]

You really don't "get it," do you? You have no idea what theory is about?

What I "get" is that no matter what others construe "ethical theory" to be here up in the philosophical clouds

Then you don't get it at all.

The blueprint for your house is a "theory" of what the final house will look like. And it's a very good thing there is such a "theory": because if it were not properly worked out, there's very little chance your house would end up standing up or working properly.

A scientific "theory" is an estimate of what might work in practice, so far as demonstrating a scientific principle goes. And it's very good there is such a kind of "theory": because if there were not, there would be no science at all.

An ethical "theory" is an attempt to figure out what makes an action right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, good or bad, useful or useless, or any other of dozens of such value-terms, before we actually do it. And it's a very good thing we have ethical "theories," because if we did not, we'd be unable to make any moral decisions at all. Moreover, we'd be doing moral and immoral things indiscriminately, having no "theory" as to why we ought to choose one action over the other. There'd be no laws, since they articulate moral theory. There'd be no justice, since it requires a theory of justice. There'd be no human rights, because they are also necessarily the products of a particular ethical theory.

So now you know what a "theory" actually is. The rest of what you wrote...not relevant. Not bothering.

Note to all of the serious moral philosophers here:

He nailed it, didn't he?

Come on, IC how is this...

What I "get" is that no matter what others construe "ethical theory" to be here up in the philosophical clouds, they had better be asking themselves "what would Jesus do?" if they wish to embody a truly righteous morality. In order to, among other things, avoid eternal damnation in Hell.

...not utterly relevant in regard to objective morality? You're here preaching the True Christian Gospel. And while you go back and forth with others here "theoretically" putting Christian morality into perspective philosophically, how will that play out on Judgment Day? Is God more inclined to embrace analytic philosophy or continental philosophy?

With you, however, True Christianity is not just a "theory" propounded in the Bible, is it? It is in fact -- "in your head" -- the one and the only path to moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.

And all of the theoretical moral constructs embraced by these guys...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...either stay up in the philosophical clouds as well or they are examined given the lives that we actually live.

You can hire a few architects to create blueprints for a house you want built. And they can try to explain to you "technically" why their design is the most rational, the most aesthetically pleasing, the most structurally sound. So, sure, go ahead, pack your bags and move into the blueprint that appeals to you most.

That's why I invited VA and others to take their "theoretical" assessments here over to this -- viewforum.php?f=7 -- forum and, given a particular set of circumstances involving conflicting goods, we can explore in depth the "for all practical purposes" implications of these theoretical constructs.

They either will or they won't. And, given free will, they can choose to do so autonomously.

Again...

Oddly enough, in my view, you yourself seem to forget that this is in fact the bottom line for you in regard to morality. You go on and on exchanging theoretical assessments of morality up in the philosophical clouds, when all the while you know that others will be damned for all of eternity if they don't toe your own True Christian line. That is the bottom line, isn't it?

Or are you starting to shift away from those YouTube videos back to an existential "leap of faith"? Or back to "because the Bible says so"?

[iambiguous]

Insisting that there's a difference between True and False is just moral smuggling.

In a subjective moral universe there's no such thing as True/False dichotomy.

There's just your version of the truth and my version of the truth.

Theoretically?

Hamas invaded Israeli on October 7, 2023? Is that true or false?

Objectively, Hamas was morally justified in invading Israel. Is that true or false?

How can any philosopher not grasp the crucial distinction here? Facts are facts. And not just theoretically. At least sans dream worlds and sim worlds and blue pills and solipsism.

You're a philosopher. An ethicist. So, using the tools of philosophy, go ahead, give it a shot: was Hamas justified morally in invading Israel? Given, say, the arguments made by this guy: https://youtu.be/zE8GCX1w3ys?si=PGoPcLr30ycYfj70

And then after noting what you construe to be your technically sound, theoretically applicable assumptions, bring them to the Applied Ethics board and we can discuss the conflict...existentially?

[iambiguous]

What makes the expression "Paris is the capital of France" coherent and factual?

Which feature of reality is being correctly described?

In May 1940 France was invaded by German forces. Within a month France was defeated. Is this a reality being correctly described?

Hitler and the Nazis were morally justified in invading and conquering France. Is this a reality being correctly described?

[Immanuel Can]

Note to all of the serious moral philosophers here...

Why would they want to talk to you? You don't like "theoretical" stuff, and the very simplest concepts stump you.

[Skepdick]

Insisting that there's a difference between True and False is just moral smuggling.

In a subjective moral universe there's no such thing as True/False dichotomy.

There's just your version of the truth and my version of the truth.

Theoretically?

No. Functionally and practically.

How is it that you don't understand the social function of truth and falsehood ?!?

Hamas invaded Israeli on October 7, 2023? Is that true or false?

is is socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit this message "Hamas invaded Israeli on October 7, 2023" ?
Is it socially good or bad to amplify and restansmit the message "Hamas did not invade Israel on 7th October 2023"?

Objectively, Hamas was morally justified in invading Israel. Is that true or false?

Is it socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit the message "Hamas was morally justified in invading Israel' ?
Is it socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit the message "Hamas was not morally justified in invading Israel' ?

How can any philosopher not grasp the crucial distinction here? Facts are facts. And not just theoretically. At least sans dream worlds and sim worlds and blue pills and solipsism.

How can any philosopher not grasp the social and moral function of communication?!?!?

You're a philosopher. An ethicist. So, using the tools of philosophy, go ahead, give it a shot: was Hamas justified morally in invading Israel? Given, say, the arguments made by this guy: https://youtu.be/zE8GCX1w3ys?si=PGoPcLr30ycYfj70

Do you think moralising and choosing side on the issue is morally and socially constructive here?

The very question you are asking implies you don't understand what morality is!

And then after noting what you construe to be your technically sound, theoretically applicable assumptions, bring them to the Applied Ethics board and we can discuss the conflict...existentially?

Applied ethics?!? Who's going to be applying those ethics? Who do you think is going to mediate the conflict exactly?

[Skepdick]

In May 1940 France was invaded by German forces. Within a month France was defeated. Is this a reality being correctly described?

Yes

Hitler and the Nazis were morally justified in invading and conquering France. Is this a reality being correctly described?

No. Invading sovreign states and initiating aggression is not morally justifiable.

What was so fucking difficult about that?

[iambiguous]

"Morality" can never be solely private, because it governs relations between the individual and the external world, and most particularly, the relations with other "counters," or people.

Agreed.

On the other hand...

If you were born and raised in a Chinese village in 500 BC, or in a 10th century Viking community or in a 19th century Yanomami village or in a 20th century city in the Soviet Union or in a 21st century American city, how might your value judgments be different?

Instead, what any number of God and No God objectivists here will insist is that none of this matters. Morally, politically and spiritually, it's their way or else.

I recall reading once where Ayn Rand argued that the only reason folks in nomadic and slash and burn and hunter and gather communities down through the ages didn't embrace capitalist morality is because there weren't any John Galts around then to educate them...philosophically?

Cue Karl Marx?

She actually believed this! Why? Because everything revolved around philosophy for her. Nothing was beyond the reach of the rational mind.

Just as for any number of religious fanatics here, nothing is beyond the reach of God's moral Commandments. And trust them: it's their God or you are damned.

Only Rand is almost certainly "at one" with oblivion now. No immorality and salvation for her, alas...