What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

But then...

...there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

Will there be further "shifts"? Maybe. Given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, sure, another one might unfold.

If you weren't so masochistic and wallowing in self-pity, you could just acknowledge that this world is a joke. Not worth fracturing one's "I" because of this world.

[henry quirk]

Over and over again I maintain that I do not exclude myself from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" point of view.

Well, good luck with that.

[simplicity]

It seems to me this question ...

This is why man could never survive without God.

The objectification of morality has led to nearly every horrible thing that has ever happened in the human sphere.

[Skepdick]

It seems to me this question ...

This is why man could never survive without God.

The objectification of morality has led to nearly every horrible thing that has ever happened in the human sphere.

What could the word "horrible" possibly mean in a subjectivist moral paradigm? Your horror is another's delight.

The subjectification of morality has led to erasing the difference and simply equating right and wrong.

[Peter Holmes]

Here are two claims supposedly in defence of moral objectivism.

1 'The subjectification of morality has led to erasing the difference and simply equating right and wrong.'

2 '...individuals who reject the reality of moral facts may be...lacking in certain cognitive capacities related to moral reasoning, particularly a deficiency in empathy or sympathy.'

Notice the failure to provide evidence or a valid and sound argument for the existence of moral facts. All there is or can ever be is the unjustified premise: 'There are moral facts.' So the rest is blather.

[Iwannaplato]

Absolutely shameless!!

Over and over again I maintain that I do not exclude myself from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" point of view.

But even this impression of yourself is subject to that. You certainly say it over and over, but that doesn't mean you act like or even believe it.

Other posters may notice the biases inherent in your self-evaluations are being missed by you. That perhaps you do act like you know for sure on wide range of issues, despite what you say, over and over

That perhaps you do ignore what people actually write or perhaps you do expect others to justify things but not yourself.

Despite the wide range of people who notice the exact same behavior and contradictions in you, never does it turn out that you could possibly be convinced they were right in a specific instance. They are mere Stooges or whatever. So, strong is your certainty. Despite your views about dasein.

Absolutely shameless, he cries. Absolutely.

Even people who don't believe dasein has such powerful effects as you do manage to notice when others point out their messed up behavior or the weakness of their arguments, on some occasions, at least.

Nope, it's you guys.


Despite your beliefs and despite your saying it over and over again.

People can assert all sorts of things about what they believe. And then not really be affected by their beliefs.

Everyone in prison is innocent. Very few people admit to racism. So, they are all innocent, and only a couple of guys are racist at all?

But I said it. I said it.

uh, huh. People say things, then people experience those people. What'cha gonna believe?

[simplicity]

It seems to me this question ...

This is why man could never survive without God.

The objectification of morality has led to nearly every horrible thing that has ever happened in the human sphere.

What could the word "horrible" possibly mean in a subjectivist moral paradigm? Your horror is another's delight.

The subjectification of morality has led to erasing the difference and simply equating right and wrong.

My apologies. It should have read, subjectification, not objectification.

Thank you for correcting that!

[iambiguous]

Absolutely shameless!!

Over and over again I maintain that I do not exclude myself from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" point of view. How on Earth would I know if we have free will or if we have access to objective morality? Let alone going back to a definitive understanding of how and why the human condition fits into the existence of existence itself.

I make my arguments here, here...

viewtopic.php?t=34247
viewtopic.php?t=34271
viewtopic.php?t=34319
viewtopic.php?t=34285

And here, there...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

In my head, "here and now" they seem reasonble to me. But then...

...there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

Will there be further "shifts"? Maybe. Given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, sure, another one might unfold.

Only the same is true for you, as well, in my view. For everyone here. It's just that with some FFOs, they are so utterly dependent psychologically on sustaining their own comforting and consoling One True Path, it's not very likely at all.

But even this impression of yourself is subject to that. You certainly say it over and over, but that doesn't mean you act like or even believe it.

Other posters may notice the biases inherent in your self-evaluations are being missed by you. That perhaps you do act like you know for sure on wide range of issues, despite what you say, over and over

Again, this is your own subjective take on me here. Subjectively, in turn, I don't agree with it.



And, once again, all I can do is to propose that you and I, in regard to a particular moral conflagration of note, exchange our own respective moral philosophies. Then, as the exchange unfolds, one by one, you can note all of the actual instances of me doing all of the things you accuse me of.

[FlashDangerpants]

...there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

Who were you quoting there? Whoever that guy is, he's a complete fucking mess. Nobody can really be such a rudderless ship blown around by every gust of wind and pushed by every current as that.

[Iwannaplato]

Again, this is your own subjective take on me here. Subjectively, in turn, I don't agree with it.

My take is really rather intersubjective. But more to the point, I wasn't just writing about my take on you, I was pointing out that your idea that dasein affects the way we view things very, very significantly applies also to our self-evaluations. You don't respond to that point.

Then I point out that you do not, in specific interactions with other people here, realize that you made an error or faulty argument. You would think that if dasein affects all our self evaluations (include our evaluations of our arguments and behavior) at least once in a while we would realize, oh, yeah, that's true, I didn't response to what you wrote about at all, for example.

But you don't ever seem to have that experience.

And, once again, all I can do is to propose that you and I, in regard to a particular moral conflagration of note, exchange our own respective moral philosophies. Then, as the exchange unfolds, one by one, you can note all of the actual instances of me doing all of the things you accuse me of.

[/quote]Oh, many others and I have done that many a time. You even did it here. Yes, I did go on to my take on you, but I also pointed out that your ideas around dasein would also affect your ability to be objective about your own behavior and arguments. That could be disagreed with and the disagreement justified. That could be agreed with.

But you didn't respond to that. I point out in other threads where you don't respond and bring up unrelated things. Phyllo, Atla, FJ have all done this. Going back into the past many others. Here it is as if this has never happened.

Do you see?

Nah, you won't see.

You propose as if people have not done this, LOL.

So, two things:
1) no response to the part that has nothing to do with you and your behavior, but to the idea that what you say about dasein would also affect our, including your, ability to self-evaluate.
2) a proposal, as if I haven't read that proposal before and as if many others and I have not done that.

Which is, by the way, an example of what you are pretending here has not already happened hundreds, likely thousands of times.

[iambiguous]

Again, this is your own subjective take on me here. Subjectively, in turn, I don't agree with it.

My take is really rather intersubjective.

Okay, but what are "intersubjective takes" other than how, given an actual extant human community, the subjects comprising it, embedded in particular historical, cultural, social, political and economic contexts, come to think of right and wrong and good and bad behaviors in, at times, very, very conflicting ways.

Isn't the whole point of moral philosophy then to take that into account and attempt -- deontologically -- to "think up" the most rational and virtuous human interactions?

And how's that going for them? I don't think it's just a coincidence that those philosophers that "accomplished" this -- Plato, Descartes, Kant -- posited one or another God to "clinch" it.

But more to the point, I wasn't just writing about my take on you, I was pointing out that your idea that dasein affects the way we view things very, very significantly applies also to our self-evaluations. You don't respond to that point.

Of course it does. After all, how could it not in regard to our value judgments?

Then I point out that you do not, in specific interactions with other people here, realize that you made an error or faulty argument. You would think that if dasein affects all our self evaluations (include our evaluations of our arguments and behavior) at least once in a while we would realize, oh, yeah, that's true, I didn't response to what you wrote about at all, for example.

Again, I have no idea what you are noting here about me. Also, how many times does someone argue that others don't respond to what they posted when, in fact, they did respond but it wan't what we believe is the correct response. The objectivists among us in particular.

Then back to this...

And, once again, all I can do is to propose that you and I, in regard to a particular moral conflagration of note, exchange our own respective moral philosophies. Then, as the exchange unfolds, one by one, you can note all of the actual instances of me doing all of the things you accuse me of.

Oh, many others and I have done that many a time.

Really? Okay, in regard to particular moral conflagrations, note examples of you attempting this.

You even did it here. Yes, I did go on to my take on you, but I also pointed out that your ideas around dasein would also affect your ability to be objective about your own behavior and arguments. That could be disagreed with and the disagreement justified. That could be agreed with.

I am not able to be objective regarding my own value judgments... given the points I raise in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121

Then I tap the moral objectivists here on their virtual shoulders and ask them to explain why my points are not applicable to them as well. In regard to their own moral philosophy pertaining to things like abortion or gun control or human sexuality.

[Iwannaplato]

I suppose it doesn't really matter if you can't or you won't look at certain things (just to be on topic). Not on any practical level. I may well be expecting too much.

[iambiguous]

I suppose it doesn't really matter if you can't or you won't look at certain things (just to be on topic). Not on any practical level. I may well be expecting too much.

Right, like this is not be applicable to you in turn?

And it is precisely in regard to "for all practical purposes" human interactions that I aim to explore dasein in regard to objective morality.



So, what could make morality objective?

Well, IC and I both agree that would be a God, the God. Why? Because God is generally thought to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Also, He brings it all down to Judgment Day where the fate of our very soul is decided for all the rest of eternity.

Though, sure, if a philosopher or a scientist or a political ideologue is convinced that morality can be encompassed objectively in a No God world, by all means, link me to their arguments.

Given a particular context, of course.

As for my own expectations in regard to those of your ilk here, those of my ilk anticipate more of the same didactic "up in the intellectual clouds" exchanges. Theoretical ethics.

[Peter Holmes]

...it is precisely in regard to "for all practical purposes" human interactions that I aim to explore dasein in regard to objective morality.

Sorry to intrude - but I've been trying to follow your thinking. And sorry if I've missed it - but can you explain how rooting everything in dasein affects any conclusions you or we can reach about the possibility of objective morality - the existence of moral facts? No worries if you're bored doing this - and sorry, again.

So, what could make morality objective?

Well, IC and I both agree that would be a God, the God. Why? Because God is generally thought to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Also, He brings it all down to Judgment Day where the fate of our very soul is decided for all the rest of eternity.

This I don't understand. Why would there being an omni maker of everything, with a plan and purpose for everything, who'll judge us according to whether we follow the plan, mean that there are moral facts?

[Alexis Jacobi]

...there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

Who were you quoting there? Whoever that guy is, he's a complete fucking mess. Nobody can really be such a rudderless ship blown around by every gust of wind and pushed by every current as that.

Iambiguous is quoting himself. What he presents is his own situation. It is not without a certain integrity however. And as confused and rudderless as it is, that is actually his point: there is no rudder.

It seems that the situation Iambiguous describes -- as an impasse he is stuck in but one he has universalized into a version of absolute truth -- derives from our own liberal democratic political and social situation. What he describes is our own situation at a macro level. I refer naturally, and given my own background, to the political and social situation in America to illustrate this point. No one agrees. All positions are merely *opinions* of those within a given interest-set. There are now such a variety of sectors and factions with some opinion or other and each feels they are 'metaphysically grounded' and are truthful and correct. They establish themselves in *battle positions* agains the other (who is obviously getting it wrong).

Since Iambiguous (and by extension many people) no longer recognizes a *god* that has provided a moral grounding, and a moral grounding located in metaphysics, then all we have as a model is the natural world where power and striving determine everything. Returning to *reality* from a long voyage in romantic idealism we confront the real world of Nature and against that we go *splat*.

Because Iambiguous finds himself there and no longer in an idealized metaphysic that he *believes in*, the only alternative available to him is just as he says: moral nihilism.

And when he then goes on to confess that in that situation even his *I* begins to fragment -- after all what could hold it together since the *I* is a metaphysical entity? -- he actually does a service by revealing what our own cultural, social and political situation really is. This is what we have come to.

Nobody can really be such a rudderless ship blown around by every gust of wind and pushed by every current as that.

Yet this is, in fact, the situation we (i.e. *the world*) is in. True though that you can present an example of someone who says that they are grounded in something-or-other (these Iambiguous describes as 'objectivists' and he describes an objectivist contrived strategy which he dismisses and ridicules to a degree) but there is no position that is held today that has any ground except that of *opinion*. In Iambiguous' would there are no metaphysical solidities and his use of the term Dasein is a way of referring to the position that any person has which, according to him, is produced from their existential situation.

Dasein is really a fancy term for *location*.

But these are mutable. He often asks "What would I have believed had I been born in another place?" He sees that he is a malleable entity and such an entity only has *opinion* and no *truth*.

Iambiguous wrote: As for my own expectations in regard to those of your ilk here, those of my ilk anticipate more of the same didactic "up in the intellectual clouds" exchanges. Theoretical ethics.

I have often been stymied when Iambiguous bust out with this odd accusation but now I believe I have a better sense of where he is coming from. Since he rejects all metaphysics, and since 'intellectual clouds' is another word for metaphysics, and since he can only descend from the cloud-realm down to the very physical and therefore material plane, he seeks to ground what he does in what might correspond to a Marxian view: strict power relations and economic relations and one's class-position.

Any attempt to get the *metaphysical contraption* up in the air again and flying is met with the accusation that it is a false-attempt. There is no getting off the ground. And this is where his wonderful metaphor of an intellectual person moving from one level to another on *skyhooks* has always seemed a concise image.