What could make morality objective?

[RickLewis]

OK, it seemed wrong to delete such a vast topic just because it recently went off the rails, so instead I deleted the last few pages of ad hominems and abuse. Inevitably a few actually philosophical posts got deleted too. I've unlocked the thread. Please avoid abuse, swearing, ad hominids and general silliness.

[attofishpi]

WELL OK THEN. JUST THOUGHT I'D RESTORE MY ORIGINAL POINTS TO HOLMES..

[attofishpi]

1 There's no such thing as a subjective fact. The very expression is incoherent. It's a kind of category error.

Only if you don't believe in a branch of mathematics called statistics where analysis of data can provide factual results based on subjective data.

Nope. Factual results based on subjective data are not subjective facts. If it's the case that everybody believes X is the case, that's just a fact.

Are you literally stating your own contradiction is acceptable?

A FACT is a FACT no matter on what means the FACT was obtained - in the branch of mathematics of statistics, FACTS are attained by analysis of subjective data.

2 The fact that a large majority - or even all - of us believe X is morally right/wrong doesn't make it a fact that X is morally right/wrong. And that's because there are no moral facts.

There ARE moral facts when one considers what EVERYTHING is deemed by. Everything is deemed by societal consensus, even the language we speak and contextualise our concept of anything and everything. To state that there are no moral facts because it (all morality consideration) is based upon subjective mere opinion is to rule out ALL of what we are, linguistically, conceptually, intellectually renders everything that wo/man has constructed as a basis for FACT as REDUNDANT.

Nope. Our slowly and painfully constructed distinction between facts and opinions has liberated us from the 'societal consensus' that has held - and still sometimes holds - us back. For example, the success of modern natural science depends on the distinction.

So who is the:-- "OUR", the "US" if not some form of CONSENSUS OPINION?


Do you not see the CONTRADICTIONS where it comes to such matters of we, us, our...society have done X to ....bla bla bla..

Thus far, you haven't a leg to stand upon..

Thus, morality within intelligent human society has a moral truth VALUE that said society can consider binarily as FACT (within their law(s))..etc..

Word salad. The expression 'moral truth value' begs the question.

OK. What's the question Holmes?

3 What's more, the fact that a large majority - or even all - of us believe X is the case (is a fact) doesn't make X the case - make X a fact. See the ad populum or bandwagon fallacy. Consider the silliness of a consensus theory of truth.

Yes, FlashDP attempted that one upon me. It's bollocks, due to the failure of the definition of "fallacy" within what I am stating.

Nope.
'If everyone thinks an assertion is true, then it's true.'
Now, there's bollocks.

It's not as simple as that. You are asserting everyone is as daft as you and Flashpants (which would make the bandwagon fallacy hold water). Civilised society of humanity has evolved to the point of providing EVERYONE, even stupid people (though they are a minority) with a consensus vote, an opinion voice not of one reasoned opinion, but a large societal group with opinions reasoned individually ergo the definition of a fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false is highly unlikely - possible - but unlikely, especially where media and government are as transparent and unbiased as democracy insists (consensus).

[Peter Holmes]

Only if you don't believe in a branch of mathematics called statistics where analysis of data can provide factual results based on subjective data.

Nope. Factual results based on subjective data are not subjective facts. If it's the case that everybody believes X is the case, that's just a fact.

Are you literally stating your own contradiction is acceptable?

'Factual results based on subjective data are not subjective facts' is not a contradiction.

A FACT is a FACT no matter on what means the FACT was obtained - in the branch of mathematics of statistics, FACTS are attained by analysis of subjective data.

1 Agreed. A fact is a fact, so the expression 'subjective fact' is as redundant as the expression 'objective fact'.
2 Statisticians also analyse objective (factual) data.

There ARE moral facts when one considers what EVERYTHING is deemed by. Everything is deemed by societal consensus, even the language we speak and contextualise our concept of anything and everything. To state that there are no moral facts because it (all morality consideration) is based upon subjective mere opinion is to rule out ALL of what we are, linguistically, conceptually, intellectually renders everything that wo/man has constructed as a basis for FACT as REDUNDANT.

Nope. Our slowly and painfully constructed distinction between facts and opinions has liberated us from the 'societal consensus' that has held - and still sometimes holds - us back. For example, the success of modern natural science depends on the distinction.

So who is the:-- "OUR", the "US" if not some form of CONSENSUS OPINION?

This is confused. Language functions by means of 'societal consensus' - agreement on the use of signs. But the facts of reality we talk about aren't matters of societal consensus, which is why consensus theories of truth are ridiculous.

Do you not see the CONTRADICTIONS where it comes to such matters of we, us, our...society have done X to ....bla bla bla..

Thus far, you haven't a leg to stand upon..

Thus far, you have no coherent argument whatsoever.

Thus, morality within intelligent human society has a moral truth VALUE that said society can consider binarily as FACT (within their law(s))..etc..

Word salad. The expression 'moral truth value' begs the question.

OK. What's the question Holmes?

Look up a 'begging the question' fallacy. You need to construct an argument in which the premise or premises don't assume the conclusion you want to demonstrate: 'therefore, a moral assertion is factual, because it has a truth-value'.

Yes, FlashDP attempted that one upon me. It's bollocks, due to the failure of the definition of "fallacy" within what I am stating.

Nope.
'If everyone thinks an assertion is true, then it's true.'
Now, there's bollocks.

It's not as simple as that. You are asserting everyone is as daft as you and Flashpants (which would make the bandwagon fallacy hold water). Civilised society of humanity has evolved to the point of providing EVERYONE, even stupid people (though they are a minority) with a consensus vote, an opinion voice not of one reasoned opinion, but a large societal group with opinions reasoned individually ergo the definition of a fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false is highly unlikely - possible - but unlikely, especially where media and government are as transparent and unbiased as democracy insists (consensus).

You don't seem to know what a bandwagon fallacy is. It has nothing to do with people's intelligence.

[Fairy]

To all the alcohol drinkers out there in my dream.

Don’t care what others think about you, perhaps you drink to make other people seem interesting. Cheers to you!

As for me here, it’s coffee time.

[attofishpi]

Nope. Factual results based on subjective data are not subjective facts. If it's the case that everybody believes X is the case, that's just a fact.

Are you literally stating your own contradiction is acceptable?

'Factual results based on subjective data are not subjective facts' is not a contradiction.

Seriously? ...you are failing logically.

A FACT is a FACT no matter on what means the FACT was obtained - in the branch of mathematics of statistics, FACTS are attained by analysis of subjective data.

1 Agreed. A fact is a fact, so the expression 'subjective fact' is as redundant as the expression 'objective fact'.

No. They are based on differences within reality. Both facts have VALUE, but objective FACT is clearly the desire.

2 Statisticians also analyse objective (factual) data.

Well done. (woopee doo)

So who is the:-- "OUR", the "US" if not some form of CONSENSUS OPINION?

This is confused. Language functions by means of 'societal consensus' - agreement on the use of signs. But the facts of reality we talk about aren't matters of societal consensus, which is why consensus theories of truth are ridiculous.

Yet I am not stating societal "theories" of truth. I am stating that societies hold a subjective TRUTH value to account.

You cannot insist on your original statement of "slowly and painfully constructed distinction between facts and opinions has liberated us from the 'societal consensus'" without the fact that THAT STATEMENT STILL relies on societal consensus.


THUS my original point remains:

Do you not see the CONTRADICTIONS where it comes to such matters of we, us, our...society have done X to ....bla bla bla..

...you haven't a leg to stand upon..

Word salad. The expression 'moral truth value' begs the question.

OK. What's the question Holmes?

Look up a 'begging the question' fallacy. You need to construct an argument in which the premise or premises don't assume the conclusion you want to demonstrate: 'therefore, a moral assertion is factual, because it has a truth-value'.

That's not what begging a question means. "Begging a question" is insisting that an answer 1 or more is required based upon the premise. You appear to love this "fallacy" statement as part of your 'argument' - it implies at the outset that I am a FOOL that cannot reason to your level of intelligence.

My argument is that even though we must agree that morality is subjective, that there is a 'yardstick' a 'truth value' - an actual way of claiming FACT from subjective data - including morality.

With regards to the thread title: What could make morality objective?

..what I am stating is the best you are going to get - CONSENSUS agreement as to what IS or NOT ethical.

Nope.
'If everyone thinks an assertion is true, then it's true.'
Now, there's bollocks.

It's not as simple as that. You are asserting everyone is as daft as you and Flashpants (which would make the bandwagon fallacy hold water). Civilised society of humanity has evolved to the point of providing EVERYONE, even stupid people (though they are a minority) with a consensus vote, an opinion voice not of one reasoned opinion, but a large societal group with opinions reasoned individually ergo the definition of a fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false is highly unlikely - possible - but unlikely, especially where media and government are as transparent and unbiased as democracy insists (consensus).

You don't seem to know what a bandwagon fallacy is. It has nothing to do with people's intelligence.

Again, that's not the point. A FALLACY (Fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false) still requires those upon the "wagon" to be irrational for the 'fallacy' to stand/hold water.

Society...consensus etc... ain't that daft.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's not as simple as that. You are asserting everyone is as daft as you and Flashpants (which would make the bandwagon fallacy hold water). Civilised society of humanity has evolved to the point of providing EVERYONE, even stupid people (though they are a minority) with a consensus vote, an opinion voice not of one reasoned opinion, but a large societal group with opinions reasoned individually ergo the definition of a fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false is highly unlikely - possible - but unlikely, especially where media and government are as transparent and unbiased as democracy insists (consensus).

You don't seem to know what a bandwagon fallacy is. It has nothing to do with people's intelligence.

Again, that's not the point. A FALLACY (Fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false) still requires those upon the "wagon" to be irrational for the 'fallacy' to stand/hold water.

Society...consensus etc... ain't that daft.

You still don't understand the basics. Pay attention I am going to give you a very good intro just so we can get past this silly point with you.

Common fallacies are the myths that people believe just because other people believe them. Things such as that one shouldn't drink with antibiotics (usually unture) or that men are better mathematicians than women. Stuff like that is what you are referring to. But bandwagon fallacy does not lie within this category. Because of this... there is no way to argue that your thing isn't a bandwagon fallacy by saying that it does not belong in this category. Are you following me so far?

Unlike common fallacies, which are the faulty beliefs themselves, Logical fallacy typically refers to faulty methods of forming the beliefs. So the common-fallacy that the Earth is flat (a belief) might come via the logical-fallacy of the Appeal to Ignorance in which one can be saying that if he cannot see the curve of the Earth then it must not be curved.

So if you have a view that everyone knows the Earth is still and that the Sun goes around the Earth, that can be the common-fallacy resulting from many logical-fallacies. The observation that it doesn't feel like the Earth is moving at all, but somebody tells you we are goping at thousdands of miles of hour... pish! is a logical-fallacy of the sort already described. But there was a time when everybody believed it, not a handful of weirdos on the internet, the Pope believed that was a good argument once upon a time and the weirdos were the ones who disagreed.

So if you were to argue that the Earth stays still and the Sun goes around it, and that Pete should know this because otherwise he is saying that everyone is stupid, you would be employing the logical-fallacy of the bandwagon to support the common-fallacy of geocentricism. But even if the geocentricism was right, the move to support it using an unreliable method of arriving at the truth such a bandwagon fallacy would be a mistake.

So when we dismiss your supporting argument as bandwagon fallacy, that doesn't prove and isn't even intended to prove that your end point about personal facts or whatever is wrong per-se. It is telling you that you need to find a different way of arriving at the conclusion because the method you chose is not reliable.

If you can manage to work that out and move onto some sort of better founded argument, you get to move up the league table and will be ahead of VA who has never grasped the point I am explaining here.

[attofishpi]

So when we dismiss your supporting argument as bandwagon fallacy, that doesn't prove and isn't even intended to prove that your end point about personal facts or whatever is wrong per-se. It is telling you that you need to find a different way of arriving at the conclusion because the method you chose is not reliable.

What part of my statement: "ergo the definition of a fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false is highly unlikely - possible - but unlikely.."

..draws you to think I don't understand what is being implied by a "bandwagon fallacy"?

The entire argument I have with you - is that you think that subjective (opinion) within the realm of ethics has NO value (no yardstick as you previously mentioned)

I am merely stating, that where it comes to what HUMANS consider as 'ethical' or NOT 'ethical' - DOES have a yardstick - a measurement value and it is based upon those upon the BANDWAGON (not a fallacy where they CANT comprehend a value to what is rationally ethical)- social humanity has a measurement value.

What you and Holmes seem to be stuck on is a REQUIRMENT for objectivity.

[FlashDangerpants]

..draws you to think I don't understand what is being implied by a "bandwagon fallacy"?

Your counterargument demonstrates very clearly that you don't understand.

You would do well to just re-read or go and do research, you are not succeeding at what you are trying to do here.

[attofishpi]

Address what I am stating rather than just insisting I "don't understand"

[FlashDangerpants]

Address what I am stating rather than just insisting I "don't understand"

Ok. So you think Y true for society X if everyone in society X believes Y because people are generally good and wise when they get together in large groups?

[attofishpi]

Address what I am stating rather than just insisting I "don't understand"

Ok. So you think Y true for society X if everyone in society X believes Y because people are generally good and wise when they get together in large groups?

Again. By your use of "TRUE" you are insisting that I believe in something objective in relation to ethics.

All I am stating, contrary to your belief that within the realms of ethics that there is NO yardstick, no measurement that society can make since it puts everyone on a bandwagon where no value of truth (pertaining to ethics) can be applied because humanity is incapable of reasonably accepting what is or isn't ethical.

What part of my statement: "ergo the definition of a fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false is highly unlikely - possible - but unlikely.." ..is not pointing out the fact that there is a flaw to societal consensus ----> ergo, back to the VALUE of truth upon the bandwagon.

Let's put it another way. Every scientific theory is also a "bandwagon fallacy".

The fact that most astrophysicists believe in the Big Bang Theory renders their consensus opinion as equally redundant as societal opinion pertaining to what IS or is NOT ethical.

[FlashDangerpants]

Again. By your use of "TRUE" you are insisting that I believe in something objective in relation to ethics.

No I am not. My use of the word true is in contrast with false. Surely you can agree that if something is true then it cannot also be false.

So I ask you again,and please answer this time...
So you think Y true for society X if everyone in society X believes Y because people are generally good and wise when they get together in large groups?

[Peter Holmes]

Are you literally stating your own contradiction is acceptable?

'Factual results based on subjective data are not subjective facts' is not a contradiction.

Seriously? ...you are failing logically.

A FACT is a FACT no matter on what means the FACT was obtained - in the branch of mathematics of statistics, FACTS are attained by analysis of subjective data.

1 Agreed. A fact is a fact, so the expression 'subjective fact' is as redundant as the expression 'objective fact'.

No. They are based on differences within reality. Both facts have VALUE, but objective FACT is clearly the desire.

No. A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. Please give an example of a declarative that asserts what you call a subjective fact. Then I'll show you why it isn't. The expression 'subjective fact' is incoherent.

2 Statisticians also analyse objective (factual) data.

Well done. (woopee doo)

You said 'FACTS are attained by analysis of subjective data', and that's not always the case. So I pointed out your mistake.

So who is the:-- "OUR", the "US" if not some form of CONSENSUS OPINION?

This is confused. Language functions by means of 'societal consensus' - agreement on the use of signs. But the facts of reality we talk about aren't matters of societal consensus, which is why consensus theories of truth are ridiculous.

Yet I am not stating societal "theories" of truth. I am stating that societies hold a subjective TRUTH value to account.

Word salad.

You cannot insist on your original statement of "slowly and painfully constructed distinction between facts and opinions has liberated us from the 'societal consensus'" without the fact that THAT STATEMENT STILL relies on societal consensus.

Pay attention. I've said that clearly. Agreement on the use of signs is necessary for communication. But that 'consensus' is completely different from the moral 'consensus' you're pushing. Chalk and cheese.

THUS my original point remains:

Do you not see the CONTRADICTIONS where it comes to such matters of we, us, our...society have done X to ....bla bla bla..

...you haven't a leg to stand upon..

I disagree. On the contrary, your argument is useless.

OK. What's the question Holmes?

Look up a 'begging the question' fallacy. You need to construct an argument in which the premise or premises don't assume the conclusion you want to demonstrate: 'therefore, a moral assertion is factual, because it has a truth-value'.

That's not what begging a question means. "Begging a question" is insisting that an answer 1 or more is required based upon the premise. You appear to love this "fallacy" statement as part of your 'argument' - it implies at the outset that I am a FOOL that cannot reason to your level of intelligence.

No, you don't understand what 'begging the question' means. And ignorance is completely different from stupidity. You could be highly intelligent and just not know something.

My argument is that even though we must agree that morality is subjective, that there is a 'yardstick' a 'truth value' - an actual way of claiming FACT from subjective data - including morality.

Okay, that's clear. You agree morality is subjective. And your claim that moral facts can be derived in some way from moral opinions is just false. How ever overwhelming the majority opinion that X is morally wrong - and even if it's unanimous - it can never be a fact that X is morally wrong. An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion. Whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. And that's the difference.

With regards to the thread title: What could make morality objective?

..what I am stating is the best you are going to get - CONSENSUS agreement as to what IS or NOT ethical.

Agreed. And that means nothing can make morality objective. Well done.

It's not as simple as that. You are asserting everyone is as daft as you and Flashpants (which would make the bandwagon fallacy hold water). Civilised society of humanity has evolved to the point of providing EVERYONE, even stupid people (though they are a minority) with a consensus vote, an opinion voice not of one reasoned opinion, but a large societal group with opinions reasoned individually ergo the definition of a fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false is highly unlikely - possible - but unlikely, especially where media and government are as transparent and unbiased as democracy insists (consensus).

You don't seem to know what a bandwagon fallacy is. It has nothing to do with people's intelligence.

Again, that's not the point. A FALLACY (Fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false) still requires those upon the "wagon" to be irrational for the 'fallacy' to stand/hold water.

Society...consensus etc... ain't that daft.

No. A bandwagon fallacy is the claim that a conclusion is true because many people, or all people believe it is. The conclusion could, of course, be true nonetheless - so your gloss is incorrect.

[CIN]

The entire argument I have with you - is that you think that subjective (opinion) within the realm of ethics has NO value (no yardstick as you previously mentioned)

I am merely stating, that where it comes to what HUMANS consider as 'ethical' or NOT 'ethical' - DOES have a yardstick - a measurement value and it is based upon those upon the BANDWAGON (not a fallacy where they CANT comprehend a value to what is rationally ethical)- social humanity has a measurement value.

It is theoretically possible that societal ethical opinion could have some limited value, in the sense of being a pointer to correct ethical views. This could happen in one of three ways:
1. Someone in the past produced sound arguments and/or weighty evidence in favour of correct ethical opinions, and society has been influenced by their thinking. In other words, societal ethical opinion happens to be largely correct because of an inherited 'folk ethics' which, because it was originally derived from a sound evaluation of argument and/or evidence, is itself largely correct.
2. A majority of people in society are capable of arriving at correct ethical opinions by a process of reasoning which, while generally sound, is not overt, i.e. not fully conscious and articulated.
3. A combination of 1. and 2.

The point to note here is that in both 1 and 2, reference is made to 'correct ethical opinion'. Even if you managed to establish that one of the above three theories about societal ethical opinion is correct, you would still be required to show that the ethical opinions arrived at by any of the above processes are themselves correct. You could not rely on societal opinion to show this, because that would be circular reasoning. Irrespective of what goes on with societal opinion, therefore, the burden of proof is still on the objectivist to show by some method other than reference to societal opinion that there are in fact correct objectivist beliefs, and what these beliefs are. The only available method is to look for sound arguments and/or weighty evidence that would support some particular objectivist ethical theory. So by all means use societal ethical opinion as a preliminary indicator of where to look for ethical truths, but don't expect societal opinion to be the arbiter of what is true in ethics; it can't do that.