What could make morality objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

..point being, that consensus of opinion HOLDS value, it doesn't mean people drop their opinions and agree to "bandwagon fallacy".

... and the other escapes bandwagon fallacy by making the wagon larger.

So.

Where is this... "bandwagon fallacy"... in any case where agreed ethical values are concerned.

Are we using the word "values" as a philosopher does in a philosophical discussion, or in the way that you were yesterday when you ascribed the word to the result of a calculation, which has no merit here?

And are we using the word "fallacy" as a philosopher does in a philosophical discussion, or in the way that you were previously when you ascribed the word to any old misunderstanding, which also has no merit here?

If you aren't up to speed with the basics, we need to begin by getting you up to speed.

[attofishpi]

... and the other escapes bandwagon fallacy by making the wagon larger.

So.

Where is this... "bandwagon fallacy"... in any case where agreed ethical values are concerned.

Are we using the word "values" as a philosopher does in a philosophical discussion, or in the way that you were yesterday when you ascribed the word to the result of a calculation, which has no merit here?

I am definitely on board with your “philosophical" definition here.

And are we using the word "fallacy" as a philosopher does in a philosophical discussion, or in the way that you were previously when you ascribed the word to any old misunderstanding, which also has no merit here?

Oh shit ffs.

Don’t tell me words can be defined differently per argument within “philosophy”?


Can we agree on the one I originally used from Cambridge dict.?

FALLACY: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false.

[FlashDangerpants]

Can we agree on the one I originally used from Cambridge dict.?

FALLACY: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false.

No. When we use the word fallacy, we are talking about logical fallacies not common fallacy. You complain about ad hominem a lot, that's not a common fallacy it is an informal logical fallacy.

You need to find out what logical fallacies are before this conversation can go forward.

[attofishpi]

..i think you are talking shite..I think little of your inconsistency of logic.
Please, if you see fit in the 'mean'time do provide a suitable definition of FALLACY that we can both move forward through spacetime with..

[FlashDangerpants]

..i think you are talking shite..I think little of your inconsistency of logic.
Please, if you see fit in the 'mean'time do provide a suitable definition of FALLACY that we can both move forward through spacetime with..

Here is a 15 minute intro to logical fallacies taken from Youtube. It was very easy to find, this is absolutely basic stuff. You do need to understand it if you want to get anywhere, so don't fishpi this up, just watch the video and accept that sometimes you have to learn from other people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoBbcU7ofZc

I don't need your agreement. I am right and you are wrong.

[attofishpi]

..i think you are talking shite..I think little of your inconsistency of logic.
Please, if you see fit in the 'mean'time do provide a suitable definition of FALLACY that we can both move forward through spacetime with..

Here is a 15 minute intro to logical fallacies taken from Youtube. It was very easy to find, this is absolutely basic stuff. You do need to understand it if you want to get anywhere, so don't fishpi this up, just watch the video and accept that sometimes you have to learn from other people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoBbcU7ofZc

I don't need your agreement. I am right and you are wrong.

I am always surprised when that happens (and not necessarily in a negative way)

Not sure Y U won't define "FALLACY" in relation to your insistence of this "bandwagon" thang...(u r probably just being an irrational git)

C U LATA

[FlashDangerpants]

..i think you are talking shite..I think little of your inconsistency of logic.
Please, if you see fit in the 'mean'time do provide a suitable definition of FALLACY that we can both move forward through spacetime with..

Here is a 15 minute intro to logical fallacies taken from Youtube. It was very easy to find, this is absolutely basic stuff. You do need to understand it if you want to get anywhere, so don't fishpi this up, just watch the video and accept that sometimes you have to learn from other people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoBbcU7ofZc

I don't need your agreement. I am right and you are wrong.

I am always surprised when that happens (and not necessarily in a negative way)

Not sure Y U won't define "FALLACY" in relation to your insistence of this "bandwagon" thang...(u r probably just being an irrational git)

C U LATA

I already did and you paid no attention so I have given you a short video that you can watch if you don't like reading. I can take the horse to the water, but after that you have to do your bit.

Here's my previous explanation.

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.

If you can't get up to speed on what I remind you are very basic entry level things, you have no way to provide valuable input.

[attofishpi]

...I'm trying to watch the video you posted re 'fallacies' ...so far everyone has got there clothes on so it seems more informative (and still even less boring) than the last one you tried to make me watch about 'gender'..

I'm balancing between alcohol and psychosis at the moment (I apologise) so will get back to you in the morrow.

[FlashDangerpants]

...I'm trying to watch the video you posted re 'fallacies' ...so far everyone has got there clothes on so it seems more informative (and still even less boring) than the last one you tried to make me watch about 'gender'..

After that I did also give you Ministry and Nine Inch Nails singing a Black Sabbath song, but you were too mistrustful to click the link.

[attofishpi]

..well, me n my mate Jesus get a bit fucked up about nails...it's not the length, it's just the POINT.

[Peter Holmes]

What is objective is that which is independent of a subject[s]' opinions, beliefs and judgment, i.e. it is contingent upon a collective-of-subjects.

False. What we call objectivity is independence from beliefs, judgements and opinions. It is dependence on facts.

So the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity has nothing to do with the number of people involved. A belief, judgement or opinion held by everyone is still a belief, judgement or opinion. Whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

In other words, if X isn't or wasn't the case, it doesn't become the case if a 'collective-of-subjects' thinks it is or was. That's obviously a silly idea!

[Veritas Aequitas]

2 Note: 'the definition of beauty itself is subjective'. Question: does 'itself' here modify 'beauty' - implying that beauty is a thing-in-itself? Or does it modify 'the definition of beauty' - with complicated implications for the nature and purpose of the definition of a supposed abstract thing - viz, beauty? Question: is what we call beauty a thing that can be described - or reified - or objectified in the form of, eg, a human body?

The intended point refers to,

Objectification:
the expression of something abstract in a concrete form.
"the objectification of images may be astonishingly vivid in dreams"

Your thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic in thinking that 'beauty' is solely 'subjective'.

Obviously the concept of 'beauty' and other abstract objects are not physical objects, but abstract objects are nevertheless a part and parcel of reality [all there is] as conditioned within the human physical self and consciousness.

Note this generally accepted view and remember it;

One difficulty in understanding beauty is that it has both objective and subjective aspects: it is seen as a property of things but also as depending on the emotional response of observers.
Because of its subjective side, beauty is said to be "in the eye of the beholder".[2]

It has been argued that the ability on the side of the subject needed to perceive and judge beauty, sometimes referred to as the "sense of taste", can be trained and that the verdicts of experts coincide in the long run. This suggests the standards of validity of judgments of beauty are intersubjective, i.e. dependent on a group of judges, rather than fully subjective or objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

Do you have a counter against the above from WIKI?

What is 'beauty' also has its corresponding physical neural correlates in the brain and body. In this perspective, beauty is physical and objective just like emotions, hunger, sexuality and the like.

It is from the above 'beauty' can be objectified when processed via a beauty FSERC, e.g. the Miss Universe competition constitution and rules based on intersubjective consensus.

Thus, your thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is objective is that which is independent of a subject[s]' opinions, beliefs and judgment, i.e. it is contingent upon a collective-of-subjects.

False. What we call objectivity is independence from beliefs, judgements and opinions. It is dependence on facts.

So the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity has nothing to do with the number of people involved. A belief, judgement or opinion held by everyone is still a belief, judgement or opinion. Whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

In other words, if X isn't or wasn't the case, it doesn't become the case if a 'collective-of-subjects' thinks it is or was. That's obviously a silly idea!

As I had stated your thinking belongs to the "dinosaurs' age".

Your objectivity is dependent on facts is delusional because your "what is fact" is grounded on an illusion.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

You have not provided a convincing counter to the above charge, your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion.

What is "the case"?
There is no such thing as the-case-by-itself.
As such, your claim is false and illusory.

Whatever 'the case' is always contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subjects [FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

You many claim your scientific fact is based on scientific realism.
But scientific realism is based on philosophical realism which is grounded on and chasing after an illusion.

The point is, it is impossible to claim a thing or the-case that is absolutely independent of the human conditions and mind.
Why you and the like insist upon an absolutely independent things is due to cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis arising from an evolutionary default of external_ness.
You are suffering a psychological defect [similar to geocentricism] that is an impediment to knowledge and the progress [especially morality] of humanity in facing greater global threats in the future.

[Atla]

the standards of validity of judgments of beauty are intersubjective, i.e. dependent on a group of judges, rather than fully subjective or objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

Do you have a counter against the above from WIKI?

VA you're legit mentally retarded now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

the standards of validity of judgments of beauty are intersubjective, i.e. dependent on a group of judges, rather than fully subjective or objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

Do you have a counter against the above from WIKI?

VA you're legit mentally retarded now.

Look at a mirror and read the above statement without the initials.

So far you have not provided any valid and legit counters to all my points.
If you think you have, where is it??
Open a thread and just give me one valid example.