Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Magnus Anderson]

You keep presuming you're an active listener who can be easily convinced of anything so as long it's backed by strong arguments. It's what stubborn people do. It's an easy thing to do. And it's not interesting to watch in the least. You're derailing this thread, making it difficult for others to follow it.

[Age]

I made this post in another thread, in response to something a member of this forum has said, but since it turned out to be pretty long, and far more than just a strict reply; and since the thread I posted it in is pretty noisy, I decided to give it its own topic.

Okay.

So here we go.

Okay.

In the ontological sense, the word "objective" means "existing independently of minds".

But, in the ontological sense, the word 'objective' means 'existing dependently of minds', instead.

To say that a thing exists independently of minds is to say that it would exist even if minds ceased to exist.

Obviously.

The question of this thread, then, is "Would morality continue to exist if all minds ceased to exist?"

But, what is the word, 'then', here, in relation to, exactly?

Is 'it' some thing from in some other post and thread?

The first thing that needs to be done in order to answer that question is to understand what the word "morality" means.

Okay. So, what does the 'morality' word mean, exactly?

The term "morality" means "the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal".

If 'this' is what the word, and/or term, 'morality' means, to you, personally and subjectively, then okay.

If it actually meant something like "a set of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong held by someone", then morality would clearly be subjective, since beliefs exist within minds, and if something exists within a mind, removing all minds from existence would also remove that thing from existence. But is that what the word actually means?

Since 'when' has the 'morality' word 'actually' meant what you just said and claimed what 'that word' means, here?

And, why did you use the word, 'actually', here, as though what you just said and claimed is 'actually true and right'. Again, your attempts at deception do you not work. Well not on all of 'us' anyway. Sure, they might work on 'you', and others, here. But, again they just do not work on all of 'us', here.

Now, so far what 'we' have, here, is 'you' claiming,

The word, 'objective', means, 'existing independently of minds'. P1.

you then asked the question,

'Would morality continue to exist if all minds ceased to exist?'

you then claimed that the word, 'morality', means, 'the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal". P2.

you then present irrelevant, off topic, and misleading information. (Which, by the way, was False, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, in and of itself anyway. But I do digress). you claim that 'a set of beliefs would clearly be subjective, since beliefs exist within what you call 'minds', and, that if some thing exists within a mind, removing all minds from existence would also remove that thing from existence.

Now, all you have essentially done is just added, or removed, a couple of words so that what you are presenting will, quite conveniently, fit in with what you 'currently' already believe is true. For example, I could just replace the word, 'beliefs', with the words 'laws', and essentially nothing at all really changes. And, for those who would like the specific of doing this, and/or the specific proof, then just let me know and I will show it for you.

Of course, you can use the word "morality" that way, and a lot of people already do, but in that case, you'd no longer have a word for what moral beliefs are attempting to represent.

All you are really doing, here, "magnus anderson" is just 'circular reasoning' and/or 'begging the question'. That is,

P1. Claiming what is 'objective' is just 'that', which exists independently of minds'.
P2. Claiming what is 'morality' is just 'that', which exists independently of minds'.
Therefore, 'morality is objective'.

( Every belief, if it is a proper belief, is attempting to represent a portion of reality.)

What is a so-called 'proper belief', compared to just 'a belief', exactly?

(Moral beliefs are no exception. If there is no portion of reality that moral beliefs are describing, they are not beliefs, but something else. A belief is a proposition held to be true by someone, and every proposition, in order to be a proposition, must consist of two parts: the described and the description. Remove one of these parts and you no longer have a proposition. )

Morality isn't a set of beliefs. It is a set of laws.

So, you say, and claim.

And it isn't a set of any kind of laws. Societal laws ( i.e. how societies behave, e.g. "When a resident of a modern day country kills someone, he goes to jail" ) and personal laws ( i.e. how individual people behave, e.g. "Peter never eats meat" ) are not moral laws. Moral laws are laws of the form "Under circusmtances C, the best decision for person P or group of people G is D."

So, you, personally, say, and claim.

Given that morality is a set of laws, we need to ask the following questions:

1) What is a law?

2) Do laws exist?

3) Are laws ontologically objective? Is their existence independent of minds? If minds ceased to exist, would laws continue to exist?

Why do you, personally, have no need to ask the following question;

What even are minds, exactly?

Let's answer these questions one by one.

WHAT IS A LAW?

A law is a limit on what is possible. It is that which forces a portion of reality to be certain way in some or all situations. If there are no laws, i.e. if no laws exist, it means that everything is possible in every situation.

But this is not necessarily True.

If there are laws, i.e. if some of them exist, it means that certain things aren't possible in certain situations.

The simplest example of a law is the law of identity, "A = A". That statement is saying that every thing is identical to itself in all situations. It's saying that there is a law that prohibits all things in all situations from not being identical to themselves.

you appear to be missing your, own, point, here.

Another example is the mathematical law captured by the statement "2 + 2 = 4". That statement is saying that every set consisting of two sets of two elements is a set consisting of four elements. It's saying that there is a law that prohibits all sets consisting of two sets of two elements from being sets of one element, sets of two elements, sets of three elements, sets of five elements, etc.

Another example of a law is the causal law that is "If you press the light switch at point in time t, the light bulb will turn on in less than a second". That statement is saying that there is a law that prohibits the light bulb from not turning on when you press the light switch at point in time t.

you have missed a very important point, here.

Finally, there are moral laws. Moral laws are laws of the form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P or group of people G is D".

According to which 'subject', exactly?

An example of a moral law is "The best decision for a man, every man, in every situation is to choose to do only what his mind unanimously agrees it's the best thing to do". [/quote]

you missed, again, a lot of important points, here.

( I understand that most people don't define the term "morality" this broadly. Most use it narrowly, to refer to social morality, i.e. to what's the right way to treat other living beings. Keep in mind that I define it a bit differently, to mean what's the right thing to do in general. )

So, it is okay and 'all right' for you to define words 'a bit differently', but it is not for others to.

DO LAWS EXIST?

Given that a law is a limit on what's possible, it follows that, if there are things that aren't possible in some or all situations, then there are laws. And if there are laws, then they exist.

To say that laws do not exist is to say that there are no laws, i.e. that there are no limits on what is possible. That, in turn, means that everything is possible in every situation.

I can assure you that literally everyone believes that we live in a world in which at least some of the things aren't possible.

Even, here, you could not be further away from the actual Truth of things.

And if there are people who argue otherwise, which I'm sure there are, I can assure you that they are contradicting themselves.

Could you be any more confident in and of "your" 'self', here?

Also, could 'you' be contradicting "your" 'self', here? Or, is 'this' not even a possibility in 'your own little world'?

The idea that laws exist is difficult to accept by some people.

The idea that one's own beliefs are not actually true is very difficult to accept by some people.

These tend to be people who think in terms of "If you can't touch something, it does not exist". They affirm the existence of nothing but physical objects. They have a tendency to bastardize highly abstract concepts by reducing them to the most similar concept they are familiar with. Pragmatists, for example, have done that with the concept of truth by reducing it to the concept of useful belief ( or to the concept of the limit of inquiry, as C. S. Peirce did. ) A number of physicists have done the same with the concept of past by reducing it to memories in the present. Others have done it by reducing the concept of time to "what clocks show". And so on. There are many examples. If you ask these people, laws either do not really exist, since they aren't physical objects, or they do, but they are not want we think they are, they are merely concepts inside our minds ( e.g. mental tools that we use to predict what's going to happen in the future. )

The fact of the matter is that the universe is not merely the sum of everything that was, everything that is and everything that will be. The universe does not merely refer to what is actual. It also refers to what is possible. And what is possible is determined by laws.

So, where do 'laws' themselves exist, exactly, if not in what you call 'minds'?

ARE LAWS ONTOLOGICALLY OBJECTIVE?

If minds ceased to exist, would laws continue to exist?

To answer that question, it's important to understand the difference between mutable and immutable things.

A mutable thing is a thing that can change. A thing that can change is a thing that can go through multiple stages of existence. The number of stages a mutable thing goes through is called its lifespan. A mutable thing, if it has a beginning, starts existing at one point in time, and if it has an end, it stops existing at another. Typically, a mutable thing occupies a portion of space at a single point in time at every stage of its existence. However, this is not a definitional requirement -- a mutable thing can occupy any number of moments at any stage of its existence. A mutable thing can exist in the same exact state at every stage of its existence, meaning, it does not have to change at all. But it has the capacity to do so. The state of a mutable thing at any stage of its existence, as well as its lifespan, can be determined, partially or completely, by other things. Physical objects, for example, are mutable things.

An immutable thing, on the other hand, is a thing that has no capacity for change at all. An immutable thing can exist at one or more points in time but it cannot go through more than one stage of its existence. The set of everything that was, that is and that will be is an example. That's the state of the universe at every single point in time. It's a thing that exists at more than one moment -- actually, at every single moment of existence -- but that goes through no more than one stage of its existence. The state of a physical object at a single point in time is another example. It's a thing that exists at a single point in time and a thing that goes through exactly one stage of its existence. The truth value of a proposition is yet another example. If a proposition is true on one day, it is true on all days. None of these things can change. As such, nothing can change them. If they exist, nothing can make them disappear from existence. They are, in a sense, permanent.

That said, if a law is an immutable law, it cannot cease to exist.

Are all laws immutable?

Absolutely not. There are mutable and immutable laws. Let me illustrate that with a very simple example.

Consider a universe that consists of exactly 3 points in time. At each point in time, nothing exists except for a light switch and a light bulb. At each point in time, the light switch can only be in one of the following two states: it can be "up" or it can be "down". Similarly, at each point in time, the light bulb can only be in one of the following two states: it can be "on" or it can be "off".

Let us say that the following laws apply:

1) Whenever the light switch is "up" at point in time 1, the light bulb is "on" at point in time 2.

2) Whenever the light switch is "down" at point in time 1, the light bulb is "off" at point in time 2.

3) Whenever the light switch is "up" at point in time 2, the light bulb is "off" at point in time 3,

4) Whenever the light switch is "down" at point in time 2, the light bulb is "on" at point in time 3.

The 4 laws that I just mentioned are immutable laws. They go through exactly one stage of their existence. They have no capacity to change. They are what they are.

However, if we said that 1) and 3) are two different stages of one and the same law, that law would be a mutable law. And in this particular case, it would be a law that changed ( since it went from "If up, then on" to "If up, then off". )

Are moral laws immutable laws?

A morality is a set of immutable laws, i.e. laws that cannot change. They either exist or they do not. If they exist, nothing can make them disappear from existence. Thus, if minds ceased to exist, moral laws would continue to exist.

But, you are Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, here, as well.

[Age]

You keep presuming you're an active listener who can be easily convinced of anything so as long it's backed by strong arguments. It's what stubborn people do. It's an easy thing to do. And it's not interesting to watch in the least. You're derailing this thread, making it difficult for others to follow it.

Who are 'you' speaking to, here, exactly?

And, 'you' appear to keep making assumptions of 'an/other/s' before you even obtain verified clarification.

[Magnus Anderson]

People who actually want to resolve disagreements focus on one disagreement at a time.

[popeye1945]

Morality is both the individual subjective mind and the collective subjective mind; there is no objective. You both live and are a subjective living bubble. Your subjective/apparent reality is for you and you alone------ pass the drugs--LOL!!

[popeye1945]

People who actually want to resolve disagreements focus on one disagreement at a time.

Excellent point, Magnus, that is why I ceased dialoguing with Age

[Age]

People who actually want to resolve disagreements focus on one disagreement at a time.

Why did you not focus on one disagreement at a time?

For the same reason?

[Age]

Morality is both the individual subjective mind and the collective subjective mind; there is no objective.

To others, 'morality' is set of laws or a set of beliefs, but, here, 'we' have one who claims that 'morality' is some so-called 'subjective mind', and, 'objective mind'.

You both live and are a subjective living bubble.

Who are 'you both', exactly?

And, does you saying and claiming, 'you both live and are a subjective living bubble' imply that 'you', "popeye1945" do not live in a subjective bubble?

Your subjective/apparent reality is for you and you alone------ pass the drugs--LOL!!

Could you own 'subjective/apparent reality', here, be for you alone, and thus not be in relation to what is objectively True and Right, in Life?

[Age]

People who actually want to resolve disagreements focus on one disagreement at a time.

Excellent point, Magnus, that is why I ceased dialoguing with Age

So, instead of just saying and writing some thing like, 'I just want to focus on this 'one disagreement', only, until it is fully resolved', you instead just chose to cease any and all dialogue with me.

Which, if what is claimed in the "magnus anderson's" line above, here, is an 'excellent point', to you, in and of itself, means that you, "popeye1945" do not actually want to resolve disagreements with 'me' and with 'others', here, at all.

[MikeNovack]

Please let us get VERY clear about what we mean by "objective". The attributes (of something that is objective) are?
Usually when using just words we mean true, eternal, and unchanging"

How about if we don't have "unchanging"?

For example, the function SQ(number1)= number2 is objective in all three senses << SQ is the function "squared" >>

But we can make a substitution for the parameter. Let t be the number of seconds after T. Well t is a real (number). So the function SQ should work=with it SQ( t) = t * t See, now we no longer have unchanging. When we say "unchanging" we normally mean "with respect to time" but now the result DOES change with time << because time was a parameter >>

If we consider a moral system for humans as a function we have
MSh ( situation, choice of action possible for a human ) = < right, wrong >
But the function is defined only over the domain where choice of action possible for a human. No humans after time T implies there are no choices of action possible for a human and so the function "undefined" after T

You might want to argue "still exists" after T but in what sense? We cannot say it is different FROM ANY OTHER FUNCTION that is also undefined after T

[Magnus Anderson]

Please let us get VERY clear about what we mean by "objective". The attributes (of something that is objective) are?
Usually when using just words we mean true, eternal, and unchanging"

A thing is said to be objective if and only if it exists independently of minds. It does not have to be true, it does not have to be eternal and it does not have to be unchanging. Trees are none of that, yet they are objective.

In other words, an objective thing is a thing that can exist without minds existing. If we removed all minds from existence, objective things would still be there.

[Age]

Please let us get VERY clear about what we mean by "objective". The attributes (of something that is objective) are?
Usually when using just words we mean true, eternal, and unchanging"

A thing is said to be objective if and only if it exists independently of minds.

But what is said to be by you and some others never makes what is said to be, true nor right.

A thing is said to be objective if and only if it exists in other ways, as well

It does not have to be true, it does not have to be eternal and it does not have to be unchanging. Trees are none of these, yet they are objective.

But, you just claiming 'trees are objective' does not mean 'trees are actually objective'. Once more that is only your own personal and subjective opinion.

In other words, an objective thing is a thing that can exist without minds existing.

To you, and to your own personal subjective opinions and/or personal subjective beliefs

If we removed all minds from existence, objective things would still be there.

Again, to you, and to your own personal subjective opinion and belief, here.

[Magnus Anderson]

You might want to argue "still exists" after T but in what sense? We cannot say it is different FROM ANY OTHER FUNCTION that is also undefined after T

A simple example of a law would be something like, "If a man kicks a ball, the ball will move."

That's true, right?

But what if there are no men and there are no balls in the universe? Does the law no longer hold? Does it suddenly disappear from existence? Does the truth value of that statement become undefined -- or maybe even false?

[promethean75]

That is not a law but a description of the way things have been up to now!

[promethean75]

A law is a command and instruction for action issued by an anthropomorphote (language using human)!