Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Magnus Anderson]

Did you have 'a point', here?

Yes.

Also noted is your continual refusal to just answer, and clarify, clarifying questions posed, and asked, to you.

Depends on who's asking, what they are asking and how.

[Age]

Did you have 'a point', here?

Yes.

Also noted is your continual refusal to just answer, and clarify, clarifying questions posed, and asked, to you.

Depends on who's asking, what they are asking and how.

Still noted is your refusal to just answer, and clarify, here.

Which is, obviously, a sign of 'that one'.

[Age]

2.

Consider a simple machine that maps the key pressed on a numpad to a text written on the screen. If the pressed key is an odd number, it shows the word "ODD" on the screen. Otherwise, if the pressed key is an even number, it shows the word "EVEN" on the screen. That law is implemented via a computer program stored in the memory of the machine.

Does that law cease to exist when no key is pressed?

Or does it cease to exist only when the computer program is erased or when the machine is destroyed?

This may seem irrelevant but I insist that it very much is.

The law in this example, beside being manmade, mutable and mind-independent, is also tied to specific entities, namely, to a specific numpad and to a specific screen. This means that, if one or both of these entities were removed from existence, the law itself would be removed as well. In a sense, one can say that the law is numpad-dependent and screen-dependent. So there are multiple way one can get rid of it: remove the numpad, remove the screen, remove the computer program, disturb the connection between the numpad and the machine, disturb the connection between the machine and the screen, destroy the machine, etc. But not all laws are like that, of course.

On the other hand, the law determines what's on the screen based on the pressed key. The keys must be there for the law to exist but must there be a key that is pressed? Must it exist? If there are no pressed keys anywhere in the universe, does the law cease to exist? Of course not.

Specific laws apply to specific portions of reality. The above is an example of a specific law. There are other examples. For example, "If you greet this particular person, he will smile." Remove that person from existence and you also remove this law.

But there are also general laws that apply to many instances. An example would be, "If any human being A greets any other human being B, human being B will smile." Remove all human beings from existence and the existence of this law will remain unaffected -- if it existed, it will continue to exist.

LOL you are, still, 'missing the point'. That is, 'the law' exists only within human beings, or what some of you people, in the days when this is being written, exists within 'minds', only. Which therefore, literally, means, 'remove human beings and/or 'minds', then so to 'the law' will not continue to exist. Although 'this' is contrary to what you believe, absolutely, here.

[Magnus Anderson]

Still noted is your refusal to just answer, and clarify, here.

Which is, obviously, a sign of 'that one'.

I am not obliged to answer every single question -- only those that are relevant to the topic and that are asked by cooperative people.

You should realize that. The sooner, the better.

Right now, you're doing nothing but spamming in this thread.

My recommendation is: leave this thread.

[Magnus Anderson]

LOL you are, still, 'missing the point'. That is, 'the law' exists only within human beings, or what some of you people, in the days when this is being written, exists within 'minds', only. Which therefore, literally, means, 'remove human beings and/or 'minds', then so to 'the law' will not continue to exist. Although 'this' is contrary to what you believe, absolutely, here.

If a human being does not drink water for more than a couple of days, he will die.

You're literally saying that this law exists in human heads.

"Remove humans from existence and this law will cease to exist! Suddenly, humans will be able to live without water! Unfortunately, by adding humans back to existence, we're also inadvertently bringing back that law! You see, it's in human heads! So when you add human heads back to existence, you also add the law! If only we could remove that law from human heads!"

[Age]

Still noted is your refusal to just answer, and clarify, here.

Which is, obviously, a sign of 'that one'.

I am not obliged to answer every single question

Absolutely no one that I can see, here, ever said you were.

It was just noted that you, still, refuse to just answer and clarify questions when they are posed, to you.

you started a thread, with some outrageous claims. Now, that you refuse to answer clarifying questions in regards to your own claims, here, shows and proves just how much faith you 'now' have in your own beliefs and claims, here.

-- only those that are relevant to the topic and that are asked by cooperative people.

Another sign of those that can not elaborate on nor clarify their own rigidly held position.

You should realize that. The sooner, the better.

Right now, you're doing nothing but spamming in this thread.

My recommendation is: leave this thread.

LOL Before 'your recommendation' was to read your opening post, here.

I obviously did, and responded to it. The Fact that you are 'now' continually wanting 'me' to leave this thread is just further proof and shows that you, literally, can not stand behind nor back up your claims, here.

Any claim that 'morality' are a set of laws, which are obviously human made up, and that 'those human made up' laws will continue to exist even if were not existing any more is just beyond ridiculousness.

Now, as I have previously claimed, 'Morality, itself, is actually objective'.

But, 'this' can only be shown and proved through a 'sound and valid argument'. Which obviously you are far too stubborn and far too rigid and closed in your own made up, subjective and personal, beliefs, here, that 'that ego' does not want to 'look at' nor 'discuss' absolutely any thing other than what it believes is already absolutely true and right.

And, the funniest part, here, is you are yet to find any one that has said that they accept and agree with your own person opinion, belief, and claim, here.

[Age]

LOL you are, still, 'missing the point'. That is, 'the law' exists only within human beings, or what some of you people, in the days when this is being written, exists within 'minds', only. Which therefore, literally, means, 'remove human beings and/or 'minds', then so to 'the law' will not continue to exist. Although 'this' is contrary to what you believe, absolutely, here.

If a human being does not drink water for more than a couple of days, he will die.

Here 'we' have another Falsehood. But, which 'this one' believes is absolutely true and right.

I will, again, suggest that you learn how to speak, write, and use language so that what you present is only Factual, and thus what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, only, and instead.

You're literally saying that this law exists in human heads.

Am 'I'?

When did 'I', literally, say 'that this law exists in human heads'?

I will, once again, suggest that you just stop assuming and/or believing things, and just seek out clarification and clarity, first, and only.

That way if you do, then you will not be Wrong, at all, let alone as often as you are, here, now.

"Remove humans from existence and this law will cease to exist!

Adding an exclamation mark does nothing more for you, nor to your claim, here.

The claim is not even True, let alone it being what you call 'a law'. Let alone 'we' get to even move on 'what' actually exists and what actually ceases to exist when you human beings cease to exist, here.

Suddenly, humans will be able to live without water!

Again, the exclamation adds nothing more, here. Except, of course, it reaffirms and/or reinforces your own belief to "your" own 'self', here, only.

Unfortunately, by adding humans back to existence, we're also inadvertently bringing back that law!

So, where, exactly, did 'that supposed law' keep on existing, precisely?

Not that you will even answer and clarify. Because, to you, when you know that if you do clarify, then where you have been contradicting "your" own 'self', and/or have been 'inconsistent' in, will come to light.

You see, it's in human heads! So when you add human heads back to existence, you also add the law! If only we could remove that law from human heads!"

So, are you 'now' 'trying to' suggest that if some thing exists only with in something else, and the 'something else' does not exist anymore, at all, then the 'thing', which exists only within the something else, will keep on existing?

If yes, then, again, where, exactly?

But, if no, then what are you suggesting, here, exactly?

Let 'us' see if 'you' will 'now' answer and clarify things, here.

[Magnus Anderson]

LOL Before 'your recommendation' was to read your opening post, here.

That was in response to your question.

As far as I'm concerned, you're free to leave this thread. You don't have to read anything.

Any claim that 'morality' are a set of laws, which are obviously human made up, and that 'those human made up' laws will continue to exist even if were not existing any more is just beyond ridiculousness.

Now, as I have previously claimed, 'Morality, itself, is actually objective'.

In a different sense of the word "objective", perhaps, one that has nothing to do with this thread.

Either that or you're contradicting yourself.

Which obviously you are far too stubborn and far too rigid and closed in your own made up, subjective and personal, beliefs, here, that 'that ego' does not want to 'look at' nor 'discuss' absolutely any thing other than what it believes is already absolutely true and right.

Blah, blah, blah.

I can very easily tell that you're butthurt you're not being taken seriously.

[Age]

LOL Before 'your recommendation' was to read your opening post, here.

That was in response to your question.

As far as I'm concerned, you're free to leave this thread. You don't have to read anything.

Any claim that 'morality' are a set of laws, which are obviously human made up, and that 'those human made up' laws will continue to exist even if were not existing any more is just beyond ridiculousness.

Now, as I have previously claimed, 'Morality, itself, is actually objective'.

In a different sense of the word "objective", perhaps, one that has nothing to do with this thread.

Either that or you're contradicting yourself.

Which obviously you are far too stubborn and far too rigid and closed in your own made up, subjective and personal, beliefs, here, that 'that ego' does not want to 'look at' nor 'discuss' absolutely any thing other than what it believes is already absolutely true and right.

Blah, blah, blah.

I can very easily tell that you're butthurt by not being taken seriously.

Once again, 'we' have another one, here, who 'tries to' 'run away and hide' when its beliefs and claims are shown to be in contradiction, and are inconsistent, with each other. The fact that 'this one' can not stand behind and back up and support its own beliefs and claims, is why it is desperately wanting 'me' to leave, here.

[Magnus Anderson]

The fact that 'this one' can not stand behind and back up and support its own beliefs and claims, is why it is desperately wanting 'me' to leave, here.

I will, again, suggest that you learn how to speak, write, and use language so that what you present is only Factual, and thus what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, only, and instead.

[Magnus Anderson]

Morality as a set of beliefs is subjective.

Morality as a set of behavioral laws is subjective.

Morality as a set of specific laws is subjective.

Morality as a set of general laws is objective.

It's the same pattern one can observe with many other concepts, such as the concept of color.

Colors as visual perceptions of light wavelength ( "qualia" ) are subjective.

Colors as numerical perceptions of light wavelength are subjective.

Colors as light wavelengths are objective.

Colors as surface types are objective.

[Atla]

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?

Yes that's what the word really means.

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".

To avoid confusion, maybe think you could rename that to "morality-proper".

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes that's what the word really means.

Often but not always.

If the word "morality" denotes "what one thinks is right", what word, if any, denotes "what is right"?

If the word "morality" denotes "a set of beliefs concerning what's right", what word, if any, denotes what these beliefs represent? ( They must be representing something if they are truly beliefs. )

The commonly used term is "objective morality".

The simple word "morality" is also used.
It's not a rare thing for words to have multiple meanings.

In your case, you seem to be using the term "morality-proper".

A middle ground would be to use the word "morality" for both but to add a qualifier when you want to be specific. "Subjective morality" would thus be "a set of beliefs concerning what's right". And "objective morality" would be "what is right".

[Atla]

Yes that's what the word really means.

Often but not always.

If the word "morality" denotes "what one thinks is right", what word, if any, denotes "what is right"?

If the word "morality" denotes "a set of beliefs concerning what's right", what word, if any, denotes what these beliefs represent? ( They must be representing something if they are truly beliefs. )

The commonly used term is "objective morality".

The simple word "morality" is also used. It's not a rare thing for words to have multiple meanings.

In your case, you seem to be using the term "morality-proper".

Yeah English isn't my first language either but this is just a mess. What made you think that a belief actually has to represent something objectively real? Wouldn't be much of a belief then, would it?

[Magnus Anderson]

Yeah English isn't my first language

I can see that.

What made you think that a belief actually has to represent something objectively real? Wouldn't be much of a belief then, would it?

The statement "Beliefs represent an aspect of reality" means "Beliefs are about something in the world". It does NOT mean "Beliefs TRULY represent an aspect of reality". It's not saying that beliefs are necessarily true.

"The Earth is flat" is an example of a belief that represents the shape of the Earth but in a way that is not accurate..

A belief is an attitude that a proposition is true. A proposition is an idea that a portion of reality ( "subject" ) is such and such ( "predicate". ) If the subject is lacking, then the idea is not a proposition. If it's not a proposition, it has no truth value. And if it has no truth value, noone can believe it to be true.