Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Atla]

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.

Then why do the English say for example "belief in God" when that's not about something in the world? Belief in the toothfairy?

[Magnus Anderson]

Then why do the English say for example "belief in God" when that's not about something in the world? Belief in the toothfairy?

Is this an argument against the idea that beliefs are necessarily about something?

"Belief in God" is a belief that God exists. The proposition that is being held true is, "God exists". That's an existential claim phrased in a way that makes it a bit difficult to identify the referenced portion of reality ( "subject". ) A common mistake is to think that the subject is God. But actually, the subject is existence. If you try to express it in a subject-predicate form, it will become clear. In "S is P" form, "God exists" is expressed as "Existence is inhabited by God."

[Atla]

Then why do the English say for example "belief in God" when that's not about something in the world? Belief in the toothfairy?

Is this an argument against the idea that beliefs are necessarily about something?

"Belief in God" is a belief that God exists. The proposition that is being held true is, "God exists". That's an existential claim phrased in a way that makes it a bit difficult to identify the referenced portion of reality ( "subject". ) A common mistake is to think that the subject is God. But actually, the subject is existence. If you try to express it in a subject-predicate form, it will become clear. In "S is P" form, "God exists" is expressed as "Existence is inhabited by God."

No, the subject is God. Okay what do you hope to gain from creating your own language?

[Magnus Anderson]

No, the subject is God. Okay what do you hope to gain from creating your own language?

What do you gain from practicing lazy reading, disagreement addiction and nitpickery?

Try to understand what your interlocutor is saying instead of constantly finding reasons to disagree and dismiss.

And understand that I didn't invent the philosophical concepts of subject and predicate that I use ( which are not the same as the grammatical ones you keep confusing them with. )

And even if I did, what's the problem given that I explained what I mean by them?

I didn't even use them as the primary terms. The primary terms were "the referenced portion of reality" and "the idea that the referenced portion of reality is such and such".

In fact, my initial claim was, "A belief must be a representation of something that exists in order to be a belief." That claim didn't even employ the primary terms.

What's your excuse for misunderstanding that statement given that it's written in plain English?

If the referenced portion of reality in the statement "God exists" is God, and if God does not exist, then the referenced portion of reality is missing and the statement is not a propositional one. That means it has no truth value. It's truth value is "undefined", as some will say. Of course, people can still think it's true or false, and in that sense, they can still believe it to be true or false, but only because they do not understand it.

If the same applies to moral beliefs, then moral beliefs do not have truth value either. Their truth value, in that scenario, is "undefined".

[Atla]

No, the subject is God. Okay what do you hope to gain from creating your own language?

What do you gain from practicing lazy reading, disagreement addiction and nitpickery?

Try to understand what your interlocutor is saying instead of constantly finding reasons to disagree and dismiss.

And understand that I didn't invent the philosophical concepts of subject and predicate that I use ( which are not the same as the grammatical ones you keep confusing them with. )

And even if I did, what's the problem given that I explained what I mean by them?

I didn't even use them as the primary terms. The primary terms were "the referenced portion of reality" and "the idea that the referenced portion of reality is such and such".

In fact, my initial claim was, "A belief must be a representation of something that exists in order to be a belief." That claim didn't even employ the primary terms.

What's your excuse for misunderstanding that statement given that it's written in plain English?

If the referenced portion of reality in the statement "God exists" is God, and if God does not exist, then the referenced portion of reality is missing and the statement is not a propositional one. That means it has no truth value. It's truth value is "undefined", as some will say. Of course, people can still think it's true or false, and in that sense, they can still believe it to be true or false, but only because they do not understand it.

If the same applies to moral beliefs, then moral beliefs do not have truth value either. Their truth value, in that scenario, is "undefined".

What do you hope to gain from creating your own language?

[Magnus Anderson]

What do you hope to gain from creating your own language?

What do you hope to gain from repeating yourself?

Trouble?

[MikeNovack]

Magnus, I now see that this question might depend on whether <right, wrong> with respect to "CHOICE of action" or just "action".

If just "action", if we assign right/wrong whether or not the action CHOSEN with regard to the moral system then I can see deciding "objective" the way you are using it (just: not depending on being known to any human).

Choosing to do the right action for the wrong (or no) reason is still right. --- you are agreeing with this?

[Magnus Anderson]

What do you hope to gain from creating your own language?

Don't quote the post you're responding to if it's immediately above yours and it's longer than a sentence or two. You're making it difficult for people to read the thread.

Don't ask questions that are loaded. Don't ask them repeatedly.

Try to stay on-topic. Try to understand what's being said. Ask for clarification if needed. Feel free to ask for reasoning. Feel free to present your own arguments against what's being said.

But don't be a lazy, whiny, disagreement addicted, nitpicking bum.

If you can't do that, feel free to leave this thread. You're not welcome here.

[Atla]

What do you hope to gain from creating your own language?

Don't quote the post you're responding to if it's immediately above yours and it's longer than a sentence or two. You're making it difficult for people to read the thread.

Don't ask questions that are loaded. Don't ask them repeatedly.

Try to stay on-topic. Try to understand what's being said. Ask for clarification if needed. Feel free to ask for reasoning. Feel free to present your own arguments against what's being said.

But don't be a lazy, whiny, disagreement addicted, nitpicking bum.

If you can't do that, feel free to leave this thread. You're not welcome here.

Says the guy who starts with completely changing the meaning of morality. What's that if not disagreement addiction?

[Magnus Anderson]

Says the guy who starts with completely changing the meaning of morality.

That's not true. The word "morality" has several different meanings. One of them is "a set of beliefs about what's right". That's probably the most common one. The other one is "what is right". That one is most commonly used in philosophy.

Google's English dictionary seems to agree.

morality
/məˈralɪti/
noun

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"

a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

The main definition is neutral, neither subjective nor objective.

The second one is subjective.

The third one is objective.

What's that if not disagreement addiction?

Nonsense.

Even if I'm using the word "morality" in a non-standard way, that's not enough for my OP to cause disagreements on its own, especially if we take into account that I explained how I'm using the word and noted that many other people use it in a different way.

Most careful readers will understand what I'm talking about. Those who are left confused will ask for clarification. Those who misunderstand will be corrected.

[Atla]

Says the guy who starts with completely changing the meaning of morality.

That's not true. The word "morality" has several different meanings. One of them is "a set of beliefs about what's right". That's probably the most common one. The other one is "what is right". That one is most commonly used in philosophy.

Google's English dictionary seems to agree.

morality
/məˈralɪti/
noun

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"

a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

The main definition is neutral, neither subjective nor objective.

The second one is subjective.

The third one is objective.

What's that if not disagreement addiction?

Nonsense.

Even if I'm using the word "morality" in a non-standard way, that's not enough for my OP to cause disagreements on its own, especially if we take into account that I explained how I'm using the word and noted that other people may use it in a different way.

Most careful readers will understand what I'm talking about. Those who are left confused will ask for clarification. Those who misunderstand will be corrected.

None of those definitions are objective, obviously. And none of them take the morality out of morality, and replace it with the attainment of one's highest goal.

[Magnus Anderson]

None of those definitions are objective, obviously.

The first one isn't subjective either. It's neutral. That's what I said. The fact that is neutral means that it can be used to denote objective morality.

The second one is subjective. That's also what I said.

But the third one is objective. The extent to which an action is right or wrong has nothing to do with what anyone believes. What is right is right regardless of what anyone thinks is right.

I will remind you that lazy nay-sayers are not welcome in this thread.

I will also remind you that you should stop abusing the quote button.

And none of them take the morality out of morality, and replace it with the attainment of one's highest goal.

They don't say it explicitly but they very much do so implicitly.

The word "right" means "an attribute of the choice that helps a person attain their highest goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time".

[Immanuel Can]

The word "right" means "an attribute of the choice that helps a person attain their highest goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time".

We have to distinguish between types of "rightness" here.

What the above definition indicates is instrumental 'rightness,' which is only the utility of an option in attaining one's goal. But if that goal is "maximal murder" or "effective embezzling," then it's not a 'righness' that is moral. It's effective, but for an evil end.

Nothing about instrumental rightness guarantees moral rightness. A guillotine is the "right" instrument for removing many heads in a short time, perhaps; it might "help a person attain their highest goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time". But is chopping off heads "morally right" merely because it works? Or is chopping off heads still objectively morally wrong?

I think you're going to say the latter, are you not?

[Atla]

But the third one is objective. The extent to which an action is right or wrong has nothing to do with what anyone believes. What is right is right regardless of what anyone thinks is right.

They don't say it explicitly but they very much do so implicitly.

The word "right" means "an attribute of the choice that helps a person attain their highest goal more than every other choice that was available to them at the time".

See you're blatantly lying, these definitions had nothing to do with the attainment of the highest goal. "Right" has nothing to do with it. You know this.

Some people will change the meaning of core concepts, so that they can then pretend to have solved age-old philosophical problems, and expect that the world will hail them as a hero, saviour. That's why you're creating your own langauge. It's a truly weak, pathetic tactic but not that uncommon.

I will remind you that lazy nay-sayers are not welcome in this thread.

Then stop commenting in it.

[Magnus Anderson]

See you're blatantly lying [..] You know this.

Some people will change the meaning of core concepts, so that they can then pretend to have solved age-old philosophical problems, and expect that the world will hail them as some kind of hero, saviour. That's why you're creating your own langauge. It's a truly weak, pathetic tactic but not that uncommon.

You're a presumptive imbecile, a disagreement addict, who's hallucinating an enemy so that he can have a little bit of fun attacking others. A very pathetic form of existence.