Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:23 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:04 am
I think this analysis is confused. The issue is the possibility of moral 'correctness' or 'ethical truths'. So to say they can't be established by reference to 'societal opinion' is to beg the question.

The question is this. Can an assertion such as 'eating animals is morally wrong' be true or false? In other words, is it a factual assertion with a truth-value which is independent from opinion? If it is or can be, then morality is objective. And I say it isn't and can't be, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

PH: "I say it isn't and can't be."
Wow! you commanded as if you are God.
WHO ARE YOU to claim that morality isn't and can't be objective?

Whatever is true or false is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system.
As such, whatever is claimed to be true or false must always be qualified to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].
You cannot be an ultracrepidarian to insist, it is true or false because I say it is or isn't.

Thus, while the claim, 'water is H2O' is often stated without qualification, to be rigorous, the actual situation is 'water is H2O' because the science-chemistry FS said so.

So the objective fact 'the oughtnot_ness of humans killing humans' is true as qualified to a credible and objective moral FS.

Erm. No. My whole point is that something isn't or wasn't the case because I or we or all of us say it is or was. Features of reality - facts - just are or were the case. Your error is to mistake the ways we humans perceive, know and describe reality - for reality itself. And here's the error.

'Whatever is true or false is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system. As such, whatever is claimed to be true or false must always be qualified to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].'

This is correct. A factual assertion - and therefore a truth-claim - 'whatever is true or false' - is always contextual and conventional.

But we're talking about the reality outside language - what you call 'whatever is real' - and that has nothing to do with language, and so nothing to do with the linguistic context in which truth and falsehood 'exist'. Iow, a truth-claim is contingent, but what it's about is not.

I stated above "Whatever is true or false.." is the shortened version; I have mentioned my general principle a "million" time; you showing signs of early Alzheimer-dementia?

My principle is this;
whatever is real, true [or false], fact, knowledge and objective is contingent upon a human-based framework of emergence, realization and cognition [knowledge] of reality.

In addition, I have highlighted to you, your thinking which is necessary for philosophical discussion is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.
You jumped to the conclusion that reality [that is the case] just pre-existed and appeared in front of your eyes, but you are ignorant your human conditions in interacting with reality is conditioned upon a 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history. You just cannot ignore such critical fundamental elements.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 5:42 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:23 am

PH: "I say it isn't and can't be."
Wow! you commanded as if you are God.
WHO ARE YOU to claim that morality isn't and can't be objective?

Whatever is true or false is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system.
As such, whatever is claimed to be true or false must always be qualified to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].
You cannot be an ultracrepidarian to insist, it is true or false because I say it is or isn't.

Thus, while the claim, 'water is H2O' is often stated without qualification, to be rigorous, the actual situation is 'water is H2O' because the science-chemistry FS said so.

So the objective fact 'the oughtnot_ness of humans killing humans' is true as qualified to a credible and objective moral FS.

Erm. No. My whole point is that something isn't or wasn't the case because I or we or all of us say it is or was. Features of reality - facts - just are or were the case. Your error is to mistake the ways we humans perceive, know and describe reality - for reality itself. And here's the error.

'Whatever is true or false is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system. As such, whatever is claimed to be true or false must always be qualified to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].'

This is correct. A factual assertion - and therefore a truth-claim - 'whatever is true or false' - is always contextual and conventional.

But we're talking about the reality outside language - what you call 'whatever is real' - and that has nothing to do with language, and so nothing to do with the linguistic context in which truth and falsehood 'exist'. Iow, a truth-claim is contingent, but what it's about is not.

I stated above "Whatever is true or false.." is the shortened version; I have mentioned my general principle a "million" time; you showing signs of early Alzheimer-dementia?

My principle is this;
whatever is real, true [or false], fact, knowledge and objective is contingent upon a human-based framework of emergence, realization and cognition [knowledge] of reality.

And here's the mistake, out in the open. Your conjunct - whatever is real, true or false - yokes together two things that are radically different: reality/real things/facts, which obviously have no truth-value; and things with truth-value, which can only be factual assertions - linguistic expressions.

Now, factual assertions with truth-value are always contextual and conventional - and so 'contingent upon' us. But reality/real things/facts are not 'contingent upon' us.

In addition, I have highlighted to you, your thinking which is necessary for philosophical discussion is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.
You jumped to the conclusion that reality [that is the case] just pre-existed and appeared in front of your eyes, but you are ignorant your human conditions in interacting with reality is conditioned upon a 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history. You just cannot ignore such critical fundamental elements.

This 'emergence' of life, including humans, is irrelevant.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 7:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 5:42 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:29 am
Erm. No. My whole point is that something isn't or wasn't the case because I or we or all of us say it is or was. Features of reality - facts - just are or were the case. Your error is to mistake the ways we humans perceive, know and describe reality - for reality itself. And here's the error.

'Whatever is true or false is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system. As such, whatever is claimed to be true or false must always be qualified to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].'

This is correct. A factual assertion - and therefore a truth-claim - 'whatever is true or false' - is always contextual and conventional.

But we're talking about the reality outside language - what you call 'whatever is real' - and that has nothing to do with language, and so nothing to do with the linguistic context in which truth and falsehood 'exist'. Iow, a truth-claim is contingent, but what it's about is not.

I stated above "Whatever is true or false.." is the shortened version; I have mentioned my general principle a "million" time; you showing signs of early Alzheimer-dementia?

My principle is this;
whatever is real, true [or false], fact, knowledge and objective is contingent upon a human-based framework of emergence, realization and cognition [knowledge] of reality.

And here's the mistake, out in the open. Your conjunct - whatever is real, true or false - yokes together two things that are radically different: reality/real things/facts, which obviously have no truth-value; and things with truth-value, which can only be factual assertions - linguistic expressions.

Now, factual assertions with truth-value are always contextual and conventional - and so 'contingent upon' us. But reality/real things/facts are not 'contingent upon' us.

In addition, I have highlighted to you, your thinking which is necessary for philosophical discussion is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.
You jumped to the conclusion that reality [that is the case] just pre-existed and appeared in front of your eyes, but you are ignorant your human conditions in interacting with reality is conditioned upon a 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history. You just cannot ignore such critical fundamental elements.

This 'emergence' of life, including humans, is irrelevant.

You missed the point.

My point is not focus on the emergence of life but rather the emergence and realization of reality upon the emergence of life.

Irrelevant?? So easy just to brush off this reality.
How could you ignore that 13.7 billion years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history that conditioned upon and ground reality, all-there-is which humans are intricately part and parcel of.
You just do not have the cognitive power to reflect and grasp this reality.

When you [simple-mindedly] ignore this critical point of reality then your whatever deductively follows cannot be realistic, i.e. your grounding is false, illusory and delusional.

I can understand philosophical realism [human independent reality] is an evolutionary default and the majority's view, but to be more philosophical you need to grow above the common sense view to deal with radical skepticism and all sorts of dilemmas associated with philosophical realism.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 3:52 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 3:44 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 3:19 am


So that was your reason for posting this about me: "You have already told me there are no objective values."

Normally, when sane and sober people say that there are no objective moral values it is because values aren't objective.

PRECISELY - precisely what I was stating per the ENTIRE QUOTE that you misrepresented.

So that leaves open the question of what basis you hold for your statement that there are no objective moral values? And it leaves open the question of how you allow for objective values in other realms but not for some reason in ethics.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 10:38 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 3:52 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 3:44 am
Normally, when sane and sober people say that there are no objective moral values it is because values aren't objective.

PRECISELY - precisely what I was stating per the ENTIRE QUOTE that you misrepresented.

So that leaves open the question of what basis you hold for your statement that there are no objective moral values? And it leaves open the question of how you allow for objective values in other realms but not for some reason in ethics.

Sounds like you need to study the difference between objectivity and subjectivity (within anything).

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 10:52 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 10:38 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 3:52 am

PRECISELY - precisely what I was stating per the ENTIRE QUOTE that you misrepresented.

So that leaves open the question of what basis you hold for your statement that there are no objective moral values? And it leaves open the question of how you allow for objective values in other realms but not for some reason in ethics.

Sounds like you need to study the difference between objectivity and subjectivity (within anything).

This isn't complicated. Here's a simple list...
1. The usual reason for saying that moral values have no objective features is that all values (including moral ones) have no objective feature.
2. You bitterly resent the implication that this includes you though.
3. So there is on the one hand a question of how you think there is no fact/value divide in some area
4. And it leaves open the question of why you think there is a fact/value divide specifically for moral values

Please just address a few simple questions without trying to make a psychodrama out of them.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 11:16 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 10:52 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 10:38 am
So that leaves open the question of what basis you hold for your statement that there are no objective moral values? And it leaves open the question of how you allow for objective values in other realms but not for some reason in ethics.

Sounds like you need to study the difference between objectivity and subjectivity (within anything).

This isn't complicated. Here's a simple list...
1. The usual reason for saying that moral values have no objective features is that all values (including moral ones) have no objective feature.
2. You bitterly resent the implication that this includes you though.
3. So there is on the one hand a question of how you think there is no fact/value divide in some area
4. And it leaves open the question of why you think there is a fact/value divide specifically for moral values

Please just address a few simple questions without trying to make a psychodrama out of them.

Why are you particularly interested in what someone (moi) you label as a "psychotic drunk" thinks about the above (or anything)?

Maybe I'll address your list at approximately 3am London time and see how keen you are to hop out of bed again to see what a "psychotic drunk" thinks..

..think I might watch a fillum instead of deal with you right now.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 11:23 am Why are you particularly interested in what someone (moi) you label as a "psychotic drunk" thinks about the above (or anything)?

Are you drunk right now? If not then let's see what you can do when sober. Otherwise maybe save it for tomorrow. There's no rush.

..I was thinking of remaining drunk for at least a fought knight (in case one turns up)...I think the paranoia is subsiding though.

I might therefore be able to fit you in to tomorrows sober schedule.

"Alcohol is the origins of german metaphysics" - FN

And u, sir, are a german metaphysics.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 12:47 pm "Alcohol is the origins of german metaphysics" - FN

And u, sir, are a german metaphysics.

Well, I did find it interesting when the University he apparently studied at (Bonn Uni) came up on my IP radar that seemed particularly interested in my (original) website (perhaps it was members from their psyche fraternity).

www.androcies.com (in re-dev...but I plan to blow the bollocks off of philosophy\psychology\etymology\theology frats once complete )

They say the ghost of Fritz haunts the halls of Bonn University, fish.

There may be something to this. I'd like u to keep me informed of any developments.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 12:37 pm ..I was thinking of remaining drunk for at least a fought knight (in case one turns up)...I think the paranoia is subsiding though.

I might therefore be able to fit you in to tomorrows sober schedule.

I am quiet sure it behoves us all to show patience when we are in consultation with the sages.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 11:16 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 10:52 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 10:38 am
So that leaves open the question of what basis you hold for your statement that there are no objective moral values? And it leaves open the question of how you allow for objective values in other realms but not for some reason in ethics.

Sounds like you need to study the difference between objectivity and subjectivity (within anything).

This isn't complicated. Here's a simple list...
1. The usual reason for saying that moral values have no objective features is that all values (including moral ones) have no objective feature.
2. You bitterly resent the implication that this includes you though.
3. So there is on the one hand a question of how you think there is no fact/value divide in some area
4. And it leaves open the question of why you think there is a fact/value divide specifically for moral values

Please just address a few simple questions without trying to make a psychodrama out of them.

Sure, let me know when you have a few questions?

You appear to want me to address a list of statements..

1. The usual reason for saying that moral values have no objective features is that all values (including moral ones) have no objective feature.

Well, that depends on how you are defining 'values' contextually.

If I am stating the value 2 resulting from 1 + 1 is an objective value, are you going to argue that this value is not objective?



2. You bitterly resent the implication that this includes you though.

I resent that.


3. So there is on the one hand a question of how you think there is no fact/value divide in some area
4. And it leaves open the question of why you think there is a fact/value divide specifically for moral values

Examples are good. We may all state that it is unethical to burn a widow alive. The religion that used to practice this may have their own reasons as to why they believe it is ethical and even the about to be burned alive widow may believe that it is ethical.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 2:19 am Sure, let me know when you have a few questions?

You appear to want me to address a list of statements..

1. The usual reason for saying that moral values have no objective features is that all values (including moral ones) have no objective feature.

Well, that depends on how you are defining 'values' contextually.

If I am stating the value 2 resulting from 1 + 1 is an objective value, are you going to argue that this value is not objective?



2. You bitterly resent the implication that this includes you though.

I resent that.

3. So there is on the one hand a question of how you think there is no fact/value divide in some area
4. And it leaves open the question of why you think there is a fact/value divide specifically for moral values

Examples are good. We may all state that it is unethical to burn a widow alive. The religion that used to practice this may have their own reasons as to why they believe it is ethical and even the about to be burned alive widow may believe that it is ethical.

We do not agree on many issues but I am with you on this, i.e. there is no absolute fact/value divide.

Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759

Values are FSK-ed Objective
viewtopic.php?t=41442

Take for example the value of currencies, share prices above the NTA, business goodwill, whatever the price [economics] are objective as contingent upon a framework and system [FS] even where there is nothing physical to it- other than intersubjective consensus by a collective-of-subjects.

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.

The same can be argued for morality which is objective when contingent upon a moral FS [must be credible and objective].

It is impossible to discuss morality and objective moral values with FDP, he is morally deficient.
viewtopic.php?t=41991