Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:10 pm**

Ah, yes, Henry faces an ancient problem all legislators and lawmakers face; that of qualifying their morality and their rules with something more, something heavier and more imposing than their own authority. Without this qualification, their rules and prohibitions aren't as easily accepted by the governed. A king is just a man, like me, to hell with his rules, etc.

What a civilization needed was a logical ground and foundation for morality and ethics that had more muscle than a single priest or emperor's opinion. It had to be either a secular materialistic positivistic grounding like something Hobbesean of that sort or an idealism of some variety that grounded morality in platonic and aristotlean-like virtue facts and forms.

Note that the positivistic stage beginning maybe with Bacon opened up the alternative philosophical theories of ethics that would take the place of religious platonism and fill the gap left by Democritean materialism's killing and removing god.

Kant, for example. The first yuge philosophical endeavor to make objective morals without being able to rely on the decree of a god to do it.

Posted: **Sun Oct 13, 2024 10:11 pm**

Ah, yes, Henry faces an ancient problem all legislators and lawmakers face

Not really. My God isn't king. He doesn't rule. He Created. End of story.

What happens is on us. We make the best or the worst of it. We're free wills capable of, and subject to, moral judgement (with an objective measure to guide us). We're self-governing beings. He's not gonna whack us if we're bad. That's our job. So, yeah, some of us do bad. It's on the rest of us to do sumthin' about it.

We get what we deserve. If we want Cannibal Planet: it's ours. If we want Freedonia (in it's original Mitchill-ian meaning): we can have it. The former is easy: just act like the meat machines so many of you claim we're nuthin' more or better than. The latter is hard: you have to live as a person, and that means treating your fellows as persons.

Can't ask for a better deal from any deity: liberty, a moral compass, and the right to toss the compass aside.

Posted: **Sun Oct 13, 2024 11:52 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 2:03 am If one need to define 'good' with reference to morality & Ethics, then 'good' is the opposite of evil.

That is not a definition. All you are saying is that 'good' and 'evil' are used as opposites; that doesn't tell us what either of them means, which is what a definition would do.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 2:03 am
It's my argument as a whole that shows that killing (and therefore genocide) is bad, not just the first premise.
You'll need to justify that "humans killing of humans" is objective, i.e. an objective moral fact, i.e. universal. Otherwise, moral relativists will argue your argument is subjective and your personal opinion, belief or judgment.

They would be mistaken in arguing that. If I say '2 and 2 make 4', that is an objective claim. For it to be a subjective claim, I would have to say 'it is my belief that 2 and 2 make 4'. The problem here is that relativists and subjectivists are just bad at philosophy, and make claims about language use that are false. Any claim which does not make reference to the beliefs of the person making the claim is a claim that something is objective, i.e. is a fact.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 3:58 am The main subject is morality, so it is imperative that we define morality and ethics from the start.

The subject of my argument was not morality, it was goodness (and what follows from that). You are simply ignoring my argument and talking about something else. Since you don't want to talk about what my argument is about, I won't bother you any further.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:14 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 10:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 2:03 am
CIN wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 11:22 pm
I don't understand your objection. Are you saying that a definition of 'good' should make it impossible for people to say that something is good if in fact it is evil?
Language doesn't work like that, it evolves to serve people's need to say what they want to say, so if there are people who want to say that something is good when it's actually evil, then language has to provide them with that ability.
What I am saying the term 'good' is too loose a word for use within morality, i.e. "one man's meat and another man's poison."
When Hitler stated the genocide of the Jews is good relative to Nazism, how do we counter that and justify our views genocide is not good?
We need justified objective moral facts to counter that.

The term "good" had and is still a "battered punching bag" within moral philosophy.
See: "Good" within Moral Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42955

I believe for the purpose of morality and ethics, it is not necessary to focus on the definition 'good' with details rather.
If one need to define 'good' with reference to morality & Ethics, then 'good' is the opposite of evil.
If we strive to get rid of genocide [an evil], and achieve zero genocide [or a reduction], that consequence will be good, i.e. it is good there is no genocide.
If we can bring chattel slavery to ZERO as moral target, then, it is good that slavery is ZERO.
Whatever defined as good for anyone is secondary.

When we have an exhaustive list of what is evil [=list of not good] as defined, there is no room for evil to be good at all.

It's my argument as a whole that shows that killing (and therefore genocide) is bad, not just the first premise.
You'll need to justify that "humans killing of humans" is objective, i.e. an objective moral fact, i.e. universal. Otherwise, moral relativists will argue your argument is subjective and your personal opinion, belief or judgment.

Possibly, but I wasn't defining 'morality', I was defining 'good', so your comment isn't relevant to my argument.
The main subject is morality, so it is imperative that we define morality and ethics from the start.

But you haven't said what you think the word 'good' actually means. If you don't first establish what the words used in ethics mean, you can't be sure what people are saying when they use them, and therefore you won't know whether their statements (including your own statements) are true or false. Defining 'good', 'bad' and so on is an essential first step in moral philosophy.
Defining morality and ethics is the first step in moral philosophy, i.e.
"morality" [& ethics] is the getting rid of evil to enable its related goods to manifest.
In the case of morality, what is 'good' is not evil.

When we get rid of evil to ZERO, there is no need to be bothered with its related good, rather we just accept whatever goods manifest therefrom.

The majority do not simply go about killing humans, i.e. which is effective morality; they do not focus on its related "good" with much attention.

If there are killings of humans by humans [evil as defined], people will want to get rid or prevent such killings [evil] which is morality as defined, i.e. getting rid or prevention of evil [killings of humans by humans].
Premise: Most humans don't go about killing humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans killing humans is evil - iow, not good.

Premise: Most humans go about killing humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans killing humans is not evil - iow, is good.

Erm. Sauce for the goose.

You are not apply your intelligence or you are not sufficiently intelligent to infer what is really going on.

It is evident the majority 99.99% of the >8 billion people on Earth do not go about killing humans.

From AI [wR]:

Intentional homicides: The UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates around 475,000 intentional homicides globally in 2017. This doesn't include deaths directly related to war or conflict."
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

Let say the numbers of people killed by humans due to homicides and wars was 1,000,000+ in the recent 2023 and a few years back.
That is only 0.0125% of 8+ billion!!

Even if we increase the numbers to 5 or 10 million, it is still very insignificant.

If we can do a survey of the >8 billion people whether they want to be killed, it is likely 99.999% will not want to be killed [except some very rare psyho weirdoes].

If killing of humans by humans is not evil, then it is good, which means anyone can kill another human which in moral terms [universals] will lead to the extinction of the human species.

When dealt within a moral framework taking the above into consideration;
-the "oughtnotness [noun] of humans killing humans" is an objective moral fact

Premise: Most humans go about killing humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans killing humans is not evil - iow, is good.

This is contrary to empirical evidences, thus your point insults your intelligence, you should retract it.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:24 am**

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:54 pm The good is about neither killing nor not killing. The good is about thinking and feeling about the matter of good and evil. What is good in some circumstances is bad in other circumstances.

What is bad is to not think about the question at all. Not -thinking is what stones and machines do. It's always good to think and think again and again; except when you are required by circumstances to swim for your life in a hurricane surge. A properly civilised society will have provided for its citizens protected institutions where people are taught to think and where thinking is the aim.

What is 'good' in this case represent a state of mind that has potential to be a motivation for action.
As I had stated, to enable such a state of mind to be present neurally is not effective morality.

We don't have a reasonable civilized society at present but possible in say 75, 100, 150, 200 years time provided we have some approach [seeded now] to progressively rewire the neural connectivity within the brain of the majority in the future.

To do this we need to establish a framework and system for morality-proper especially with the abandonment of the ideas of what is good, right & wrong from the drive for progress within morality.
I have discussed the details in this sections in many threads.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:49 am**

CIN wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 11:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 2:03 am If one need to define 'good' with reference to morality & Ethics, then 'good' is the opposite of evil.
That is not a definition. All you are saying is that 'good' and 'evil' are used as opposites; that doesn't tell us what either of them means, which is what a definition would do.

With reference to morality, I define 'good' as not-evil.
Then I provided a definition of 'what is evil', i.e. that which is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity. One example is the killings of humans by humans.

The inclusion of 'good' as a significant element for morality is problematic.
see: "Good" within Moral Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42955

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 2:03 am
It's my argument as a whole that shows that killing (and therefore genocide) is bad, not just the first premise.
You'll need to justify that "humans killing of humans" is objective, i.e. an objective moral fact, i.e. universal. Otherwise, moral relativists will argue your argument is subjective and your personal opinion, belief or judgment.
They would be mistaken in arguing that. If I say '2 and 2 make 4', that is an objective claim. For it to be a subjective claim, I would have to say 'it is my belief that 2 and 2 make 4'. The problem here is that relativists and subjectivists are just bad at philosophy, and make claims about language use that are false.
Any claim which does not make reference to the beliefs of the [a] person making the claim is a claim that something is objective, i.e. is a fact.

What you missed out is this:
Why 2+2=4 is objective is only when it is taken to be contingent upon what is constituted within the Mathematical Framework and System [FS] which grounded on a collective of subjects and not one subject's beliefs.
Whatever is claimed to be objective must be be contingent upon what is constituted within a human-based Framework and System [FS]; there is no other way.
As such, an objective moral facts is constituted within a human-based Moral Framework and System [FS] which grounded on a collective of subjects and not one subject's beliefs.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 3:58 am The main subject is morality, so it is imperative that we define morality and ethics from the start.
The subject of my argument was not morality, it was goodness (and what follows from that). You are simply ignoring my argument and talking about something else. Since you don't want to talk about what my argument is about, I won't bother you any further.

This is a section on morality and ethics, so it is relevant, but since you want to discuss 'what is good within morality' I have open a separate thread [rather is this dumpster thread] to discuss it.
"Good" within Moral Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42955
You can discuss your view therein.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 7:38 am**

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:10 pm Ah, yes, Henry faces an ancient problem all legislators and lawmakers face; that of qualifying their morality and their rules with something more, something heavier and more imposing than their own authority. Without this qualification, their rules and prohibitions aren't as easily accepted by the governed. A king is just a man, like me, to hell with his rules, etc.

Henry'a sense of morality is based on moral/ethical intuitionism which in a way is limited;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism
which is inherent within his own human system and can be inferred from the 'voice' of >8 billion humans.

Moral/ethical intuitionism at least recognized the existence of morality as an inherent objective part of human nature.

The moral relativists is very irresponsible toward humanity in that, whatever the morality, it has to be respected in relation to the culture and thus must be respected. This is why many moral relativists, having no moral compass, do not condemn the Oct 7 genocide believing the terrorists has a moral right to commit the 'genocide'.

There is only a very insignificant % of moral relativists and moral skeptics, my best guess, i.e. 0.1% of the >8 billion humans on Earth.

What a civilization needed was a logical ground and foundation for morality and ethics that had more muscle than a single priest or emperor's opinion. It had to be either a secular materialistic positivistic grounding like something Hobbesean of that sort or an idealism of some variety that grounded morality in platonic and aristotlean-like virtue facts and forms.

Note that the positivistic stage beginning maybe with Bacon opened up the alternative philosophical theories of ethics that would take the place of religious platonism and fill the gap left by Democritean materialism's killing and removing god.

Kant, for example. The first yuge philosophical endeavor to make objective morals without being able to rely on the decree of a god to do it.

True, whatever is claimed must be objective, i.e. not dependent on one or a loose mob of people but contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organized framework and system.

Yes, Kant made the attempt to justify morality as objective relative to a framework and system without relying on a personal God; this objectivity will provide the fixed point for moral progress.
Kant did refer to "God" i.e. as a useful fiction for his morality; I don't agree with this reference to 'God' but an ens realissimum [Kant also referred to] would be more appropriate.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 7:51 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:14 am Let say the numbers of people killed by humans due to homicides and wars was 1,000,000+ in the recent 2023 and a few years back.
That is only 0.0125% of 8+ billion!!
Even if we increase the numbers to 5 or 10 million, it is still very insignificant.

If we can do a survey of the >8 billion people whether they want to be killed, it is likely 99.999% will not want to be killed [except some very rare psyho weirdoes].

If killing of humans by humans is not evil, then it is good, which means anyone can kill another human which in moral terms [universals] will lead to the extinction of the human species.

When dealt within a moral framework taking the above into consideration;
-the "oughtnotness [noun] of humans killing humans" is an objective moral fact.

As usual, you offer non-moral premises that don't entail moral conclusions. Here are your non sequiturs.

Premise: Very few humans kill humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's immoral/not-good/evil for humans to kill humans.

Premise: Very few humans want to be killed.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's immoral/not-good/evil for humans to kill humans.

Premise: If humans kill humans, the human race will go extinct.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's immoral/not-good/evil for humans to kill humans.

Premise: Humans killing humans is to the net disbenefit of individuals and society.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's immoral/not-good/evil for humans to kill humans.

Do you understand why this conclusion doesn't follow from these premises?

Premise: Most humans go about killing humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans killing humans is not evil - iow, is good.
This is contrary to empirical evidences, thus your point insults your intelligence, you should retract it.

Oh dear. My point was that, if your argument is valid, then so is this one. It's just logic.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:07 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 7:38 am ...whatever is claimed must be objective, i.e. not dependent on one or a loose mob of people but contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organized framework and system.

Time to sort this nonsense out. VA offers these definitions:

1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people.

2 Objective: contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system.

Perhaps there's a class distinction between a loose mob of people and a collective of subjects - but there's certainly no useful philosophical distinction. VA's 'objectivity' is nothing more than ponced-up subjectivity. Nul point.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:27 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 7:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:14 am Let say the numbers of people killed by humans due to homicides and wars was 1,000,000+ in the recent 2023 and a few years back.
That is only 0.0125% of 8+ billion!!
Even if we increase the numbers to 5 or 10 million, it is still very insignificant.

If we can do a survey of the >8 billion people whether they want to be killed, it is likely 99.999% will not want to be killed [except some very rare psyho weirdoes].

If killing of humans by humans is not evil, then it is good, which means anyone can kill another human which in moral terms [universals] will lead to the extinction of the human species.

When dealt within a moral framework taking the above into consideration;
-the "oughtnotness [noun] of humans killing humans" is an objective moral fact.
As usual, you offer non-moral premises that don't entail moral conclusions. Here are your non sequiturs.

Premise: Very few humans kill humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's immoral/not-good/evil for humans to kill humans.

Premise: Very few humans want to be killed.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's immoral/not-good/evil for humans to kill humans.

Premise: If humans kill humans, the human race will go extinct.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's immoral/not-good/evil for humans to kill humans.

Premise: Humans killing humans is to the net disbenefit of individuals and society.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's immoral/not-good/evil for humans to kill humans.

Do you understand why this conclusion doesn't follow from these premises?

Premise: Most humans go about killing humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans killing humans is not evil - iow, is good.
This is contrary to empirical evidences, thus your point insults your intelligence, you should retract it.
Oh dear. My point was that, if your argument is valid, then so is this one. It's just logic.

Strawman as usual.

Premise: Very few humans kill humans.
Premise: Very few humans want to be killed.
Premise: If humans kill humans, the human race will go extinct.
Premise: Humans killing humans is to the net disbenefit of individuals and society.
The above premises are objective moral facts as contingent upon a human-based moral framework and system.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's immoral/not-good/evil for humans to kill humans as contingent upon a human-based moral framework and system.

If you deny the above, it is equivalent denying objective scientific facts emerging from a human-based scientific framework and system as objective.
Pleading on the basis of science from the scientific realism perspective is irrational and not tenable.
see:
Scientific Realism [as with indirect realism] is irrational.
viewtopic.php?t=42946

see this conclusion of the thread:
viewtopic.php?p=734935#p734935
These arguments show why TI-ER is more rational and practical than IR, not only from within Kant’s own framework but from a broader general perspective of how we engage with and understand the world.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:38 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 7:38 am ...whatever is claimed must be objective, i.e. not dependent on one or a loose mob of people but contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organized framework and system.
Time to sort this nonsense out. VA offers these definitions:

1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people.

2 Objective: contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system.

Perhaps there's a class distinction between a loose mob of people and a collective of subjects - but there's certainly no useful philosophical distinction. VA's 'objectivity' is nothing more than ponced-up subjectivity. Nul point.

Your thinking is very shallow, narrow and dogmatic.
Your skull must be very thick, we have gone through this a "million" times.

Note what are objective scientific knowledge, truth or facts;

Scientific facts are not subjective because,
1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people;
i.e. they are not dependent on one scientists' view or a loose mob of people who are not peers recognized within the scientific framework and system.

Scientific knowledge, truth or facts are objective because,
2 Objective: contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system;
i.e. they are confirmed by peers within the scientific framework and system within the respective field of science.
For example, the theory of general relativity is not true and objective because Einstein the individual scientists said do, rather it because the peers within the science-physics community within the scientific framework and system agree to it collectively and intersubjectively.

Scientific facts cannot be "that is the case" or "just-is" being objective without being imperatively contingent and qualified to the scientific framework and system.

It is the same for whatever is fact which must be imperatively contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS]; the question is how credible and objective is the said FS relative the the scientific FS as the gold standard. This is A-Class philosophy thinking which is rational and practical.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 11:36 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:38 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 7:38 am ...whatever is claimed must be objective, i.e. not dependent on one or a loose mob of people but contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organized framework and system.
Time to sort this nonsense out. VA offers these definitions:

1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people.

2 Objective: contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system.

Perhaps there's a class distinction between a loose mob of people and a collective of subjects - but there's certainly no useful philosophical distinction. VA's 'objectivity' is nothing more than ponced-up subjectivity. Nul point.
Your thinking is very shallow, narrow and dogmatic.
Your skull must be very thick, we have gone through this a "million" times.

Note what are objective scientific knowledge, truth or facts;

Scientific facts are not subjective because,
1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people;
i.e. they are not dependent on one scientists' view or a loose mob of people who are not peers recognized within the scientific framework and system.

Scientific knowledge, truth or facts are objective because,
2 Objective: contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system;
i.e. they are confirmed by peers within the scientific framework and system within the respective field of science.
For example, the theory of general relativity is not true and objective because Einstein the individual scientists said do, rather it because the peers within the science-physics community within the scientific framework and system agree to it collectively and intersubjectively.

Scientific facts cannot be "that is the case" or "just-is" being objective without being imperatively contingent and qualified to the scientific framework and system.

It is the same for whatever is fact which must be imperatively contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS]; the question is how credible and objective is the said FS relative the the scientific FS as the gold standard. This is A-Class philosophy thinking which is rational and practical.

No. 'Subjective' means 'dependent on belief, judgement or opinion'. So which or how many people are involved is irrelevant. An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion. And an opinion held by 'a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system' is still an opinion.

'Objective' means 'factual' or 'dependent on facts'. So, again, which or how many people are involved is irrelevant. A fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. For example, that's why, when 'a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system' thought the earth is flat, it is in fact an oblate spheroid. VA's is a consensus or bandwagon theory of truth, which is absurd.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 12:24 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:24 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:54 pm The good is about neither killing nor not killing. The good is about thinking and feeling about the matter of good and evil. What is good in some circumstances is bad in other circumstances.

What is bad is to not think about the question at all. Not -thinking is what stones and machines do. It's always good to think and think again and again; except when you are required by circumstances to swim for your life in a hurricane surge. A properly civilised society will have provided for its citizens protected institutions where people are taught to think and where thinking is the aim.
What is 'good' in this case represent a state of mind that has potential to be a motivation for action.
As I had stated, to enable such a state of mind to be present neurally is not effective morality.

We don't have a reasonable civilized society at present but possible in say 75, 100, 150, 200 years time provided we have some approach [seeded now] to progressively rewire the neural connectivity within the brain of the majority in the future.

To do this we need to establish a framework and system for morality-proper especially with the abandonment of the ideas of what is good, right & wrong from the drive for progress within morality.
I have discussed the details in this sections in many threads.

To produce a civilised society in twenty years time we need universal education in thinking ,to the best standard and level. Truth and goodness are closely related. Truth is not a list of facts, and goodness is not a list of morals. Truth/goodness comes only from good and true men. Good and true men all possess a sacrosanct core of goodness.

The effects of that goodness in action, i.e. politics ,varies with the circumstances of the environment which the good man finds himself in. A good man adapts his response to the best action for the circumstances. If he has no choice but to bomb a kill other men in battle then he would do so to the best of his ability. However a man who has learned how to think will not obey orders when the orders are bad orders. Bombing a hospital is not battle.
The best of men , of whom we have examples in recorded history ,refused to obey bad political orders even although they had to sacrifice their own lives to do so.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 4:36 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:49 am With reference to morality, I define 'good' as not-evil.
Then I provided a definition of 'what is evil', i.e. that which is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity. One example is the killings of humans by humans.

So what is your definition of 'good' outside morality, e.g. in the sentence 'that was a good cup of coffee'?

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 5:55 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:38 am Scientific facts are not subjective because,
1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people;
i.e. they are not dependent on one scientists' view or a loose mob of people who are not peers recognized within the scientific framework and system.

So, in those situations where one scientist realized something, perhaps a decade before her peers and it turned out later that her position was correct - became the consensus scientific position - she was both correct and merely subjective, at first, because she was alone, at least amongst professionals in her belief.

And the people who thought she was wrong - her science colleagues - were wrong and objective, because they believe the (false) consensus position in science.

This could be based on paradigmatic biases in the earlier consensus opinion or even errors in experimentation that were endemic at that time.

There could also be, for example, bias created by the financing of research.

So, do we then decide that really the consensus wasn't objective? Or was it both incorrect AND objective? And do we later argue that she was in fact objective - perhaps even her experimental protocols were actually the only ones that eliminated unwanted variables. IOW her methodology was what would usually be called more objective, but since it wasn't popular, at the time, it really was merely subjective, however correct and better organized?

Philosophy Now Forum

What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?