Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:30 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:30 pm This is an example of the behavior that's an issue.

Why?

It's just trollish/assholish.

So what is the definition of good?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:31 pm It's just trollish/assholish.

It's trollish/assholish to point out that you are holding people to an impossible standards/definitions?

Funny. From where I am looking you are the troll/asshole.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:38 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:31 pm It's just trollish/assholish.

It's trollish/assholish to point out that you are holding people to an impossible standards/definitions?

Funny. From where I am looking you are the troll/asshole.

I was simply critiquing a definition that Veritas Aequitas promoted. The definition is problematic for a number of different reasons. It's worth trying to get someone to either realize those issues or to at least be able to provide a defense of them in light of objections. Should we not critique claims made, things promoted, etc. in a philosophy context?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:43 pm I was simply critiquing a definition that Veritas Aequitas promoted.

Were you critiquing the definition or your uncharitable misinterpretation of the definition?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:43 pm The definition is problematic for a number of different reasons. It's worth trying to get someone to either realize those issues or to at least be able to provide a defense of them in light of objections. Should we not critique claims made, things promoted, etc. in a philosophy context?

So independent of your opinion (but not independent of other peoples' opinions), would you; or wouldn't you say that murder is wrong?

Because as far as I am aware from any given observer's perspective the opinions of other people are objective facts of observation.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:45 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:43 pm I was simply critiquing a definition that Veritas Aequitas promoted.

Were you critiquing the definition or your uncharitable misinterpretation of the definition?

What would you suggest as a "charitable" interpretation of "bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination" where we could be talking about "moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people" so that the bias in question isn't a factor?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:43 pm So independent of your opinion (but not independent of other peoples' opinions), would you; or wouldn't you say that murder is wrong?

Most people feel that murder is wrong, obviously. (I wouldn't, though, say that my claim there is free from the bias of my perception.)

Because as far as I am aware from any given observer's perspective the opinions of other people are objective facts of observation.

Would you say that their opinions are free of "bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination"?

Or we could simply ask what you would say is a charitable interpretation of "bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination" where humans would be able to do anything, have any beliefs, etc. that aren't subject to the bias in question? (So that we could be talking about human behavior, beliefs, etc. with the term in question rather than it being limited to things that are independent of humans.)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:51 pm What would you suggest as a "charitable" interpretation of "bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination" where we could be talking about "moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people" so that the bias in question isn't a factor?

Oh, so now you aren't talking about objectivity as "independence from opinion(s)"?

And you couldn't arrive at a charitable consequentialist interpretation of "well being independent of one's own deontological biases"

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:51 pm Would you say that their opinions are free of "bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination"?

To be unbiased is to die like Buridan's ass.

So, you tell me if you think being unbiased is a morally desirable quality.

We may not live without bias.
Bias is the very essence of our individuality. We are our biases. They are our opinions, and are based on our experience of the world.

There can be no moral scheme which has no regard for humanity. For morality to be objective it would have to dismiss humans as if their opinions were of no matter. Moral laws devised by robots would be tragic, and irrelevant. What would be the purpose of such a morality? What would it be designed to achieve? In whose names, and to what ends?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:51 pm What would you suggest as a "charitable" interpretation of "bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination" where we could be talking about "moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people" so that the bias in question isn't a factor?

Oh, so now you aren't talking about objectivity as "independence from opinion(s)"?

In the posts I was looking at (where I was asking Veritas about this), I hadn't used the word "opinions," although Veritas had said, "whatever is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK is independent of any individual's or groups' opinions or belief" in one of his comments. I don't know what it matters if we're using the word "opinions" or not. I don't really understand why you're asking me the above. I'm genuinely curious what a "charitable interpretation" would be in your view.

And you couldn't arrive at a charitable consequentialist interpretation of "well being independent of one's own deontological biases"

I wouldn't say that deontology needs to have anything to do with that at all. The problem is that no, I couldn't arrive at an interpretation (consequentialist or whatever) of "well-being" that's somehow independent of persons' perceptions, emotions, imagination, opinions, beliefs, or whatever we'd want to specify in that regard. Could you suggest how we'd do this?

To be unbiased is to die like Buridan's ass.

. . . okay, but then there's a problem with claiming that anything is "objective" on Veritas' defnition of "objective," no?

So, you tell me if you think being unbiased is a morally desirable quality.

I don't think it's possible for humans to be unbiased. Hence why it's problematic to say that humans can be objective, especially on a definition like Veritas gave.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:13 pm I'm genuinely curious what a "charitable interpretation" would be in your view.

So you don't know what the phrase "charitable interpretation" refers to?

That's not unsurprising. It would certainly explain your trolling...

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:13 pm I wouldn't say that deontology needs to have anything to do with that at all. The problem is that no, I couldn't arrive at an interpretation (consequentialist or whatever) of "well-being" that's somehow independent of persons' perceptions, emotions, imagination, opinions, beliefs, or whatever we'd want to specify in that regard. Could you suggest how we'd do this?

But could you arrive at an interpretation that's independent of a person's emotions, imagination, opinions and beliefs?

Notice where the apostrophe is.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:13 pm . . . okay, but then there's a problem with claiming that anything is "objective" on Veritas' defnition of "objective," no?

That depends on whether you think the position of the apostrophe makes the problem go away.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:13 pm I don't think it's possible for humans to be unbiased. Hence why it's problematic to say that humans can be objective, especially on a definition like Veritas gave.

OK. So it's down to the position of the apostrophe then.

Can a human be objective about humans; or are any and all uses of "objectivity" off the table?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:57 pm But could you arrive at an interpretation that's independent of a person's emotions, imagination, opinions and beliefs?

Notice where the apostrophe is.

You can obviously give others persons' opinions (or some select subpopulation's opinon or whatever). But what is the utility of that in context? How does that imply anything about morality?

Can a human be objective about humans; or are any and all uses of "objectivity" off the table?

On either the definition that Veritas gave or the definition that I use, I wouldn't say that humans can "be objective" period.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:06 pm You can obviously give others persons' opinions (or some select subpopulation's opinon or whatever). But what is the utility of that in context? How does that imply anything about morality?

Opinions are causal. Collective opinions are consequential at large scale. They have measurable/testable/falsifiable effects on reality.
If morality is "just opinions" the effects of those opinions are facts.

That's sufficient for scientific objectivity, even if it doesn't hit the mark of Philosophical idealism.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:06 pm On either the definition that Veritas gave or the definition that I use, I wouldn't say that humans can "be objective" period.

Soooo.... the nominal use of the term "objective" refers to what exactly? An unattainable philosophical fantasy?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:08 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:06 pm You can obviously give others persons' opinions (or some select subpopulation's opinon or whatever). But what is the utility of that in context? How does that imply anything about morality?

Opinions are causal. Collective opinions are consequential at large scale. They have measurable/testable/falsifiable effects on reality.
If morality is "just opinions" the effects of those opinions are facts.

That's sufficient for scientific objectivity, even if it doesn't hit the mark of Philosophical idealism.

Doesn't morality have anything to do with normatives in your view? (Shoulds or oughts)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:18 am As with the above, the WIKI point is very general but reasonable.

In the above I would read 'moral codes' as moral standards based on justified true moral facts from within a credible moral FSK.

I have explained before,
whatever is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK is independent of any individual's or groups' opinions or belief.
Do you dispute this?

But a scientific fact is conditioned and linked to the scientific FSK which is constructed by humans, thus ultimately at the meta-level, scientific facts which are mind-independent are not minds[FSK]-independent.

It the same with justified true moral facts from a credible moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK.

What is well-being? note;

What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

Btw, you don't have to read all the posts in the thread above, the OP is sufficient to convey my intended points.

The only thing that would be acceptable as a response to my comment would be something like this:

"The way that we could have something that 'calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it' where we're talking about something that is true independent of persons' perceptions, emotions, etc. IS ___________________"

And then you fill in the blank.

Are you capable of that challenge?

As I had mentioned I do not agree with the term 'moral codes' used in the Wiki point, else we can forget about the Wiki's point and rely on my specific view, i.e.

The way that we could have something that 'calls for moral standards from moral facts conditioned upon the well-being of the people in the society as a guide' where we're talking about something that is true independent of persons' opinions and beliefs etc. IS ...
..the moral facts verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [just like the scientific FSK] which is independent of the person's opinions and beliefs.

Note the moral FSK is leveraged on the internal mechanisms of the human person thus cannot be independent of the person's [as a human] perception and emotions in this case.
You are trying to "pull something from your sleeve" to do a slide.
Rather moral facts are independent of the persons' beliefs and opinions.

Moral facts are like facts of the human brain from the Biology FSK which as scientific facts, knowledge are independent of the persons' opinion and beliefs.
But the fact of the brain cannot be totally independent of the persons' perception and emotions.

Btw, your views are that of the dogmatism of Ayer's emotivism.
Actually Ayers' and gang are being emotional and ideological in arriving at their views that morality is emotivism, i.e. based on emotions and expressions.