What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

In reality there are very few fundamentally different ways of looking at the world

There are as many different ways to look at the world as the number of taxonomies you can invent!

Have you counted the number of different perspectives? It's at least equivalent to the number of different philosophies!

Here are at least 4 different conceptual schemes of "reality": physics. chemistry. biology. sociology.

Therefore as a consequence of this there is much consensus between human beings

And since your premise is flawed, you are just looking for a counter-argument to reject my argument so you can carry on with your way of life

[surreptitious57]

Whether I have communicated my knowledge to you effectively ( is it a fact ) thats for YOU to decide

Unless it could be verified or rejected I would simply leave it without committing myself either way [ no reason to ]

[TimeSeeker]

Unless it could be verified or rejected I would simply leave it without committing myself either way [ no reason to ]

And if you didn't have the option of non-committal? e.g real-world decision making?

Now you have to decide whether to trust me or not.

[surreptitious57]

There are as many different ways to look at the world as the number of taxonomies you can invent !

Have you counted the number of different perspective ? Its at least equivalent to the number of different philosophies !

Here are at least 4 different conceptual schemes of reality : physics . chemistry . biology . sociology

Physics / chemistry / biology all come under SCIENCE

The other three are MATHEMATICS / PHILOSOPHY / RELIGION

Thats a grand total of FOUR [ it should be THREE but MATHEMATICS is not a SCIENCE so has its own category ]

[TimeSeeker]

Physics / chemistry / biology all come under SCIENCE

The other three are MATHEMATICS / PHILOSOPHY / RELIGION

Thats a grand total of FOUR [ it should be THREE but MATHEMATICS is not a SCIENCE so has its own category ]

Appeal to authority. There is nothing special about science.

Scientists within a small tribe (physics) happen to agree because they share conventions on base units (SI units) meaning of symbols. They have a SHARED foundation/knowledge from which to build upon BECAUSE they have conventional models that everybody within the tribe uses and understands.

Outside the tribe things fall apart! Physicists and sociologists have a hard time agreeing on "facts".

Everything is built on prior consensus! This consensus on base units, conventions and jargon is how 'objectivity' emerges!

Even LANGUAGE itself emerges within this shared context: https://youtu.be/TDiENpmpY78

[surreptitious57]

And if you didnt have the option of non committal ? real world decision making ?

Real world decision making would not proceed on a guess so it would have to be known one way or the other
The consequences of proceeding and not knowing could be just as bad if not worse as not proceeding at all

[surreptitious57]

Physicists and sociologists have a hard time agreeing on facts

Sociology does not deal with fundamental issues about reality in the way physics does
And so whether the two disciplines agree with each other or not is not relevant here

[TimeSeeker]

Physicists and sociologists have a hard time agreeing on facts

Sociology does not deal with fundamental issues about reality in the way physics does
And so whether the two disciplines agree with each other or not is not relevant here

*facepalm* Way to miss the point in one sentence!

The way you ARTIFICIALLY split up the world is called your taxonomy. This is what your sentence above conveyed to me.

is-ought gap (2).png

Real world decision making would not proceed on a guess so it would have to be known one way or the other
The consequences of proceeding and not knowing could be just as bad if not worse as not proceeding at all

Really? So how did you DECIDE on your taxonomy? You know. In the real world? Without crossing the is-ought gap?

This is straight out of statistics. If you categorize things into two boxes you are DOING binary classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification
If you are DOING binary classification then you necessarily have a CLASSIFICATION RULE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

So explain to me your classification rules for the category/subcategory:
1. What an "issue" is and how it's different to a "non-issue".
2. What a "fundamental issue" and what is a "non-fundamental issue"

Your categorisation rules doesn't come from reality (because reality has no categories). Then where do the classification rules come from? Either you learned them from society or you arbitrarily created them yourself; or you evolved to perceive the world this way.

Or the most likely option - some combination of all three.

At this point I expect you to appeal to knowledge, understanding, intelligence, truth or some other socially constructed HUMAN IDEAL.

What is it for?!?

All marketing terms for "good ideas" used to indoctrinate young minds who can't think for themselves.
Also used to shame you and placate you as an outsider when you decide to step outside the fold and think for yourself. When you decide to construct your own taxonomy and inventing your own language and own ways to look at the world.

The concept of TRUTH is the very tool used to scam you and rob you from your freedom of thought. Either you think like we think, or speak like we speak - or you aren't one of "us"!

Humans! So misguided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

[surreptitious57]

Your categorisation rules dont come from reality ( because reality has no categories ) Then where do the classification rules come
from ? Either you learned them from society or you arbitrarily created them yourself or you evolved to perceive the world this way

Authority provided me with them and then I tried to understand them

[TimeSeeker]

Your categorisation rules dont come from reality ( because reality has no categories ) Then where do the classification rules come
from ? Either you learned them from society or you arbitrarily created them yourself or you evolved to perceive the world this way

Authority provided me with them and then I tried to understand them

So what did you understand about them?

[surreptitious57]

So what did you understand about them

In the case of mathematics I understood the logical consistency
In the case of science I understood the empirical methodology

[TimeSeeker]

So what did you understand about them

In the case of mathematics I understood the logical consistency
In the case of science I understood the empirical methodology

Brilliant. You are 100 steps ahead of everyone else.

Now go ahead and unify the two and you will encounter epistemology's dirty little secrets:
The problems of criterions and justification. Both are unsolved.

And yet - it is clear to you (if not to anybody else) that you know things. You act in the world every day based on SOME knowledge.
But if it can be neither justified nor falsified (in the absense of criteria) then how is that possible?

[surreptitious57]

it is clear to you ( if not to anybody else ) that you know things . You act in the world every day based on SOME knowledge
But if it can be neither justified nor falsified ( in the absense of criteria ) then how is that possible ?

I do not and cannot make any knowledge claim unless it is through logical or empirical justification and / or falsification
However scientific knowledge arrived at other than by falsification should be treated as provisional because of induction
Where there is zero evidence to either support or reject a potential knowledge claim then I remain epistemically neutral

[TimeSeeker]

it is clear to you ( if not to anybody else ) that you know things . You act in the world every day based on SOME knowledge
But if it can be neither justified nor falsified ( in the absense of criteria ) then how is that possible ?

I do not and cannot make any knowledge claim unless it is through logical or empirical justification and / or falsification
However scientific knowledge arrived at other than by falsification should be treated as provisional because of induction
Where there is zero evidence to either support or reject a potential knowledge claim then I remain epistemically neutral

You know when you are hungry. How do you falsify that? And yet you act on that knowledge by seeking out food.

[surreptitious57]

You know when you are hungry . How do you falsify that ? And yet you act on that knowledge by seeking out food

This example is invalid as you cannot actually falsify first person subjective experience so give me a better one