Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:03 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 6:30 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:14 pm We await your demonstration that morality is objective ...

Anything dictated by any agency, God or man, is certainly not objective, but a mandate or imposed obligation, so certainly not anythig that could be discovered by any objective means.

Sorry to interrupt here, RC...just a minor point, but one that is causing some confusion.

To say that something "is objective" is not to imply that it can "be discovered by objective means." Those are two different uses of the word "objective," listed as 2 and 1 respectively, below, as per Webster's Dictionary.

objective: adjective

ob·​jec·​tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
objective art
an objective history of the war
an objective judgment
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.
2a : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
objective reality
… our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.
— Marvin Reznikoff
— compare SUBJECTIVE sense 3a
b : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
objective awareness
objective data
c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
objective arthritis
— compare SUBJECTIVE sense 4c
d : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

To illustrate the difference, we might say that when nobody in Europe had "objective means" to discover America, America still "objectively" was there -- the continents, I mean, not the country.

To say something IS objective is to say it exists independent of opinion. To say something is being "investigated objectively" is to say its nature is being investigated by impartial methods...not that it does, or does not, exist.

Therefore, it makes no sense to say that because morality is not investigated by objective methods (sense 1), we can conclude no objective (sense 2) morality exists.

Both definitions 1. and 2. pertain only to facts one perceives:
1. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived
2. involving or deriving from sense perception or experience
Neither definition has anything to do with whether there are such facts if they are not perceived, and both pertain to what ideas are based on: either perceived facts (objective) or something only made-up in one's head (subjective).

I happen to disagree with both definitions, because objectivity, to me, means based on non-contradictory reason and pertains to both the ontological and epistemological. Life, consciousness, and the human mind are all objectively valid concepts which cannot be based on perception. Language, mathematics, and logic are objectively sound methods that cannot be perceived. Etc.

It's like language. One can learn a language or invent a language, but one cannot discover a language, because a language is an arbitrary invention by human beings. In the same way dictated proscriptions and prescriptions cannot be discovered, because they must be made up or invented by some agent. There is no way to objectively discover a language and there is no way to objectively discover a dictated mandate. If they are to be known they must be taught or learned from someone else.

Nice try!

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:03 pm objective: adjective

ob·​jec·​tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations


2a : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
objective reality

Both definitions 1. and 2. pertain only to facts one perceives:
1. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived
2. involving or deriving from sense perception or experience

I'm sorry, RC...I'm not trying to be difficult, but they don't.

#1 says explicitly, "as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations," not "as may be perceived." The strict condition of objective existing is that the phenomenon is NOT the product of a distortion or a perspective, but is a product of impartial observation.

#2 says,"independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers" and adds, "having reality independent of the mind."

Disagree, if you want, that both are possible: but you won't get the words to mean what they don't mean by doing it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:42 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:03 pm objective: adjective

ob·​jec·​tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations


2a : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
objective reality

Both definitions 1. and 2. pertain only to facts one perceives:
1. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived
2. involving or deriving from sense perception or experience

I'm sorry, RC...I'm not trying to be difficult, but they don't.

#1 says explicitly, "as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations," not "as may be perceived." The strict condition of objective existing is that the phenomenon is NOT the product of a distortion or a perspective, but is a product of impartial observation.

#2 says,"independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers" and adds, "having reality independent of the mind."

Disagree, if you want, that both are possible: but you won't get the words to mean what they don't mean by doing it.

Here are the two definitions you emphasized:

1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
objective art

2a : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

That's good enough for me.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:46 amThat's good enough for me.

Well, you can lead a horse to water....

I guess.

Objective has two fundamental meanings - one is absolute and one is relative
Relative objectivity may sound like an oxymoron but it is actually a valid term

Absolute objectivity pertains to that which is mind independent and is not conditioned by subjective interpretation
While relative objectivity pertains to that which is mind dependent and is conditioned by subjective interpretation

When there is sufficient inter subjective consensus on something then that thing can be accepted as a fact or statement of objective truth
The consensus has to be rigorous and testable to the highest possible degree not just popular because without such rigour it could be false

Objective morality can be either relative or absolute in theory but absolute morality is not falsifiable and is also impractical in practice
Because it only focuses on the act and not on the reason for the act as everything is black and white with no shades of grey in between
But human beings are not machines who function according to binary logic but are immensely more complicated and nuanced than this

Even things that are universally agreed upon to be immoral are examples of relative inter subjective morality rather than absolute morality
Morality is an evolutionary consequence of communal existence which has developed over time through consensus so it cannot be objective

Murder is objectively immoral because there is universal consensus that it is not because it is immoral by default because that is not true
For had we through inter subjective consensus decided that murder was not immoral - for whatever reason - then it would not be immoral

That was not something that was set in stone but arrived at through collective decision making through the application of reason and logic
As reason is the application of logic to the real world and the real world is the world we live in so we therefore have to know how it works
That is not just at a physical level but at abstract levels too because morality is an abstract concept and so it has to be understood as such

@surreptitious57,
Agree with yr above n its very solidly presented.
As u mentioned, what is critical is the necessary highest philosophical and empirical rigor.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 7:09 am
Even things that are universally agreed upon to be immoral are examples of relative inter subjective morality rather than absolute morality
Morality is an evolutionary consequence of communal existence which has developed over time through consensus so it cannot be objective

Murder is objectively immoral because there is universal consensus that it is not because it is immoral by default because that is not true
For had we through inter subjective consensus decided that murder was not immoral - for whatever reason - then it would not be immoral

So 'morality...cannot be objective'. But 'murder is objectively immoral'.

Good to get that sorted out.

Morality cannot be objective in the absolute sense but murder is objective in the relative sense
And as there are two definitions for objectivity these statements are not mutually incompatible

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:42 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:03 pm objective: adjective

ob·​jec·​tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations


2a : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
objective reality

Both definitions 1. and 2. pertain only to facts one perceives:
1. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived
2. involving or deriving from sense perception or experience

I'm sorry, RC...I'm not trying to be difficult, but they don't.



#1 says explicitly, "as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations," not "as may be perceived." The strict condition of objective existing is that the phenomenon is NOT the product of a distortion or a perspective, but is a product of impartial observation.

#2 says,"independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers" and adds, "having reality independent of the mind."

Disagree, if you want, that both are possible: but you won't get the words to mean what they don't mean by doing it.

But

The strict condition of objective existing is that the phenomenon is NOT the product of a distortion or a perspective, but is a product of impartial observation.

is an aim which is a good one we all praise, but it cannot ever be accomplished. Observation can;t be totally impartial ;we all have feet of clay. Subjective relativity is always with us, except for mathematics and formal logic.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:51 pm "... affective demonstration," of what? That a dictated commandment is objective?

It's a demonstration that your behaviour/choices are predictable and therefore objective.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 8:38 am Morality cannot be objective in the absolute sense but murder is objective in the relative sense
And as there are two definitions for objectivity these statements are not mutually incompatible

So you think murder is relatively objectively morally wrong, because the intersubjective consensus is that it is.

Claptrap.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 9:18 am So you think murder is relatively objectively morally wrong, because the intersubjective consensus is that it is.

Claptrap.

What does the word "wrong" even mean in a nihilist's vocabulary, Peter?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 9:18 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 8:38 am Morality cannot be objective in the absolute sense but murder is objective in the relative sense
And as there are two definitions for objectivity these statements are not mutually incompatible

So you think murder is relatively objectively morally wrong, because the intersubjective consensus is that it is.

Claptrap.

You got it wrong.

Secular Morality [as a whole] is relatively objective, it is not absolutely objective, i.e. totally unconditional as claimed by theists.

The relative objectivity of secular-Morality is derived from the same approach and principles as the objectivity of Science, i.e. verified upon empirical evidences supported by the finest philosophical reasoning and critical thinking- grounded on the intersubjective consensus of subjects.

'Murder is wrong' is objective within the framework of relative-objective-morality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 9:46 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 9:18 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 8:38 am Morality cannot be objective in the absolute sense but murder is objective in the relative sense
And as there are two definitions for objectivity these statements are not mutually incompatible

So you think murder is relatively objectively morally wrong, because the intersubjective consensus is that it is.

Claptrap.

You got it wrong.

Secular Morality [as a whole] is relatively objective, it is not absolutely objective, i.e. totally unconditional as claimed by theists.

The relative objectivity of secular-Morality is derived from the same approach and principles as the objectivity of Science, i.e. verified upon empirical evidences supported by the finest philosophical reasoning and critical thinking- grounded on the intersubjective consensus of subjects.

'Murder is wrong' is objective within the framework of relative-objective-morality.

Please explain what so-called absolute objectivity has got that so-called relative objectivity hasn't got. Or vice versa. What's the supposed difference?

If you can't explain the difference, you have no reason to claim there is a difference.
If there is in fact no difference, the distinction is meaningless.
If you think absolute objectivity is impossible, you are merely defining objectivity as relative objectivity.
Or, flip it around, and, handy-dandy, relative objectivity is impossible, and objectivity is absolute.

Do you think objectivity is both 'independence from judgement, belief or opinion' AND 'dependence on intersubjective judgement, belief or opinion'?

Absolute objectivity is black and white whereas relative objectivity is shades of grey
The latter is a more reliable metric for our behaviour as we are humans not machines

You have failed to provide or even attempt a logical refutation that relative morality does not exist I notice
And also absolute objectivity is impossible because it would have to be mind independent like I already said