Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:09 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
When some twat challenges me to say if I believe say morality exists or to explain what truth is

I never challenged you on the existence of morality but simply emphasised the difference between objective and subjective morality
And you should be able to define what truth is as it was you who used the term - all I did was answer the question about it you asked

Still not one answer of substance from you but instead a couple of insults entirely without provocation
So are you going to provide a logical refutation of anything I have said at the third time of asking now

You claim that what we call truth and objectivity depend on intersubjective consensus - which is collective subjective opinion.

It follows from your claim that, if the intersubjective consensus opinion is that the earth is flat, then the factual assertion 'the earth is flat' is true, because the earth is indeed flat.

Now, please either accept that entailment from your claim, or withdraw it - for the absurd nonsense that it is.

Proposition: moral subjectivism is ultimately just a concealed nihilism.

Can anyone prove that wrong?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:44 pm You claim that what we call truth and objectivity depend on intersubjective consensus - which is collective subjective opinion.

And you claim that "objectivity" is "independence of opinion" which is a definition which depends on your opinion.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:44 pm It follows from your claim that, if the intersubjective consensus opinion is that the earth is flat, then the factual assertion 'the earth is flat' is true, because the earth is indeed flat.

And it follows from your claim that objectivity is subjectively defined.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 2:44 pm Now, please either accept that entailment from your claim, or withdraw it - for the absurd nonsense that it is.

Ditto.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:16 pm Proposition: moral subjectivism is ultimately just a concealed nihilism.

Can anyone prove that wrong?

Still haven't cracked this yet? You make a claim, then you try to prove it's true.

But anyway, since the claims of moral realism and objectivism are unjustified - so there seem to be no moral facts - the claims of metaethical moral relativism and moral nihilism are trivially true and so inconsequential. Nothing is objectively morally right or wrong.

So all we can do - all we've ever and will ever be able to do - is make our own moral judgements. And to say such judgements can have no rational basis because they're not objective is false, fatuous - and libellous.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 8:55 am 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.

we all have feet of clay.

How nice of you to speak for the whole human race. Perhaps you and Plato, Hume, Kant, and all the post modernists have perceptual and rational equipment that is defective and are never able to have undistorted perception and thoughts. It is wrong to assume everyone suffers from the limitations you claim for yourself.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:16 pm Proposition: moral subjectivism is ultimately just a concealed nihilism.

Can anyone prove that wrong?

Still haven't cracked this yet? You make a claim, then you try to prove it's true.

Rather, one might see if one can falsify it. There's a claim there: can you falsify it?

Nothing is objectively morally right or wrong.

That's a different question. It won't help here, because even were it true, it would not do one bit to save moral subjectivism from entailing nihilism, if indeed it does. It would merely entail that we were all inevitably bound to nihilism...unless you can show that's not necessarily so, which is my invitation to you.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:30 pm So all we can do - all we've ever and will ever be able to do - is make our own moral judgements. And to say such judgements can have no rational basis because they're not objective is false, fatuous - and libellous.

So now you are appealing to rationality as way of resolving moral disputes. How is that supposed to work exactly?

I have rational basis for killing you.
You have rational basis for objecting to being killed.

I have rationally rationalised that your rationality is less rational than my rationality.
You have rationally rationalised that my rationality is less rational than your rationality.

So we are no closer on agreeing to the fact that you ought to be killed.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 4:04 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 8:55 am 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.

we all have feet of clay.

How nice of you to speak for the whole human race. Perhaps you and Plato, Hume, Kant, and all the post modernists have perceptual and rational equipment that is defective and are never able to have undistorted perception and thoughts. It is wrong to assume everyone suffers from the limitations you claim for yourself.

You are going to get into trouble if you believe any man is totally good.

Peter Holmes wrote:
You claim that what we call truth and objectivity depend on intersubjective consensus - which is collective subjective opinion

It follows from your claim that if the intersubjective consensus opinion is that the earth is flat then the factual assertion the earth is flat is true

Now please either accept that entailment from your claim or withdraw it - for the absurd nonsense that it is

It is not only truth and objectivity that depend on inter subjective consensus but all language does otherwise communication is not possible
Of course it is not perfect because of subjective interpretation and the multiplicity of definitions for some words but is as perfect as can be

Flat Earth is not actually a good example because it is obviously spherical and so there is no reason to deny that which is demonstrably true
For better examples you would use something not at all demonstrable where the answer is unknown such as the existence of God for example

Immanuel Can wrote:
Proposition: moral subjectivism is ultimately just a concealed nihilism

That would depend on the degree of moral subjectivity in question because that is all there is
Moral objectivity is simply the less subjective part of the spectrum which is why it is so called

Absolute moral objectivity cannot be part of any human moral philosophy simply because it has to be mind independent by definition
Just asserting otherwise does not make it true - it has to be demonstrated to be true but that cannot be done so it is rendered invalid

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 4:08 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:16 pm Proposition: moral subjectivism is ultimately just a concealed nihilism.

Can anyone prove that wrong?

Still haven't cracked this yet? You make a claim, then you try to prove it's true.

Rather, one might see if one can falsify it. There's a claim there: can you falsify it?

Nothing is objectively morally right or wrong.

That's a different question. It won't help here, because even were it true, it would not do one bit to save moral subjectivism from entailing nihilism, if indeed it does. It would merely entail that we were all inevitably bound to nihilism...unless you can show that's not necessarily so, which is my invitation to you.

And the claim of moral nihilism - that nothing is objectively morally right or wrong - is trivially true and so inconsequential.

Do you see what that means? It means there's no reason to fret about moral nihilism, because it doesn't mean 'whatever anyone thinks is morally right or wrong actually is morally right or wrong'. Nothing actually, factually, objectively is morally right or wrong. Only deluded moral realists and objectivists think that. And they can't meet their burden of proof anyway.

Moral subjectivism is not only viable. It's the only rational moral position, because what it claims about morality is actually true.

Peter Holmes wrote:
So all we can do - all we ve ever and will ever be able to do - is make our own moral judgements
And to say such judgements can have no rational basis because they re not objective is false fatuous and libellous

Moral judgements can be rational - utilitarianism for example - but they can never be absolutely objective
You are incapable of having an absolutely objective thought never mind an absolutely objective morality
All human knowledge and experience is subjective by default - it is not possible for it to be anything else

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:53 pm And the claim of moral nihilism - that nothing is objectively morally right or wrong - is trivially true and so inconsequential.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:53 pm Moral subjectivism is not only viable. It's the only rational moral position, because what it claims about morality is actually true.

SO, uh...

What's the difference between a "trivial truth" and "actual truth" ?
Are you now arguing that some truths are more true than other truths?

What objective standard are you using to determine that the "actual truth" is better than "trivial truth", or are we still dealing with your opinion?

Peter Holmes wrote:
Moral subjectivism is not only viable . Its the only rational moral position because what it claims about morality is actually true

This is exactly what I have saying all along and so now you finally agree with me
There is no such thing as absolute moral objectivity just degrees of subjectivity

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 6:05 pm This is exactly what I have saying all along and so now you finally agree with me
There is no such thing as absolute moral objectivity just degrees of subjectivity

It's a sliding scale. There is a threshold of subjectivity above which scientists consider a matter "decisively settled" - the hypothesis which traverses this threshold is considered "objectively true" and consensus usually follows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_fac ... rpretation

Peter doesn't like that idea, because he won't tell us what evidence he would accept.

He has a different notion of objectivity to scientist. A notion that he refuses to share with us.