Philosophy Now Forum

The definition of personhood has no bearing on this issue.

The definition of, no; the nature of, yes.


the assertion that acting contrary to someone's personhood is morally wrong remains a matter of judgement - not a fact.

I disagree.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 12:42 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 12:33 pm My mistake, you are that stupid. Seriously Skepdick, show us how you get this:

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 12:06 pmThere were three options, so you calculated the odds as 1 in 3.

From this:

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 amOh please. There are 3 options: murder rates go up, they stay the same or they go down. You can stare at that until the cows come home but there will only ever be those 3 options, and you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

Dude. Must I get you a shovel?

If you think it will help. In the meantime show us the exact point where you think I "calculated the odds as 1 in 3". Who am I kidding? You can't because I didn't - it's all in your head. Skepdick me old china, if you're determined to show that philosophers are dumb, don't delude yourself that you have done so on the back of utter bollocks you have made up yourself.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:16 pm In the meantime show us the exact point where you think I "calculated the odds as 1 in 3".

Sure!

It happened right where you trivialised the argument, caricaturised the statistical significance of 500+ years of data, ignored the nuance between prior and posterior probabilities and reduced the conclusion to a number then projected your mis-understanding onto me.

It happened right here:

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 am you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

Your strawman is indicative of your misunderstanding.

A. This is red.
B. This is red.
C. This is red.

A has 1/3 odds of obtaining.
B has 1/3 odds of obtaining.
C has 1/3 odds of obtaining.

So which team are you on and how did you end up there if all options have 1 in 3 odds?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:12 pm The definition of personhood has no bearing on this issue.

The definition of, no; the nature of, yes.

No, the nature of personhood has no bearing either.

the assertion that acting contrary to someone's personhood is morally wrong remains a matter of judgement - not a fact.

I disagree.

Okay. Please demonstrate the factual entailment. Or don't. No worries. I knew the answer to my OP question anyway.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:25 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:16 pm In the meantime show us the exact point where you think I "calculated the odds as 1 in 3".

Sure!

It happened right where you trivialised the argument, caricaturised the statistical significance of 500+ years of data, ignored the nuance between prior and posterior probabilities and reduced the conclusion to a number then projected your mis-understanding onto me.

It happened right here:

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 am you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

Your strawman is indicative of your misunderstanding.

These are your words Skepdick:

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:58 pmThe derivative of the mathematical function which represents the historical murder rate over centuries of data is a certain value.

That value is not positive (murder is not increasing), and it's not zero (murder is not steady).

Murder is decreasing.

That's 2:1 unlikely, or just above 3 decibels of evidence.

What exactly have I misunderstood?

No, the nature of personhood has no bearing either.

I disagree.


Please demonstrate the factual entailment.

Already did, multiple times. You disagree.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:37 pm No, the nature of personhood has no bearing either.

I disagree.


Please demonstrate the factual entailment.

Already did, multiple times. You disagree.

Nope. All you've done is try to establish your killer fact that people own themselves - then claim that means it's morally wrong to enslave them.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 5:05 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 4:01 pm ... 'true' can't be a property of a value.

I gave you an option: use your own word, "objective."

But look here, Pete...we can go around and around, or we can get back to what your started with: your OP question.

You asked what could make morality objective? That question assumes that a thing called "morality" exists.

So describe this "morality," so we're clear on it. Or give an example. Otherwise, the question becomes absurd...it's like asking, "What could make an inherently non-existent thing objective?"

But if that's not what you meant, then convince us that "morality," as you understand it, is a word that refers to something...that "morality," as you understand it, "exists."

The meaning of a word is not the thing (real or abstract) to which it refers. Meaning is use.

Well, then, you can explain what conditions under which its use is warranted, and which it's not; and if there's no difference, then what content is left in the word "morality," and what is added by using it at all?

So. as you know, I think we're talking about the function of moral assertions,

That's your position, I see. I don't "know" that, because I don't happen to agree that function, considered without further information, is what the word "morality" is used for. I see that you don't think moral terms can refer to anything objective. I think it not only can, but is nonsensical if it does not.

That nonsensicalness is why an account that claims "subjective morality" is a coherent term must justify that claim. I would suggest the very terms is a contradiction between the ascribed adjective and the noun. Nothing that is purely "subjective" can be "moral," because to appeal to morality is, to say the least about it, to appeal for approval or censure, and to appeal to other people to agree with that approval or censure. Absent that, there is no "use" for the word "moral" at all.

So my contention is that I see no content in your use of the term "subjective morality." It's closeted Nihilism. But if I'm wrong about that, you can surely show why.

As for producing a moral fact, I'll happily go forward with that, if you're not a Nihilist. With a Nihilist, nothing can be done, in terms of speaking of morality...he doesn't believe it exists in reality all. But at present, it seems to me you're a Nihilist that doesn't know he's a Nihilist, because he hasn't fully thought through what it means to assert "morality is subjective." What it means is that either the noun or that subjective completion is misguided.

seems like you wanna tussle: no worries, mannie will accommodate you , or skep, or va

me: I'm satisfied with my argument, so -- except for an occasional comment -- I'm done

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:31 am DNA/RNA wise ALL humans are "programmed" [not by God] with a potential of an existential crisis.

And your source for these two claims is...?

Humans since then, had been resorting to all sorts of ways to relieve the inherent unavoidable crisis.

This is called "the genetic fallacy." The origin of an idea does not tell us whether or not the idea itself is right or wrong. It's also ad hominem, as you're relying on a particular critique of the speakers to deny the content of a proposition. Stereo fallacies there.

Since the emergence of the illusory God, there had been no direct empirical evidence to justify God exists as empirically real.

This claim is really amazing. I tells me the claimant has actually never read anything in regard to this debate at all. I would expect you to say, "I've read the arguments, and I don't believe X because of Y." But you don't say that...you try to say that no empirical argument even exists...but that's so manifestly untrue that only somebody who knows nothing about it could even say that.

However, for your further information, try the "Argument from Design." Now, you may still say, "I don't believe any of those arguments," and if you can say why, that's fair. But one thing you cannot possibly say: "no empirical arguments exist." They manifestly do.

The only valid and pragmatic reason to 'believe God exists' is solely from desperate psychology

Empty bluster, already debunked in front of your own eyes. Psychologizing like this doesn't work, because it can be used to exactly the same effect against Atheism...or rather, it can be used to no legitimate effect against either Theism or Atheism.

The fact is how can you extricate morality from human beings. No way! If so, how?

Done. If you read my "aliens" argument, you know exactly how. But you must not have read it at all.

IF God exists, God's morality in one sense is logically conditioned upon God thus relative.

You're misusing the term "relative," as it's used in connection to morality.

"Relative" when used of morality, means "unstable, variable, or circumstantial," not merely "applied to a person." God is a Person, so a morality established on the basis of His character and identity is not "relative" in the proper sense of the word. That is, it doesn't change depending on which person (or Person) is applying it.

If God exists, murder is wrong, even if you think it isn't. And it doesn't become right even if I think it does. And if that's how it is, then morality is not, in the appropriate sense, "relative."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:10 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 5:05 pm
I gave you an option: use your own word, "objective."

But look here, Pete...we can go around and around, or we can get back to what your started with: your OP question.

You asked what could make morality objective? That question assumes that a thing called "morality" exists.

So describe this "morality," so we're clear on it. Or give an example. Otherwise, the question becomes absurd...it's like asking, "What could make an inherently non-existent thing objective?"

But if that's not what you meant, then convince us that "morality," as you understand it, is a word that refers to something...that "morality," as you understand it, "exists."

The meaning of a word is not the thing (real or abstract) to which it refers. Meaning is use.

Well, then, you can explain what conditions under which its use is warranted, and which it's not; and if there's no difference, then what content is left in the word "morality," and what is added by using it at all?

So. as you know, I think we're talking about the function of moral assertions,

That's your position, I see. I don't "know" that, because I don't happen to agree that function, considered without further information, is what the word "morality" is used for. I see that you don't think moral terms can refer to anything objective. I think it not only can, but is nonsensical if it does not.

That nonsensicalness is why an account that claims "subjective morality" is a coherent term must justify that claim. I would suggest the very terms is a contradiction between the ascribed adjective and the noun. Nothing that is purely "subjective" can be "moral," because to appeal to morality is, to say the least about it, to appeal for approval or censure, and to appeal to other people to agree with that approval or censure. Absent that, there is no "use" for the word "moral" at all.

So my contention is that I see no content in your use of the term "subjective morality." It's closeted Nihilism. But if I'm wrong about that, you can surely show why.

As for producing a moral fact, I'll happily go forward with that, if you're not a Nihilist. With a Nihilist, nothing can be done, in terms of speaking of morality...he doesn't believe it exists in reality all. But at present, it seems to me you're a Nihilist that doesn't know he's a Nihilist, because he hasn't fully thought through what it means to assert "morality is subjective." What it means is that either the noun or that subjective completion is misguided.

Produce a moral fact, and show why it's a fact - not the expression of a value-judgement - and you'll demolish moral nihilism at a stroke. There'd be no more need to tilt at your straw man.

You failed with 'incest is morally wrong', so it's puzzling that you don't understand that you'll always fail. But go ahead and try again, by all means.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:45 am Moral Nihilist is one who do not believe there are justification for any form of morality. I believe they will be very dogmatic with "is/ought" dichotomy.

They may. Some do. But I have found that most are not that thoughtful. Often, they're just knee-jerk skeptical of the whole idea of morality. Or they're general anarchists, who like to extend their anarchism to morality. Others like Nihilism because they imagine in grants them moral exemption or personal freedom. Others try to stop at "moral subjectivism," but are really Nihilists in ignorance of the implications of their own view. So there are different motives, and different ways of embracing Nihilism.

Right/Wrong do not necessary pertains to Morality.

Actually, they do.

Politics is independent of morality.

You should hope that's not true.

If there's "something" in a "nothing," then there's not a "nothing" anymore. And if there's "nothing," then by definition, there is not even one bit of "something." Thus, Moral Nihilism entails the absolute, total and unequivocal denial that there are any true, objective or real values at all.
Pull up short of that, and you're no longer a Moral Nihilist.

Values are not exclusively related only to Morality.

True: you can "value" vanilla ice cream over chocolate, and morality is involved. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about moral values. See the OP.

When have I ever claimed I am a moral nihilist?

Never, so far as I know. But one does not have to have seen the logical implications of one's own view to still have those implications be rationally necessary. A moral subjectivist may not be personally bound to be a Nihilist, but he or she is rationally compelled to become one, if he or she follows through the logic of his or her own claims.

That's because there's a difference between having a personal view and having a rational view.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:35 pm Produce a moral fact, and show why it's a fact

I can.

But not if you're a Nihilist, since Nihilists deny the very issue can possibly exist. There is no question a Nihilist can ask about morality, since one cannot ask questions about things one doesn't believe exist, just as one cannot ask, "How many unicorns can you fit on a ranch?"

But the fault, then, is in the questioner. The answer is not lacking; the recipient is refusing delivery.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:38 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:35 pm Produce a moral fact, and show why it's a fact

I can.

But not if you're a Nihilist, since Nihilists deny the very issue can possibly exist. There is no question a Nihilist can ask about morality, since one cannot ask questions about things one doesn't believe exist, just as one cannot ask, "How many unicorns can you fit on a ranch?"

But the fault, then, is in the questioner. The answer is not lacking; the recipient is refusing delivery.

Nonsense. If you produce a moral fact, and demonstrate that it is a fact, then whether there are any moral nihilists is completely irrelevant. There being moral nihilists wouldn't stop your moral fact being a fact. Don't play this pathetic game again.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:47 pm If you produce a moral fact, and demonstrate that it is a fact, then whether there are any moral nihilists is completely irrelevant.

Not so, at all. "Moral" expresses a value -- whether it's an objective or subjective value being the present matter of debate. Values are not "demonstrable" in such a way as to defeat somebody who doesn't even believe the relevant value exists.

Here's my argument, in short form:

Moral subjectivism is moral nihilism.
Peter declares he is a moral subjectivist.
Therefore, Peter is a moral nihilist.

What step of that syllogism do you dispute?