Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:23 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:58 am
Okay, but what you call philosphical justification is merely the presentation of valid and sound argument - and there's nothing specifically philosophical about that. And any ontology, epistemology or theory of truth used to make an argument has itself to use valid and sound argument. And what we call justification is nothing more than explanation, using valid and sound argument. That's what your appeal to philosophical justification amounts to.

As for empirical justification for an existence-claim - couldn't agree more. And that's what moral realism and objectivism lack: evidence for the existence of a moral reality, and therefore moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity with regard to those facts.

But we're never going to agree about that - so let's not do it over again. We can only rehash tired old arguments.

I missed adding the usual 'within the specific FSK' to
"my view is what is claimed to be real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically."

As I had stated the Moral FSK is similar in core principles with the Scientific FSK.
Since the scientific FSK generate justified true scientific facts, the moral FSK also generate Justified True Moral Facts.

What I meant re 'philosophically' is not merely sound logical arguments, but it refer to the entailing of whatever tools, e.g. in the establishment and maintenance of the moral framework itself and whatever that are necessary to reinforce the conclusions derived represent reality-as-it-is.

WOT

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:01 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:23 am
I missed adding the usual 'within the specific FSK' to
"my view is what is claimed to be real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically."

As I had stated the Moral FSK is similar in core principles with the Scientific FSK.
Since the scientific FSK generate justified true scientific facts, the moral FSK also generate Justified True Moral Facts.

What I meant re 'philosophically' is not merely sound logical arguments, but it refer to the entailing of whatever tools, e.g. in the establishment and maintenance of the moral framework itself and whatever that are necessary to reinforce the conclusions derived represent reality-as-it-is.

WOT

Not my fault if the above is beyond your ken.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:26 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:54 pm I think it is quite possible to use "objective" and "objectivity" in practical and useful ways. Sadly those who choose to assert "objective" morality use these words in ways that has no respect for the most basic apprehension of reality.

I don't see you understand "what is objective" thoroughly.

What is 'objectivity' must at least meet the requirement of the essential features [dimension] that qualify whatever to be objective.

• According to Mathew Kramers who wrote one specialized book on 'Moral Objectivity' where what is objectivity-proper must fulfill 7 dimensions below;
  
  Ontological (Chapters 2–5)
  1 Mind-independence
  2 Determinate correctness
  3 Uniform applicability
  4 Invariance
  
  Epistemic (Chapters 6–7)
  5 Transindividual concurrence
  6 Impartiality
  
  Semantic (Chapter -8)
  7 Truth-aptitude

Objectivity requires scales and determinants that are agreed upon by those using the term. Such criteria are ultimately arbitrary and tend to amount to the subjective views of a collective or community.
Where we might use terms like more or less sweet when describing apples, an objective viewpoint would have to remove the opinions of taste to some device or machine that was capable of measurement of sugar content. A scale could be produced to offer a numerical value for sweetness. This would mean very little to individuals who think that apple A is "too sweet" when another thought apple "A" was not sweet enough. THe objective machine might offer sweetness = 7.343.

Agree the above is a more reliable method of objectivity.
However if you reflect on it, what is objectivity of higher precision is nevertheless ultimately subjective, i.e. grounded on individual then collective consensus of subjects.

The whole set up to measure, to rate, the measurements are all done by individual subjects.
Thus whatever is objective is basically intersubjective consensus.
Such intersubjective consensus is independent of the individual[s] opinions and beliefs, thus objective.

The objective of scientific truths and facts processed from the scientific framework are good examples of the above intersubjective consensus.

If the entire language community of the English speaking world, could agree that "rape is bad". This might be argued to be "objective", until you find someone who did not agree. And one would have to ask, upon what basis is rape bad?
But wait, you can all rush in with an answer, but that would NOT be the point. It's still going to be an opinion. I agree that rape is bad - without equivocation, nor with any reserve. But that is my viewpoint. It is not objective. When you ask WHY! And that why has to involve a long list of codisils to do with valuing freedoms; repect of the individual, and a multitude of other endemic assumptions, none of which are objective. I might agree with them all. But that would be my opinion. And opinions are subjective.

This thread like so many others is empty.

Note almost the entire world recognize the 'earth is spherical' or roundish which objective.
But there are many who still insist the earth is flat.
There are many claims of truths where the majority recognized as objective [e.g. scientific truths, legal truths, historic truths] but at the same time there are many who dispute these truths.
So according to your point above, i.e. because there are disagreement, these objective claims, especially scientific truths are not objective??

This is why you are wrong!

What is objective is so because it satisfy the core of the above 7 dimensions of objectivity and not because what is claimed to be objective is disputed by some people.

The moral fact 'no one ought to rape another' is not easy to explain, thus put it aside for the moment.

However note the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' within a moral framework and system - FSK - is objective because it satisfy the core of the 7 dimensions of Objectivity listed above.
Where it is verified and justified within a specific FSK empirically and philosophically, that is based on intersubjective consensus, thus objective and independent of any individual opinions and beliefs.

The moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' from within a moral FSK is not simply as assertion. a statement, command or expression by individuals. It is verified and justified from empirical evidences on something physical and mental [supervenience] within the FSK, thus objective.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:02 pm I suggest you go back and attend school.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:24 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:26 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:54 pm I think it is quite possible to use "objective" and "objectivity" in practical and useful ways. Sadly those who choose to assert "objective" morality use these words in ways that has no respect for the most basic apprehension of reality.

I don't see you understand "what is objective" thoroughly.

What is 'objectivity' must at least meet the requirement of the essential features [dimension] that qualify whatever to be objective.

• According to Mathew Kramers who wrote one specialized book on 'Moral Objectivity' where what is objectivity-proper must fulfill 7 dimensions below;
  
  Ontological (Chapters 2–5)
  1 Mind-independence
  2 Determinate correctness
  3 Uniform applicability
  4 Invariance
  
  Epistemic (Chapters 6–7)
  5 Transindividual concurrence
  6 Impartiality
  
  Semantic (Chapter -8)
  7 Truth-aptitude

Objectivity requires scales and determinants that are agreed upon by those using the term. Such criteria are ultimately arbitrary and tend to amount to the subjective views of a collective or community.
Where we might use terms like more or less sweet when describing apples, an objective viewpoint would have to remove the opinions of taste to some device or machine that was capable of measurement of sugar content. A scale could be produced to offer a numerical value for sweetness. This would mean very little to individuals who think that apple A is "too sweet" when another thought apple "A" was not sweet enough. THe objective machine might offer sweetness = 7.343.

Agree the above is a more reliable method of objectivity.
However if you reflect on it, what is objectivity of higher precision is nevertheless ultimately subjective, i.e. grounded on individual then collective consensus of subjects.

The whole set up to measure, to rate, the measurements are all done by individual subjects.
Thus whatever is objective is basically intersubjective consensus.
Such intersubjective consensus is independent of the individual[s] opinions and beliefs, thus objective.

The objective of scientific truths and facts processed from the scientific framework are good examples of the above intersubjective consensus.

If the entire language community of the English speaking world, could agree that "rape is bad". This might be argued to be "objective", until you find someone who did not agree. And one would have to ask, upon what basis is rape bad?
But wait, you can all rush in with an answer, but that would NOT be the point. It's still going to be an opinion. I agree that rape is bad - without equivocation, nor with any reserve. But that is my viewpoint. It is not objective. When you ask WHY! And that why has to involve a long list of codisils to do with valuing freedoms; repect of the individual, and a multitude of other endemic assumptions, none of which are objective. I might agree with them all. But that would be my opinion. And opinions are subjective.

This thread like so many others is empty.

Note almost the entire world recognize the 'earth is spherical' or roundish which objective.
But there are many who still insist the earth is flat.
There are many claims of truths where the majority recognized as objective [e.g. scientific truths, legal truths, historic truths] but at the same time there are many who dispute these truths.
So according to your point above, i.e. because there are disagreement, these objective claims, especially scientific truths are not objective??

This is why you are wrong!

What is objective is so because it satisfy the core of the above 7 dimensions of objectivity and not because what is claimed to be objective is disputed by some people.

The moral fact 'no one ought to rape another' is not easy to explain, thus put it aside for the moment.

However note the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' within a moral framework and system - FSK - is objective because it satisfy the core of the 7 dimensions of Objectivity listed above.
Where it is verified and justified within a specific FSK empirically and philosophically, that is based on intersubjective consensus, thus objective and independent of any individual opinions and beliefs.

The moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' from within a moral FSK is not simply as assertion. a statement, command or expression by individuals. It is verified and justified from empirical evidences on something physical and mental [supervenience] within the FSK, thus objective.

You FSK is purely subjective.
Next....

• Sculptor: Where we might use terms like more or less sweet when describing apples, an objective viewpoint would have to remove the opinions of taste to some device or machine that was capable of measurement of sugar content.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:14 am
The most reliable FSK is the scientific FSK which outputs are scientific facts/truths.
You are implying scientific truths, thus the scientific FSK is subjective?? - that is stupidity!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:14 am
The most reliable FSK is the scientific FSK which outputs are scientific facts/truths.
You are implying scientific truths, thus the scientific FSK is subjective?? - that is stupidity!

I'm confused. You say scientific knowledge, like any other kind, is a matter or intersubjective consensus. And, of course, intersubjectivity is shared subjectivity. So why this outrage at the idea that scientific knowledge is subjective?

Having dismissed the possibility of objectivity - independence from opinion - as nothing more than intersubjective consensus of opinion, how can you now assert the objectivity of scientific knowledge?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:06 am And, of course, intersubjectivity is shared subjectivity. So why this outrage at the idea that scientific knowledge is subjective?

Having dismiised the possibility of objectivity - independence from opinion - as nothing more than intersubjective consensus of opinion, how can you now assert the objectivity of scientific knowledge?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:11 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:14 am
The most reliable FSK is the scientific FSK which outputs are scientific facts/truths.
You are implying scientific truths, thus the scientific FSK is subjective?? - that is stupidity!

I'm confused. You say scientific knowledge, like any other kind, is a matter or intersubjective consensus. And, of course, intersubjectivity is shared subjectivity. So why this outrage at the idea that scientific knowledge is subjective?

Having dismissed the possibility of objectivity - independence from opinion - as nothing more than intersubjective consensus of opinion, how can you now assert the objectivity of scientific knowledge?

What Sculptor asserted was, my FSK is subjective in the personal-subjectivity sense, otherwise he would have stated the FSK is objective, i.e. intersubjective or shared-subjectivity.
What you and Sculptor has failed is because of the inability to view subjectivity in its various perspectives.

Nope, I did not dismiss objectivity at all.
Scientific knowledge is objective, i.e. it is independent of the individual's mind, opinions and beliefs.
Scientific knowledge is not subjective in the sense of personal subjectivity.

What is objective is meta-subjectivity re the collective, i.e. inter-subjective consensus.
Objectivity is grounded on 'subjectivity' i.e. meta-subjectivity.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:23 am This is wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:23 am Both terms - 'inter-subjectivity' and 'meta-subjectivity' - contain the term 'subjectivity'. And subjectivity isn't limited to individual or personal opinion. As you add more individual opinions together, those opinions don't mysteriously become increasingly objective. The whole point of objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts - not consensus of opinion.

And if you deny that what we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are, then whither your argument for moral objectivity and moral facts?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:11 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:06 am
I'm confused. You say scientific knowledge, like any other kind, is a matter or intersubjective consensus. And, of course, intersubjectivity is shared subjectivity. So why this outrage at the idea that scientific knowledge is subjective?

Having dismissed the possibility of objectivity - independence from opinion - as nothing more than intersubjective consensus of opinion, how can you now assert the objectivity of scientific knowledge?

What Sculptor asserted was, my FSK is subjective in the personal-subjectivity sense, otherwise he would have stated the FSK is objective, i.e. intersubjective or shared-subjectivity.
What you and Sculptor has failed is because of the inability to view subjectivity in its various perspectives.

Nope, I did not dismiss objectivity at all.
Scientific knowledge is objective, i.e. it is independent of the individual's mind, opinions and beliefs.
Scientific knowledge is not subjective in the sense of personal subjectivity.

What is objective is meta-subjectivity re the collective, i.e. inter-subjective consensus.
Objectivity is grounded on 'subjectivity' i.e. meta-subjectivity.

This is wanting to have your cake and eat it. Both terms - 'inter-subjectivity' and 'meta-subjectivity' - contain the term 'subjectivity'. And subjectivity isn't limited to individual or personal opinion. As you add more individual opinions together, those opinions don't mysteriously become increasingly objective. The whole point of objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts - not consensus of opinion. And if you deny that what we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are, then whither your argument for moral objectivity and moral facts?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:11 am
What Sculptor asserted was, my FSK is subjective in the personal-subjectivity sense, otherwise he would have stated the FSK is objective, i.e. intersubjective or shared-subjectivity.
What you and Sculptor has failed is because of the inability to view subjectivity in its various perspectives.

Nope, I did not dismiss objectivity at all.
Scientific knowledge is objective, i.e. it is independent of the individual's mind, opinions and beliefs.
Scientific knowledge is not subjective in the sense of personal subjectivity.

What is objective is meta-subjectivity re the collective, i.e. inter-subjective consensus.
Objectivity is grounded on 'subjectivity' i.e. meta-subjectivity.

This is wanting to have your cake and eat it. Both terms - 'inter-subjectivity' and 'meta-subjectivity' - contain the term 'subjectivity'. And subjectivity isn't limited to individual or personal opinion. As you add more individual opinions together, those opinions don't mysteriously become increasingly objective. The whole point of objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts - not consensus of opinion. And if you deny that what we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are, then whither your argument for moral objectivity and moral facts?

That is the problem with your ignorance and shallowness and narrowness of knowledge.

I never assert that 'objectivity' arise from the piling of individual opinions. To assume such is so irrational and dumb.

I have presented [many times in the past] the continuum of what is held to be true from
1. opinions [zero degree of truth] to
2. beliefs [personal conviction of truths] of the individual to
3. Objective knowledge [high degree of truth] e.g. as in Science.

Personal opinions [this has high subjectivity] don't get directly to objective truth at all.
E.g. Einstein may have merely a hunch re his Special of Theory of Relativity.

Whatever are personal opinions must be personally justified as beliefs - medium subjectivity and potentially to be objective.
Einstein then set about to prove to himself his theory and is personally 100% convinced his theory is true. however this is his personal conviction, thus personal subjectivity

It is only when high personal justified beliefs are processed via a FSK, that it become as objective knowledge via intersubjective consensus, based on testing by other subjects, repeatability and confirmations of test results plus peer reviews and that all conditions of the FSK are fulfilled. Then what we have are Justified True Beliefs which are objective, but grounded on various shared subjective activities.
Various scientists verified Einstein's theory within the Physics FSK and agree with his conclusions. His theory is then verified with empirical evidence. His theory is peer reviewed and agreed by the majority of the relevant scientists- Einstein theory is then objective via intersubjective consensus.

Within a FSK [scientific or otherwise] there is no objective fact without 'intersubjective consensus'.

I know you will argue your 'fact' is independent of the collective consensus, but that is only a linguistic fact and not the really-realized fact.
I have requested you prove your 'fact-in-itself' exists are real?
I am arguing it is impossible for any "fact-in-itself" to exists as real.

Whatever is real is relative to its specific FSK [involving all the subjects concerned] thus is intersubjective and thereby objective.

Moral facts are specific and relative to the Moral FSK.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:01 pm 1 What we call truth, facts, and therefore objectivity, are what we say they are - because how could they be otherwise?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:01 pm 2 Only factual assertions (linguistic expressions) have truth-value. Features of reality do not. They just are or were the case.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:01 pm 3 The consensus theory of what we call truth is obviously wrong.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:01 pm 4 To say true factual assertions are matters of consensus is to confuse how we reach a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:01 pm 7 Nothing in reality could empirically falsify a moral assertion, such as that killing people is wrong. So it can't be a factual assertion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:14 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:24 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:26 am
I don't see you understand "what is objective" thoroughly.

What is 'objectivity' must at least meet the requirement of the essential features [dimension] that qualify whatever to be objective.

• According to Mathew Kramers who wrote one specialized book on 'Moral Objectivity' where what is objectivity-proper must fulfill 7 dimensions below;
  
  Ontological (Chapters 2–5)
  1 Mind-independence
  2 Determinate correctness
  3 Uniform applicability
  4 Invariance
  
  Epistemic (Chapters 6–7)
  5 Transindividual concurrence
  6 Impartiality
  
  Semantic (Chapter -8)
  7 Truth-aptitude

Agree the above is a more reliable method of objectivity.
However if you reflect on it, what is objectivity of higher precision is nevertheless ultimately subjective, i.e. grounded on individual then collective consensus of subjects.

The whole set up to measure, to rate, the measurements are all done by individual subjects.
Thus whatever is objective is basically intersubjective consensus.
Such intersubjective consensus is independent of the individual[s] opinions and beliefs, thus objective.

The objective of scientific truths and facts processed from the scientific framework are good examples of the above intersubjective consensus.


Note almost the entire world recognize the 'earth is spherical' or roundish which objective.
But there are many who still insist the earth is flat.
There are many claims of truths where the majority recognized as objective [e.g. scientific truths, legal truths, historic truths] but at the same time there are many who dispute these truths.
So according to your point above, i.e. because there are disagreement, these objective claims, especially scientific truths are not objective??

This is why you are wrong!

What is objective is so because it satisfy the core of the above 7 dimensions of objectivity and not because what is claimed to be objective is disputed by some people.

The moral fact 'no one ought to rape another' is not easy to explain, thus put it aside for the moment.

However note the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' within a moral framework and system - FSK - is objective because it satisfy the core of the 7 dimensions of Objectivity listed above.
Where it is verified and justified within a specific FSK empirically and philosophically, that is based on intersubjective consensus, thus objective and independent of any individual opinions and beliefs.

The moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' from within a moral FSK is not simply as assertion. a statement, command or expression by individuals. It is verified and justified from empirical evidences on something physical and mental [supervenience] within the FSK, thus objective.

You FSK is purely subjective.
Next....

You are ignorant, even of your own point..

• Sculptor: Where we might use terms like more or less sweet when describing apples, an objective viewpoint would have to remove the opinions of taste to some device or machine that was capable of measurement of sugar content.

A FSK involves subjects, but it is the same as your 'device or machine' [constructed by subjects] i.e. a mechanism/ system that would process the opinions and beliefs of the individuals into a collective objective realization via the appropriate justification processes.

The most reliable FSK is the scientific FSK which outputs are scientific facts/truths.
You are implying scientific truths, thus the scientific FSK is subjective?? - that is stupidity!

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:30 pm Yes, the same as a useless machine, with meaningless results.