Is morality objective or subjective?

[RCSaunders]

What anyone calls a fact is up to them

Actually its not because a fact by default has to be objectively true and also capable of demonstration
Anything else is just an opinion - now it may be an informed opinion but thats all it is and nothing else

Well the problem with facts is that if you are going to insist that they have to be beyond any doubt, you are compelled to follow Descartes down the rabbit hole to where the only thing that is certain is the thought you are having at that particular moment. It is conceivable that everything is an idea in the mind of some god, as Berkeley argued, or that we are living in a computer simulation, which Nick Bostrom claims is overwhelmingly likely. I agree that something or other is the case and in that sense is the sort of fact you demand, the trouble is there is no way of telling what that fact is. Everything you care to call a fact is contingent on the model you happen to choose.

I don't mean to interrupt, uwot, but where did surreptitious57 say a fact had, "to be beyond any doubt." If he said that (and I did not see it) he would be wrong. A fact is a fact whether anyone knows it, or even suspects it, or not. What I think you are talking about is knowledge of facts. In that case, a fact can only be known if there is demonstrable evidence for it, but that for which there is no demonstrable evidence is, as surreptitious said, just an opinion. One can certainly know facts without knowing everything there is to know about them. The fact that you are alive you know and no, "model," is required for you to know it.

[uwot]

by my reckoning henry's a heartless bounder

I'm dishonorable?

Not to my knowledge. I don't like some of what you say, but I believe it is sincere and consistent- honourable, if you will.

and by his, I'm a meddling commie bastard.

I throw commie around, but -- no -- I don't think you wanna leash anyone.

Ah, so I'm just a regular meddling bastard. Cool.

[henry quirk]

What I'm saying is, if you believe your moral opinions are facts - so that no different opinions matter - and if, what's worse, you think the creator of the universe agrees with your moral opinions, which means they must be facts - then all rational moral disagreement, debate and change is finished.

The same can be said of the moral non-realist. If you believe there is no moral reality, no moral fact; if you believe morality is nuthin' but consensus over the long haul; virtually all manner of depravity can be excused or rationalized. Margret Sanger's eugenics, for example.

I just want you to acknowledge this.


The evil of moral objectivism is its function as an enabling belief. Without it, opinions over the moral rightness and wrongness of actions is open to rational argument and, mercifully, improvement.

It's naive to believe discountin' moral realism leads to *rational thinkin'. Again: Sanger's eugenics is a good example.

No, the possibility of deplorable thinkin' and action isn't limited to moral realists any more than the possibility of reason is limited moral non-realists.

I just want you to acknowledge this.









*the horrifyin' alternative, of course, is: the dismissal of a moral reality leads directly to rational thinkin' (as opposed to reasoning)...it could be a strict rationalism naturally leads to, for example, the utilitarian efforts of someone like Sanger to better society through culling the unfit...I can see the rational man advocatin' for all kinds of nonsense the reasonable man would object to

[henry quirk]

For most of our history, people didn't think slavery is morally wrong. But now, most of us do. Has there been a factual change?

I'd say there may indeed have been a factual change. When it was discovered that arguments asserting that blacks were "less" than or else somehow fundamentally different than whites--were in fact wrong, then it undermined the institution of chattel slavery. Chattel slavery depended upon an erroneous fact, that the slaves were less than the rest of the human species. When that fell apart, so did chattel slavery. That seems like moral progress to me. In fact, it seems like the ingredients for the abolition of chattel slavery were there all along but depended upon a further fact (that blacks were fundamentally the same as whites) in order to become clear.

Human traffickin' is a thrivin', world-wide industry. In the West, we're blind to it, but slavery isn't in the past.

[henry quirk]

by my reckoning henry's a heartless bounder

I'm dishonorable?

Not to my knowledge. I don't like some of what you say, but I believe it is sincere and consistent- honourable, if you will.

and by his, I'm a meddling commie bastard.

I throw commie around, but -- no -- I don't think you wanna leash anyone.

Ah, so I'm just a regular meddling bastard. Cool.

Well, I thought bounder meant dishonorable opportunist .

I don't know: are you a bastard?

[Gary Childress]

For most of our history, people didn't think slavery is morally wrong. But now, most of us do. Has there been a factual change?

I'd say there may indeed have been a factual change. When it was discovered that arguments asserting that blacks were "less" than or else somehow fundamentally different than whites--were in fact wrong, then it undermined the institution of chattel slavery. Chattel slavery depended upon an erroneous fact, that the slaves were less than the rest of the human species. When that fell apart, so did chattel slavery. That seems like moral progress to me. In fact, it seems like the ingredients for the abolition of chattel slavery were there all along but depended upon a further fact (that blacks were fundamentally the same as whites) in order to become clear.

Human traffickin' is a thrivin', world-wide industry. In the West, we're blind to it, but slavery isn't in the past.

Sure, for some civilizations chattel slavery may still be around. However, I would say that more advanced civilizations recognize its immorality and those are going to be the more successful nations. Nations steeped in slavery will fail of their own internal contradictions, just as the American South fell. And indeed, few if any nation-states engage in chattel slavery as a national institution. What we have now are a relatively few loose exceptions floating around based on the personal depravity of particular individuals. I think it speaks of some progress that it's no longer seen as acceptable on any level by most.

[surreptitious57]

Everything you care to call a fact is contingent on the model you happen to choose

As long as the model in question is subject to a sufficient degree of rigour and potential falsification there should be no problem
Otherwise facts end up occupying the same epistemological position as opinions which would render them as merely subjective

Most facts are universally accepted and the ones that are not are still facts [ one reason why they should never be labelled as inconvenient ]
Subjective interpretation of objective truth does not render it false because it is being questioned for ideological or psychological reasons
The Earth for example does not magically cease to be an oblate spheroid just because some You Tubers decide that it cannot be that shape

The demarcation between fact and opinion is clearly defined as is the one between definite fact and potential fact and any other demarcations

Sometimes in science a supposed fact may be falsified by new evidence but the lesson there is to accept facts as merely temporary not absolute
Only time will tell if they remain statements of truth or have to be disregarded because of newly acquired knowledge

But science is inductive so that is an occupational hazard of the discipline which all scientists accept without question
The irony however is that falsification is actually the most rigorous form of knowledge and as such is very useful indeed

One black swan is all the proof required to show that not all swans are white whereas an infinity of white swans would not prove the opposite

[surreptitious57]

Actually its not because a fact by default has to be objectively true and also capable of demonstration
Anything else is just an opinion - now it may be an informed opinion but thats all it is and nothing else

Well the problem with facts is that if you are going to insist that they have to be beyond any doubt you are
compelled to follow Descartes down the rabbit hole

I never mentioned doubt so not sure why you are - but in any case beyond any doubt is impossible within induction

[uwot]

I don't mean to interrupt, uwot...

It's a public forum; feel free.

...but where did surreptitious57 say a fact had, "to be beyond any doubt." If he said that (and I did not see it) he would be wrong. A fact is a fact whether anyone knows it, or even suspects it, or not.

So are you saying that a fact is a fact, beyond any doubt, because whether anyone doubts it makes no difference?

What I think you are talking about is knowledge of facts.

Well, it's epistemology and ontology in the jargon, but yeah as I said above: "I agree that something or other is the case..."

In that case, a fact can only be known if there is demonstrable evidence for it...

The thing is evidence is only ever evidence. Take the example I used earlier:

...'drop a brick and it falls to the ground'...

It is a fact, but what is it evidence of? One the one hand, the answer is simple: the fact that bricks fall is evidence that something is making them fall. So we can make all sorts of measurements, do a bit of maths and work out a formula that allows us to generalise the behaviour of falling bodies and call it gravity and infer that something causes gravity. All that from observing the fact that bricks fall and how, but that's all there is demonstrable evidence for; you can make up any story you like for why gravity affects massive objects.

One can certainly know facts without knowing everything there is to know about them. The fact that you are alive you know and no, "model," is required for you to know it.

Not necessarily; it is conceivable (but probably pointless to do so) that we are all just characters in a computer simulation/part of a single universal consciousness/brains in vats/a holographic image broadcast from the event horizon of a black hole. I'm not gonna try and defend any of those positions, but they are all taken seriously by people who are not mental. It's all that Descartes' fault; the only thing that is certain is that there are experiences; for instance: seeing a brick fall.

[uwot]

I never mentioned doubt so not sure why you are - but in any case beyond any doubt is impossible within induction

Fair enough; so what sort of thing would you call a fact?

[henry quirk]

I'd say there may indeed have been a factual change. When it was discovered that arguments asserting that blacks were "less" than or else somehow fundamentally different than whites--were in fact wrong, then it undermined the institution of chattel slavery. Chattel slavery depended upon an erroneous fact, that the slaves were less than the rest of the human species. When that fell apart, so did chattel slavery. That seems like moral progress to me. In fact, it seems like the ingredients for the abolition of chattel slavery were there all along but depended upon a further fact (that blacks were fundamentally the same as whites) in order to become clear.

Human traffickin' is a thrivin', world-wide industry. In the West, we're blind to it, but slavery isn't in the past.

Sure, for some civilizations chattel slavery may still be around. However, I would say that more advanced civilizations recognize its immorality and those are going to be the more successful nations. Nations steeped in slavery will fail of their own internal contradictions, just as the American South fell. And indeed, few if any nation-states engage in chattel slavery as a national institution. What we have now are a relatively few loose exceptions floating around based on the personal depravity of particular individuals. I think it speaks of some progress that it's no longer seen as acceptable on any level by most.

Gary, human traffickin' is, as I say, a thrivin', world-wide industry. There's no may about it. As for more advanced civilizations and the unacceptability of slavery in more advanced civilizations: please, do some research.

[Gary Childress]

Human traffickin' is a thrivin', world-wide industry. In the West, we're blind to it, but slavery isn't in the past.

Sure, for some civilizations chattel slavery may still be around. However, I would say that more advanced civilizations recognize its immorality and those are going to be the more successful nations. Nations steeped in slavery will fail of their own internal contradictions, just as the American South fell. And indeed, few if any nation-states engage in chattel slavery as a national institution. What we have now are a relatively few loose exceptions floating around based on the personal depravity of particular individuals. I think it speaks of some progress that it's no longer seen as acceptable on any level by most.

Gary, human traffickin' is, as I say, a thrivin', world-wide industry. There's no may about it. As for more advanced civilizations and the unacceptability of slavery in more advanced civilizations: please, do some research.

Are you saying the more advanced civilizations still condone chattel slavery? And by "advanced" I mean morally advanced, not necessarily technologically.

[henry quirk]

Sure, for some civilizations chattel slavery may still be around. However, I would say that more advanced civilizations recognize its immorality and those are going to be the more successful nations. Nations steeped in slavery will fail of their own internal contradictions, just as the American South fell. And indeed, few if any nation-states engage in chattel slavery as a national institution. What we have now are a relatively few loose exceptions floating around based on the personal depravity of particular individuals. I think it speaks of some progress that it's no longer seen as acceptable on any level by most.

Gary, human traffickin' is, as I say, a thrivin', world-wide industry. There's no may about it. As for more advanced civilizations and the unacceptability of slavery in more advanced civilizations: please, do some research.

Are you saying the more advanced civilizations still condone chattel slavery? And by "advanced" I mean morally advanced, not necessarily technologically.

not condone: turn a blind eye to

no one approves of slavery: but it still exists, is lucrative, and is world wide

[surreptitious57]

I never mentioned doubt so not sure why you are - but in any case beyond any doubt is impossible within induction

so what sort of thing would you call a fact ?

Anything taken to be objectively true as a result of sufficient rigour being applied to establish said truth claim
And which will then be accepted as fact unless new knowledge falsifies it at any subsequent point in the future

That is the general base line definition for scientific facts
[ non scientific facts may be determined by other means ]

[uwot]

...so what sort of thing would you call a fact?

Anything taken to be objectively true as a result of sufficient rigour being applied to establish said truth claim
And which will then be accepted as fact unless new knowledge falsifies it at any subsequent point in the future

Fair enough, but that seems to me different to what you said here:

...a fact by default has to be objectively true and also capable of demonstration
Anything else is just an opinion - now it may be an informed opinion but thats all it is and nothing else...

I'm not entirely clear whether you are claiming that a fact "has to be objectively true", or is "taken to be objectively true".
You use the example of swans to describe Popper's falsificationism (As it happens, I used the same argument in an article I wrote for Philosophy Now: https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996 ) What would be the status of the hypothesis that all swans are white, assuming it was taken to be objectively true, prior to the discovery of a black swan?