What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

The so-called symbol-grounding problem is a confected difficulty arising from the delusion that a symbol can be anything other than a symbol. It's a classic example of a metaphysical delusion.

So what? Does having a direct effect on reality - whatever that is - mean that symbols aren't symbols?

I don't know.

Symbols are symbols ( agreed )
Symbols being anything other than symbols is a metaphysical delusion (your claim).
Symbols can drive cars like you can ( fact )
Symbols can make (some) decisions like you can ( fact ).

Does it mean symbols have agency?
Can metaphysical delusions have agency?

[Peter Holmes]

The so-called symbol-grounding problem is a confected difficulty arising from the delusion that a symbol can be anything other than a symbol. It's a classic example of a metaphysical delusion.

So what? Does having a direct effect on reality - whatever that is - mean that symbols aren't symbols?

I don't know. Symbols can drive cars like you can. Symbols can operate machinery like you can. Symbols can make decisions like you can.

Does it mean symbols have agency?
Can metaphysical delusions have agency?

No, you misunderstand. Symbols aren't metaphysical delusions. Nor are they abstract entities in minds, like concepts and propositions. They're real things that we use to do things with, such as programme machines.

And do you really think that symbols drive cars or have any kind of inherent agency? If so, this conversation is at and end, and I fear for your sanity.

[TimeSeeker]

And do you really think that symbols drive cars or have any kind of inherent agency? If so, this conversation is at and end, and I fear for your sanity.

I don't know if they can have agency. I don't even know what 'agency' is. It's a made up word like 'objectivity'.

Symbols are just symbols ( agreed )
Symbols being anything other than symbols is a metaphysical delusion (your claim).
Symbols can drive cars like you can ( fact )
Symbols can make decisions like you can ( fact ).

So metaphysical delusions can drive cars and make decisions like you can?

Are you a symbol?
Are you a metaphysical delusion?

If you are not a metaphysical delusion then what ARE you?

[Peter Holmes]

And do you really think that symbols drive cars or have any kind of inherent agency? If so, this conversation is at and end, and I fear for your sanity.

I don't know if they can have agency. I don't even know what 'agency' is. It's a made up word like 'objectivity'.

Symbols are just symbols ( agreed )
Symbols being anything other than symbols is a metaphysical delusion (your claim).
Symbols can drive cars like you can ( fact )
Symbols can make decisions like you can ( fact ).

So metaphysical delusions can drive cars and make decisions like you can?

Are you a symbol?
Are you a metaphysical delusion?

If you are not a metaphysical delusion then what ARE you?

Sorry, but you're thrashing around now. You're making absurd claims because you want to defend a position you must know is incorrect, but you don't want to admit it. And I completely understand that reluctance. I felt it when driven into a corner defending the case for moral objectivism. I was wrong, but admitting that was ridiculously hard. I don't think we can take this any further at the moment. Thanks for the craic. Over and out.

[TimeSeeker]

You're making absurd claims because you want to defend a position you must know is incorrect.

That is very strange indeed! I have made no claims. I just asked you three questions.

So you making a claim that I am making 'absurd' claims IS... an absurd claim! Maybe you just have to admit to being wrong again?

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you are experiencing cognitive dissonance right about now and you are projecting it onto me, because I am defending a position grounded in praxis, not theory - I build AI. Using symbols. I know it works. If you think my work is 'incorrect' - well, you must know something I don't. Show me my error?

All I've used is Socratic irony to get you here.

The reason you feel discomfort is because scientific reductionism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity) ) does this to anything you aim it at! It deconstructs it down to its materialistic parts. All your linguistic definitions vanish!

And when you aim it at a "human" (we have no idea what that is!) you begin to disappear. Signifier by signifier. Type theory solves this.

Define "human". In code.

[Immanuel Can]

3 The argument that, if there's no god, there's no meaning or purpose to life and the universe - so there is a god - is a fallacious appeal to consequences and a non sequitur. But you keep plugging it regardless.

If I'm wrong, you should be able to show it very quickly. What is the objective meaning and purpose to life? What is the objective moral value? All that I've said is verifiably true.

4 Your misrepresentation of my argument on morality is patently dishonest, and I hope others reading this can see your dishonesty out in the open.

'As for further implications, it does have some. You've identified one yourself: if there's no God, there's no such thing as an objective morality either. Of course, that also turns the existence of any subjective morality into a triviality as well, so there's an additional implication.'

This your claim, not mine. My argument is that morality can't be objective, so that the existence of a god is irrelevant in this discussion. And you know damn well it is.

Oh? So now you're prepared to say there's a possibility of objective morality in an Atheistic world? Please, do tell.

Please answer these questions.

1 Why does a god saying 'slavery is wrong' mean that slavery is wrong?

Whatever is contrary to the will and nature of God is what's rightfully called "wrong."

After all, if the god said 'slavery is right', would that mean that slavery is right?

Counterfactual. It requires the supposition of a different kind of cosmos from that in which we live.

2 Why do you believe your god is good?

Because that is how He has revealed Himself to be.

Do you have a reason that doesn't beg the question?

You will likely assume "No": but your problem is the false dichotomy you've conceived, between the nature of God and the nature of the Good. The problem isn't in the answer: it's in the assumption behind the question -- namely, the assumption that "good" is an attribution, and "God" can be an object to which that attribution can either be assigned or removed.

Again, it's like asking, "Are you Peter, or are you Mr. Homes" -- now, don't beg the question! So your question is redundant.

[uwot]

Why do you believe your god is good?

Because that is how He has revealed Himself to be.

By finding us all guilty of listening to a talking snake, and sentencing us to hot pokers up the bum forever, unless we think nailing someone to a piece of wood is a good idea.

[TimeSeeker]

If I'm wrong, you should be able to show it very quickly. What is the objective meaning and purpose to life? What is the objective moral value?

I think I have comfortably settled in my new shoes now

What does the word ‘objective’ mean?
Given that all language is value-laden - you can’t even define it!

[Immanuel Can]

What does the word ‘objective’ mean?
Given that all language is value-laden - you can’t even define it!

I really should defer to Peter on that. He wrote the OP. He must have meant something specific by it, I'm sure.

But I shouldn't take for granted that your words mean anything. I forgot.

Sorry for responding.

[TimeSeeker]

What does the word ‘objective’ mean?
Given that all language is value-laden - you can’t even define it!

I really should defer to Peter on that. He wrote the OP. He must have meant something specific by it, I'm sure.

But I shouldn't take for granted that your words mean anything. I forgot.

Sorry for responding.

The fallacy of gray is your mantra

[Veritas Aequitas]

At present the average and the majority are compelled subliminally by evolutionary forces to do whatever it takes to sustain and preserve the human species. The majority are not conscious of the direction of these natural forces that are aligned to the preservation of the human species.

This is a DEADLY error in reasoning. This is the error in reasoning the majority of humans commit! You have mistaken evolution (natural selection) for our friend. It is not.

The "natural forces" are absolutely NOT aligned with the preservation of the human species. 99.999% of all species which walked the Earth are now extinct. The only function of 'natural selection' is to randomly (entropy!) wipe out some suckers from time to time. It is purely coincidental, a statistical anomaly (luck!) that what we have survived this long.

It is the deadliest of mistakes! Absence of evidence (human extinction) is not evidence of absence. It's coming. Just wait and hope "natural forces" will preserve us.

Don't be too hasty in judgment.
I did not claim natural forces of evolution give absolute certainty of the preservation of a species.
We fallible humans cannot claim absolute certainty to anything.

It is a fact, species that emerged did survive for a certain period of time which can be as long as millions [up to hundreds] of years or longer [billion?] say, an X period of time.
My point is, within that X period of time, all individuals of the species are driven and compelled subliminally by evolutionary forces [within the individual] to maintain and sustain itself to the degree it can contribute to maintain and sustain the species as a whole.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I felt it when driven into a corner defending the case for moral objectivism. I was wrong, but admitting that was ridiculously hard.

Generally 'moral objectivism' or moral realism is associated with a God who delivered moral commands which are supposedly independent of humans subjective opinion. It is 'objective' because an independent God said so absolutely or else it is Hell.

For me, God is an impossibility to be real, thus the question of God exists and theological moral objectivism is moot.

I believe your view of moral objectivism is stuck with God in the picture which is an impossibility. In addition your sense of objectivity is linked to Philosophical Realism which is not a tenable view as opposed to certain Philosophical Anti-Realism views which are realistic and tenable.

But there is still a need for morality and ethics within humanity.
To ensure effective progress in morality and ethics it is imperative we need a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [FSME].
For such a FSME to work effectively we need objective moral principles to drive the system, i.e. objectives, input, output, control feedback mechanism and others.

There cannot be 'Ought from Is' [Hume] but to maintain an effective FSME we will have to 'force out' establish objective moral principles [oughts] grounded on the empirical "Is."
This is where we need to make morality objective - pseudo or otherwise.
This is like the need to put up a fixed lighthouse to guide ships in rocky and turbulent waters.
Or using the objective North Star* as an navigating aid.
* the star in the present reality could be non-existing [already exploded] and we are only seeing the billion years old light waves.

Objective [philosophy]
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

I have mentioned the above and objectivity comes in a continuum based on the methods used and the contexts.

If humans can establish scientific objectivity, we should have no problems establishing moral objectivity [no God involved] and objectives are imperative to drive any effective system.

[TimeSeeker]

It is a fact, species that emerged did survive for a certain period of time which can be as long as millions [up to hundreds] of years or longer [billion?] say, an X period of time.
My point is, within that X period of time, all individuals of the species are driven and compelled subliminally by evolutionary forces [within the individual] to maintain and sustain itself to the degree it can contribute to maintain and sustain the species as a whole.

And my point is that until you explicitly specify (or implicitly assume!) a value for X, and until you explicitly specify (implicitly assume!) a particular species you can't assert any "facts". All 'facts' are interpreted in context. Context-independent facts are an illusion. Context independent facts are called theories (and even THAT is contingent)!

Demonstration:

1. The dinosaurs are the dominant species on Earth.
2. Humans are the dominant species on Earth.

The truth-value of the above statements depends on the time-period X we choose.

All positive claims you make about the world are contingent. They contain omissions AND pre-suppositions. They omit the counter-examples (falsifiers) to the claim, and they omit the context in which the claim is being made. This is the explicit vs implicit distinction

[Peter Holmes]

3 The argument that, if there's no god, there's no meaning or purpose to life and the universe - so there is a god - is a fallacious appeal to consequences and a non sequitur. But you keep plugging it regardless.

If I'm wrong, you should be able to show it very quickly. What is the objective meaning and purpose to life? What is the objective moral value? All that I've said is verifiably true.

This is a muddle again. You assume life and the universe have a meaning and purpose. Then you ask me what that objective meaning and purpose is. Then you claim only a god can provide such meaning and purpose. But I reject the idea that life and the universe have any meaning and purpose, objective or otherwise.

4 Your misrepresentation of my argument on morality is patently dishonest, and I hope others reading this can see your dishonesty out in the open.

'As for further implications, it does have some. You've identified one yourself: if there's no God, there's no such thing as an objective morality either. Of course, that also turns the existence of any subjective morality into a triviality as well, so there's an additional implication.'

This your claim, not mine. My argument is that morality can't be objective, so that the existence of a god is irrelevant in this discussion. And you know damn well it is.

Oh? So now you're prepared to say there's a possibility of objective morality in an Atheistic world? Please, do tell.

To be generous, I'll assume you misread what I wrote - mistaking a quotation from you for my words. Perhaps you can see your mistake now. I wrote 'morality can't be objective'. So your claiming that I'm 'prepared to say there's a possibility of objective morality in an Atheistic world' is false. Since I believe morality can't be objective, I believe it can't be objective in any situation.

Please answer these questions.

1 Why does a god saying 'slavery is wrong' mean that slavery is wrong?

Whatever is contrary to the will and nature of God is what's rightfully called "wrong."

Just to generalise and nail this: your justification for saying morality is objective is that some moral judgements conform to the will and nature of a good god. So the criterion for judging whether the god's will and nature - and so commands - are morally good is: do the god's will and nature and commands conform to the god's will and nature and commands?

As the answer to this non-question must always be 'yes', the following must be the case: whatever is thus conformable must be morally good. So if the god commands us to genitally mutilate our babies, or murder witches, or sacrifice humans (name your atrocity, Biblical or otherwise), such actions must be morally good. The claim that such possibilities are counterfactual - that the god could never command such atrocities because they're inconsistent with its nature - is fallacious special pleading. You can't claim that what the god says is good is good, but that the god can't or wouldn't say some bad things. (I assume you understand what special pleading is.)

After all, if the god said 'slavery is right', would that mean that slavery is right?

Counterfactual. It requires the supposition of a different kind of cosmos from that in which we live.

2 Why do you believe your god is good?

Because that is how He has revealed Himself to be.

By what criterion do you judge this supposedly revealed god to be good? Circular and so fallacious reasoning.

Do you have a reason that doesn't beg the question?

You will likely assume "No": but your problem is the false dichotomy you've conceived, between the nature of God and the nature of the Good. The problem isn't in the answer: it's in the assumption behind the question -- namely, the assumption that "good" is an attribution, and "God" can be an object to which that attribution can either be assigned or removed.

Again, it's like asking, "Are you Peter, or are you Mr. Homes" -- now, don't beg the question! So your question is redundant.

False analogy. 'Good' isn't a name like 'Holmes'. We may say 'God is good' - using the 'is' of predication - but we wouldn't normally say 'Peter is Holmes'. If in 'God is good' we're using the 'is' of identity - so we mean God and the good or goodness are one and the same thing - as in 'God is love' and 'God is ultimate reality' - which seems to be your meaning - then the claim is vacuous, because if God is the good then the good is God - so the god of classical theism disappears.

[TimeSeeker]

False analogy. 'Good' isn't a name like 'Holmes'. We may say 'God is good' - using the 'is' of predication - but we wouldn't normally say 'Peter is Holmes'. If in 'God is good' we're using the 'is' of identity - so we mean God and the good or goodness are one and the same thing - as in 'God is love' and 'God is ultimate reality' - which seems to be your meaning - then the claim is vacuous, because if God is the good then the good is God - so the god of classical theism disappears.

Just chiming in to say that I was wrong.

I thought your God was the 'law' of non-contradiction.
I see you have surrendered your ability to think for yourself to the 'law' of identity also.

You are religious, Peter. And you don't even know it

You've tied yourself up in Aristotle's mental muddle by blindly accepting his axioms, while you can't even utter a paragraph without violating them.

If you accept the field of semiotics then you need to reject the 'law of identity' and consider all possible hypothesis for the signifier "God" and its relationship to any signifieds:

It can have many-to-1 mapping (synonym)
It can have 1-to-none mappings (illusions)
It can have 1-to-many mappings (ambiguity)

It could be a psychological phenomenon?

To insist (or assume) that the signifier 'God' has a 1:1 relationship to a signified is to advocate for the correspondence theory of truth! Which you (apparently) reject? So how did you interpret what "classical theism" means by the "God" signifier? Maybe it was a synonym; ambiguity; or a shared psychological experience?

I mean, I don't care about the law of non-contradiction. But you do, right? So fess up!