Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 7:40 pm Yes, you're right, trying to compromise is just making things messy. I'll go back what I really think: Morality is subjective.

Your 'morality is subjective' is based on your dogmatic ideological sense of an illusory objectivity.
Note;

Two Senses of 'Objective' or 'Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

• 1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
  
  2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense

Your 'morality is subjective' is contrasted with the illusory sense of 'Objectivity' thus your 'morality is subjective' is illusory, not tenable, unrealistic and delusional.

The main point here is objectivity vs. subjectivity where there is only relative-objectivity and relative-subjectivity.
Re my above post, 'relativity' prevails ultimately.
There is relative [human based FSK] moral objectivity [2].

You are infected with the 'Dunning–Kruger' and the 'ultracrepidarian' virus in your brain.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 7:32 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 6:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 6:53 pm Relative is always relatively relative.
Because it cannot be absolute.

Absoluteness is also relative.

Nope

The delusion of idealists. So pittyful.

Why do dogs (sometimes) eat grass?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 7:40 pm Yes, you're right, trying to compromise is just making things messy. I'll go back what I really think: Morality is subjective.

Whatever floats your boat.

And now we have you and Peter Holmes agreeing that nothing any human says or does to any other human is objectively wrong.

I have a bumper sticker to sell you. How many do you want?

"Murder is not objectively wrong."

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:01 am
And now we have you and Peter Holmes agreeing that nothing any human says or does to any other human is objectively wrong.

What do you mean by, "wrong"?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:17 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:01 am
And now we have you and Peter Holmes agreeing that nothing any human says or does to any other human is objectively wrong.

What do you mean by, "wrong"?

What do you mean by "mean"?

I don't mean anything by "wrong". That's why I am agreeing with you!

Murder is NOT wrong. How could it be "wrong" if we don't mean anything by it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:01 am
"Murder is not objectively wrong."

The wrongness of murder is part of the word's definition. "Murder" is a category of unlawful homicide, or, in other words, a crime according to criminal law.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:19 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:17 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:01 am
And now we have you and Peter Holmes agreeing that nothing any human says or does to any other human is objectively wrong.

What do you mean by, "wrong"?

What do you mean by "mean"?

I am asking you to define the word, "wrong". You used the word, so, presumably, you know what you mean by it. Well, I am asking what you meant by it. If you don't know what you meant, or you want to keep the meaning secret, that's fine, just say so.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:27 am The wrongness of murder is part of the word's definition. "Murder" is a category of unlawful homicide, or, in other words, a crime according to criminal law.

No shit.

And why did we define it this way?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:34 am I am asking you to define the word, "wrong". You used the word, so, presumably, you know what you mean by it. Well, I am asking what you meant by it. If you don't know what you meant, or you want to keep the meaning secret, that's fine, just say so.

You don't know that all definitions are circular?

If that doesn't bother you and you insist on playing the stupid language games then go right ahead...

Please define all your terms. Start with "define" and make sure not to use any undefined terms in its definition.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:35 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:27 am The wrongness of murder is part of the word's definition. "Murder" is a category of unlawful homicide, or, in other words, a crime according to criminal law.

No shit.

And why did we define it this way?

By accident?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:37 am By accident?

Quite the accident that the legal systems of +-200 countries around the world have almost identical definitions.

Must be a conspiracy.

Here are some contradictory moral assertions.

Abortion is morally wrong. Abortion is not morally wrong.
Capital punishment is morally wrong. Capital punishment is not morally wrong.
Eating animals is morally wrong. Eating animals is not morally wrong.
Torturing someone for any reason is morally wrong. Torturing someone may not be morally wrong.

We can add 'it's a fact that' and 'objectively' to any of these moral assertions, and the contradictions remain. For example: It's a fact that eating animals is/is not objectively morally wrong. The additions turn out to be redundant - which is significant.

Moral realists and objectivists claim that moral assertions have classical factual truth-value: true or false. But none of them can ever do more than emote: 'Of course X is morally wrong', 'What, do you think X is not morally wrong?' 'What kind of monster are you?' 'Okay, it's fine for me to torture you, cos you think there are no moral facts'.

And this failure to produce even one example of a moral fact - asserted by a moral claim with a truth-value - is the tumbleweed blowing through moral realism and objectivism.

By contrast, consider the following actually factual assertions, which do have truth-value.

Water is/is not H2O.
It's a fact that water is/is not H2O.
It's true that water is/is not H2O.
It's an objectively true fact that water is/not objectively H2O.

The bit that matters is 'water is H2O' - and all the rest is rhetorical emphasis, just as it is in moral assertions. The difference is that 'water is H2O' has a factual truth-value, whereas 'abortion is morally wrong' DOES NOT, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:37 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:34 am I am asking you to define the word, "wrong". You used the word, so, presumably, you know what you mean by it. Well, I am asking what you meant by it. If you don't know what you meant, or you want to keep the meaning secret, that's fine, just say so.

You don't know that all definitions are circular?

I asked what you meant by "wrong", but you won't, or can't, tell me, That's what I know.

If that doesn't bother you and you insist on playing the stupid language games then go right ahead..

If you don't want to answer my question, just don't answer it, but please spare me the tedious justifications.

Please define all your terms. Start with "define" and make sure not to use any undefined terms in its definition.

I've got a better, much less time consuming suggestion: You just define the one term, "wrong".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:49 am Here are some contradictory moral assertions.

This sentence contains a moral pre-supposition.

Consistency is just one of the many properties of logical systems.
There are also para-consistent and inconsistent logical systems.

If moral choices are up to subjective preference, then so the choice/bias towards consistency.