Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:51 am I've got a better, much less time consuming suggestion: You just define the one term, "wrong".

Thank you, but I have the best suggestion possible.

Define the one term "define".

When you SHOW ME what a complete definition of "define" looks like, then I'll define "wrong" for you.

I was raised to respect my elders and I follow their lead.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:54 am

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.

This kinda makes my "stupid language games" look pretty pathetic.

'Here are some contradictory moral assertions' is not a moral assertion, and it expresses no moral pre-supposition.

The choice of or preference for consistency of any kind has no moral significance. 'We choose/prefer consistency' (factual assertion) is not the same as 'it's morally right to choose/prefer consistency' (moral assertion).

Meanwhile...tumbleweed.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:58 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:51 am I've got a better, much less time consuming suggestion: You just define the one term, "wrong".

Thank you, but I have the best suggestion possible.

Define the one term "define".

When you SHOW ME what a complete definition of "define" looks like, then I'll define "wrong" for you.

There's no need to go to these lengths to avoid answering my question. I've told you; just don't answer it if it's a promlem.

I was raised to respect my elders and I follow their lead.

What if you encounter two elders going in opposite directions?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 9:06 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:54 am

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.

This kinda makes my "stupid language games" look pretty pathetic.

That's what I am trying to tell you. Philosophy is pathetic.

There exists a choice in logic. Consistency or completeness.

In so far as you only care about consistency then it's just another cultural bias.

There's another way to conduct Philosophy and that's with focus on completeness; at the cost of consistency. What makes your way the "right" way?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 9:14 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:58 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:51 am I've got a better, much less time consuming suggestion: You just define the one term, "wrong".

Thank you, but I have the best suggestion possible.

Define the one term "define".

When you SHOW ME what a complete definition of "define" looks like, then I'll define "wrong" for you.

There's no need to go to these lengths to avoid answering my question. I've told you; just don't answer it if it's a promlem.

I was raised to respect my elders and I follow their lead.

What if you encounter two elders going in opposite directions?

Stomp your feet harder, won't you?

Don't tell me what to do. Show me what to do.

Define "define".

So far I've only ever encountered one type of elder - the type that can't sufficiently define "define".
The "Do as I say not as I do" type.
Your type.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:49 am 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.

You are very ignorant and trying to be deceptive with the above.

As I had stated,
that 'water is/is-not H20' cannot be confirmed by your father or mother.
that 'water is H20' can only be confirmed by the authority of the Science-Chemistry FSK.
the Science-Chemistry FSK is objective since it is maintained and sustained by a collective of subjects [scientists], i.e. intersubjective and not based on ONE subject.
It is an objective scientific-Chemistry fact that Water is H20.
that 'water is H2O' only has truth-value within the Science-Chemistry FSK, not the science-biology nor the legal-FSK nor other FSKs.

Similarly,
that 'moral facts are objective' cannot be confirmed by your father or mother.
that 'moral facts are objective' can only be confirmed by the authority of the Moral FSK.
the moral FSK is objective since it is maintained and sustained by a collective of subjects [scientists], i.e. intersubjective and not based on ONE subject.
It is an objective moral fact that 'no human ought to kill humans' as justified via the science-biology FSK and imputed into a moral FSK.
that 'no human ought to kill humans' only has truth-value within the moral FSK, not the science-chemistry FSK, science-physics FSK nor the legal-FSK nor other FSKs.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 9:16 am
Stomp your feet harder, won't you?

Don't tell me what to do. Show me what to do. If you are going to ask questions show me how to answer them: Define "define".

So far I've only ever encountered one type of elder - the type that can't sufficiently define "define".

Defining "define" won't serve any useful purpose when "wrong" is what needs to be defined.

The word "wrong" is usually meant to describe something as being incorrect, improper or mistaken, etc.

With things like maths problems, there is normally just one correct answer, and an infinite number of incorrect (wrong) answers.

When using tools, there is usually considered to be a right way of using them, and a wrong way of using them. To hold a hammer by its head and try to drive a nail into wood by hitting it with the handle would be considered the wrong way to use a hammer by most folk.

With the maths example, the matter is clear cut. The answer is either right or wrong, and it can easily be shown to be one or the other. With the hammer example,"wrong" doesn't mean quite the same thing. It would only be wrong to hold a hammer by the head if you wanted to use it the most efficiently. Actually, there could be circumstances where holding the hammer by the head would be the most effective way of using it. With a very thin, delicate, nail, and a very heavy hammer head, it may well make more sense to tap the nail with the handle of the hammer. That could still be said to be the wrong way to use the hammer, by virtue of the fact that its manufacturer did not intend it to be used in that way, but that would seem to be more a matter of opinion.

There are probably other variations, or nuances, of meaning of the word, "wrong", that haven't occured to me. All I am asking you is, in what sense do you mean "wrong", when applied to morality? What kind of wrong is a moral wrong?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:31 am
that 'moral facts are objective' can only be confirmed by the authority of the Moral FSK.
the moral FSK is objective since it is maintained and sustained by a collective of subjects [scientists], i.e. intersubjective and not based on ONE subject.
It is an objective moral fact that 'no human ought to kill humans' as justified via the science-biology FSK and imputed into a moral FSK.
that 'no human ought to kill humans' only has truth-value within the moral FSK, not the science-chemistry FSK, science-physics FSK nor the legal-FSK nor other FSKs.

What conclusions does the moral FSK lead us to in the case of the other moral issues Peter Holmes mentioned? When you apply your moral FSK to abortion, capital punishment and eating animals, what objective outcome do you arrive at regarding their moral wrongness?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:33 am Defining "define" won't serve any useful purpose when "wrong" is what needs to be defined.

If it wasn't serving a useful purpose to me I wouldn't ask you to do it.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:33 am The word "wrong" is usually meant to describe something as being incorrect, improper or mistaken, etc.

That's not useful at all. You started with one undefined term and now you have four of them!

Until you define "incorrect", "improper" and "mistaken" you haven't really defined "wrong".

Seems you are going backwards?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:33 am With things like maths problems, there is normally just one correct answer, and an infinite number of incorrect (wrong) answers.

That's not my undertanding of Mathematics. Mathematics is rather pluralist and relative. Almost every answer is correct in some non-standard system.

In fact, you could say that almost anything goes in Mathematics, unless we are unconstrained by social norms and conventions. Wittgenstein figured this out a century ago.

This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule

1+1=2? Maybe in your arithmetic, not in mine.

If you want to be a moral subjectivist don't be half-assed about it - go the full monty. All value-choices are subjective!

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:33 am When using tools, there is usually considered to be a right way of using them, and a wrong way of using them.

Really? And who gets to decide what those "right" and "wrong" ways are?

Is it "wrong" to use a butter knife as a screw driver?
Is it "wrong" to use a chair as a ladder?
Is it "wrong" to use language to incite violence?

If morality is subjective it seems to me the subject gets to decide whether any given use for any given tool is "right" or "wrong" for them.

If you want to be a moral subjectivist don't be half-assed about it - go the full monty. All value-choices are subjective!

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:33 am To hold a hammer by its head and try to drive a nail into wood by hitting it with the handle would be considered the wrong way to use a hammer by most folk.

I'd call that counter-productive. But wrong? That seems like unnecessary moralising.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:33 am With the maths example, the matter is clear cut. The answer is either right or wrong, and it can easily be shown to be one or the other.

That's not true. Is the continuum hypothesis right or wrong?

Different axioms produce different truths in Mathematics. Which axioms are the "right" axioms?

If you want to be a moral subjectivist don't be half-assed about it - go the full monty. All value-choices are subjective!

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:33 am With the hammer example,"wrong" doesn't mean quite the same thing as "wrong" in Mathematics.

From where I am looking it means exactly the same thing.

Mathematics is computational and computation is rule-following

Follow the rules - your answer is right.
Break the rules - your answer is wrong.

Wittgenstein settled this for us 100 years ago...

This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:33 am It would only be wrong to hold a hammer by the head if you wanted to use it the most efficiently. Actually, there could be circumstances where holding the hammer by the head would be the most effective way of using it. With a very thin, delicate, nail, and a very heavy hammer head, it may well make more sense to tap the nail with the handle of the hammer. That could still be said to be the wrong way to use the hammer, by virtue of the fact that its manufacturer did not intend it to be used in that way, but that would seem to be more a matter of opinion.

And in exactly the same way an answer in Mathematics would only be "wrong" by virtue that the person who invented the rules of Mathematics intended you to follow them.

If you want to be a moral subjectivist don't be half-assed about it - go the full monty. All value-choices are subjective!

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:33 am There are probably other variations, or nuances, of meaning of the word, "wrong", that haven't occured to me. All I am asking you is, in what sense do you mean "wrong", when applied to morality? What kind of wrong is a moral wrong?

ALL uses of the word "wrong" are moral uses! So your question requires no answer.

Whether you are moralising about the use of hammers.
Or moralising about the use of Mathematics.
Or moralising about the use of language.

When you tell somebody that they are doing something "wrong" - you are moralising. You are enforcing some rules, normatives or some beliefs about how you think I should conduct myself in the world.

If you want to be a moral subjectivist don't be half-assed about it - go the full monty.

There's nothing morally wrong with being wrong in every sense of the word wrong.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:47 am What conclusions does the moral FSK lead us to in the case of the other moral issues Peter Holmes mentioned? When you apply your moral FSK to abortion, capital punishment and eating animals, what objective outcome do you arrive at regarding their moral wrongness?

I don't understand you, moral subjectivists. Why does it matter what the FSK leads you to conclude?

The Mathematics FSK leads you to conclude that 1+1=2, but to paraphrase you: there's no authority on right answers.

So why do you accept 1+1=2 on the authority of Mathematics? Just choose your own right answer!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:12 am
When you tell somebody that they are doing something "wrong" - you are moralising. You are enforcing some rules, normatives or some beliefs about how you think I should conduct myself in the world.

And those rules could be anything, depending on who is applying them, right? The rules I apply to moral behaviour might be different to your rules, and someone else might have different rules again. Give that, how can there be such a thing as an objective moral truth?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:36 am And those rules could be anything, depending on who is applying them, right? The rules I apply to moral behaviour might be different to your rules, and someone else might have different rules again. Give that, how can there be such a thing as an objective moral truth?

In exactly the same way the rules of Mathematics could be anything.

Are they anything? No. We have objective standards and definitions.

You've conceptualized "objectivity" in such a way that it's impossible for you or anyone to attain it. You've defined it such that you've set everybody up for failure. That seems like a really stupid mind-game.

If "objectivity" is a useful concept to us humans, then maybe you shouldn't define it so stupid.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:21 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:47 am What conclusions does the moral FSK lead us to in the case of the other moral issues Peter Holmes mentioned? When you apply your moral FSK to abortion, capital punishment and eating animals, what objective outcome do you arrive at regarding their moral wrongness?

I don't understand you, moral subjectivists. Why does it matter what the FSK leads you to conclude?

VA seems to think it matters a lot what the FSK leads us to conclude, and also seems to rely on it veay heavily, and it was to VA that I was putting the question, so you are not the one who needs to understand.

The Mathematics FSK leads you to conclude that 1+1=2, but to paraphrase you: there's no authority on right answers.

I don't say there is no legitimate authority on maths, I say there is no overriding, authoritative arbitrator of what is morally right or wrong.

So why do you accept 1+1=2 on the authority of Mathematics? Just choose your own right answer!

I accept it because, after I have arrived at the conclusion that 1+1=2 on paper, I can confirm it in the physical world by taking one single object, putting another single object next to it, and observing that I end up with two physical objects next to each other.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:54 am VA seems to think it matters a lot what the FSK leads us to conclude, and also seems to rely on it veay heavily, and it was to VA that I was putting the question, so you are not the one who needs to understand.

Not just VA. You think exactly the same way.

You seem to insist that any Mathematical framework which fails to conclude that 1+1=2 is wrong.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:54 am I accept it because, after I have arrived at the conclusion that 1+1=2 on paper, I can confirm it in the physical world by taking one single object, putting another single object next to it, and observing that I end up with two physical objects next to each other.

You are reading a bit too much into those symbols aren't you?

Why aren't you using a binary number system in which 1+1=10 is the right answer, and 1+1=2 is a meaningless sentence because the digit 2 doesn't exist?

Why are you assuming that "1" represents an object and not an abstract quantity where 1 + 1 = 1?