For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
"Value" has at least 4 different meanings maybe more, do you think your head would explode if suddenly something clicked and you could process meaning/context for a few seconds?
Suppose "value" has an infinite number of meanings.
So you think thousands of years of evolving ethics reduces down to a dictionary definition? Wow... reductionists. So naive.
Well, what would "wrong" look like in a historical context to an impartial observer?Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 9:07 am Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.
OK, but that's just confirmation bias. Even matters of opinion have historical consequences. Observable trends and changes in behaviour.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 9:07 am Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.
But you aren't defending logic you are undermining it. You are claiming that morality is subjective.
What a strange response.
I don't know, and I don't know why you are asking about historical context.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 11:41 amWell, what would "wrong" look like in a historical context to an impartial observer?Harbal wrote:Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.
I have my opinions about what is better or worse for the human race, but if you want me to state objective facts about what is better or worse, you will need to tell me what reference you want me to measure them against.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 11:41 amOK, but that's just confirmation bias. Even matters of opinion have historical consequences. Observable trends and changes in behaviour.Harbal wrote:Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.
Are you telling me that in such a historical setting nothing is "improving" or "getting worse" for the human race?
2023 AD is different to 2023BC but it's neither worse nor better. Lots of changes - no difference.
Is that your claim? That's nihilism.
How you have arrived at that conclusion is a mystery to me.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 11:41 amBut you aren't defending logic you are undermining it. You are claiming that morality is subjective.Harbal wrote:I'm not aware of having a strategy. All I am doing is defending logic -as I see it- for its own sake, and, unlike you, have no vested interest in convincing anyone for any other reason. You are the one with a strategy, not I.
The immediate logical implication of your claim is that there is NO objective difference between True and False in logic.
Because morality exists. Does it not?Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:56 pmWhat a strange response.I don't know, and I don't know why you are asking about historical context.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 11:41 amWell, what would "wrong" look like in a historical context to an impartial observer?Harbal wrote:Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.
I am not asking about your reference for “better” or “worse”.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:56 pmThat’s fine I am not asking you to confirm anything I am asking you to disconfirm.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 11:41 amOK, but that's just confirmation bias. Even matters of opinion have historical consequences. Observable trends and changes in behaviour.Harbal wrote:Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.
Science/falsification.
What would we observe about morality (a temporal phenomenon) if your hypotheses of it was wrong?
I have my opinions about what is better or worse for the human race, but if you want me to state objective facts about what is better or worse, you will need to tell me what reference you want me to measure them against.
I explained the how.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:56 pmHow you have arrived at that conclusion is a mystery to me.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 11:41 amBut you aren't defending logic you are undermining it. You are claiming that morality is subjective.Harbal wrote:I'm not aware of having a strategy. All I am doing is defending logic -as I see it- for its own sake, and, unlike you, have no vested interest in convincing anyone for any other reason. You are the one with a strategy, not I.
The immediate logical implication of your claim is that there is NO objective difference between True and False in logic.
It seems to me that we each speak in a language the other does not understand.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 1:09 pmBecause morality exists. Does it not?
If morality exists then it is necessarily a temporal phenomenon.
Where in the history of The Universe starting with The Big Bang 13.8 million years ago do you think morality is?
If you say “nowhere” then… it doesn’t exist.
I am not asking about your reference for “better” or “worse”.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:56 pmThat’s fine I am not asking you to confirm anything I am asking you to disconfirm.
Science/falsification.
What would we observe about morality (a temporal phenomenon) if your hypotheses of it was wrong?
I have my opinions about what is better or worse for the human race, but if you want me to state objective facts about what is better or worse, you will need to tell me what reference you want me to measure them against.
I am asking for your reference about your opinions on “subjective” and “objective”.
I understand “subjective” is your current hypothesis; what evidence would convince you otherwise?
What would convince you that you are wrong?
If nothing - then you are guilty of confirmation bias, not me.
I explained the how.
Why is it still a mystery to you?
NO objective morality means NO objective difference between Truth and Falsehood.
NO difference implies identity.
NO objective morality means Truth is identical to Falsehood
There is no objective standard for Truth
I understand your language perfectly.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 1:40 pmIt seems to me that we each speak in a language the other does not understand.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 1:09 pmBecause morality exists. Does it not?
If morality exists then it is necessarily a temporal phenomenon.
Where in the history of The Universe starting with The Big Bang 13.8 million years ago do you think morality is?
If you say “nowhere” then… it doesn’t exist.
I am not asking about your reference for “better” or “worse”.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:56 pm
That’s fine I am not asking you to confirm anything I am asking you to disconfirm.
Science/falsification.
What would we observe about morality (a temporal phenomenon) if your hypotheses of it was wrong?
I have my opinions about what is better or worse for the human race, but if you want me to state objective facts about what is better or worse, you will need to tell me what reference you want me to measure them against.
I am asking for your reference about your opinions on “subjective” and “objective”.
I understand “subjective” is your current hypothesis; what evidence would convince you otherwise?
What would convince you that you are wrong?
If nothing - then you are guilty of confirmation bias, not me.
I explained the how.
Why is it still a mystery to you?
NO objective morality means NO objective difference between Truth and Falsehood.
NO difference implies identity.
NO objective morality means Truth is identical to Falsehood
There is no objective standard for Truth
So at some point in your life you faced the choice?
I'm certain that's not the case, and if you think carefully about it, you'll be bound to realize it isn't.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 9:07 amAs far as I've always been aware, morality is about what people think is right and wrong, and no dictionary definition I've ever seen has suggested otherwise.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:35 amExcept it's not. Historically, people have thought in moral objectivist terms. Subjectivism is a conceit of the modern and postmodern eras, and one that can't be sustained.
I think you're still mixing up two questions: they are, "what is the actual nature of things," and the second is, "how much do the people I know know about the nature of things?" What human beings know, at any given time, is never the limit of the real or the true. It cannot be a surprise, therefore, if there are moral facts of which some people are oblivious.Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.
I don't see that it is. Is not rape, which you cite, a very good example of that? Sexual behaviour is certainly fraught with serious moral concerns. But it's not the only one, as you also rightly point out. Murder does indeed "feel wrong" to most of us.Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.
Maybe I have always assumed that my moral values are just my subjective opinion, I really can't remember, and neither can I remember facing or making a choice.
My moral values only exist in my own mind, and if that is not the main qualifying criterion for subjectivity, I don't know what is.Either moral values are objective or they are subjective.
What evidence swayed you?
It is what I believe to be true in the context of what I understand you to mean by the word, subjective. You could mean something completely different by it, of course, but unless you describe exactly what you do mean by it, I can only answer in accordance with my assumption of what you mean by it.Is it merely your opinion that moral values are subjective; or is it true?
But you believe your opinion about the subjectivity of moral values is true; and not false.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:20 pmMaybe I have always assumed that my moral values are just my subjective opinion, I really can't remember, and neither can I remember facing or making a choice.My moral values only exist in my own mind, and if that is not the main qualifying criterion for subjectivity, I don't know what is.Either moral values are objective or they are subjective.
What evidence swayed you?It is what I believe to be true in the context of what I understand you to mean by the word, subjective. You could mean something completely different by it, of course, but unless you describe exactly what you do mean by it, I can only answer in accordance with my assumption of what you mean by it.Is it merely your opinion that moral values are subjective; or is it true?
I don't see any of this as being relevant. It has always been my understanding that morality is the subjective human sense of right and wrong. When I hear morality being spoken of, that is what I think of. I absolutely know that I have my own subjective sense of morality, as do most people, and that is the only sort of morality I have any experience of, or awareness of.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:13 pmI'm certain that's not the case, and if you think carefully about it, you'll be bound to realize it isn't.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 9:07 amAs far as I've always been aware, morality is about what people think is right and wrong, and no dictionary definition I've ever seen has suggested otherwise.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:35 am
Except it's not. Historically, people have thought in moral objectivist terms. Subjectivism is a conceit of the modern and postmodern eras, and one that can't be sustained.
You were Anglican, no? Well, when you went to church, did the pastor or priest say to you, "These commandments I'm going to read to you are the word of men?" And when you were told that things like stealing was wrong, did your parents tell you it was because it's antisocial, or because it's outright wrong, no matter what you wanted to do? Or has anybody explained to you that slavery was "wrong" in a sense that transcended the personal feelings of the Atlantic slave traders? Or did they tell you that slavery was good, so long as the enslavers had a culture of slavery?
Normal moral talk is objectivist, in fact. And all societies, back to the outright pagan, have associated morality with the sacred and the profane, not merely with the socially unapproved.
However, you are right about this much: today's dictionaries certainly tend toward the politically-correct, and as such, are certainly reticent about pointing out that fact. It's a curious case of historical amnesia, to be sure.I think you're still mixing up two questions: they are, "what is the actual nature of things," and the second is, "how much do the people I know know about the nature of things?" What human beings know, at any given time, is never the limit of the real or the true. It cannot be a surprise, therefore, if there are moral facts of which some people are oblivious.Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.I don't see that it is. Is not rape, which you cite, a very good example of that? Sexual behaviour is certainly fraught with serious moral concerns. But it's not the only one, as you also rightly point out. Murder does indeed "feel wrong" to most of us.Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.
But what does it do so? "Murder" is not something lions know about, though they kill many gazelles. Nor do wolves or sharks debate the virtues of what they do to prey. Death is quite routine, in nature; and if you and I are mere products of that same nature, that same natural realm, it's surely a very curious fact that we are the lone 'animal' that has a faculty of conscience about that. One would wonder why Nature, in her great providence, had deigned to give us such an illusory faculty, and yet had spared all other animals from any necessity of having it.
I am only able to experience my own moral feelings that come about because of my own moral values; I am not able to experience yours, or anyone else's. This is why I believe moral values and the experience of morality to be subjective.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:22 pmBut you believe your opinion about the subjectivity of moral values is true; and not false.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:20 pmMaybe I have always assumed that my moral values are just my subjective opinion, I really can't remember, and neither can I remember facing or making a choice.My moral values only exist in my own mind, and if that is not the main qualifying criterion for subjectivity, I don't know what is.Either moral values are objective or they are subjective.
What evidence swayed you?It is what I believe to be true in the context of what I understand you to mean by the word, subjective. You could mean something completely different by it, of course, but unless you describe exactly what you do mean by it, I can only answer in accordance with my assumption of what you mean by it.Is it merely your opinion that moral values are subjective; or is it true?
If you believed your opinion was false - surely you wouldn’t hold it?
So I am asking you a simple question in the exact same language we are both speaking: why do you believe your opinion is true?
Why are you trying to drag other people into your opinions?Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 3:00 pmI am only able to experience my own moral feelings that come about because of my own moral values; I am not able to experience yours, or anyone else's. This is why I believe moral values and the experience of morality to be subjective.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:22 pmBut you believe your opinion about the subjectivity of moral values is true; and not false.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:20 pm
Maybe I have always assumed that my moral values are just my subjective opinion, I really can't remember, and neither can I remember facing or making a choice.
My moral values only exist in my own mind, and if that is not the main qualifying criterion for subjectivity, I don't know what is.
It is what I believe to be true in the context of what I understand you to mean by the word, subjective. You could mean something completely different by it, of course, but unless you describe exactly what you do mean by it, I can only answer in accordance with my assumption of what you mean by it.
If you believed your opinion was false - surely you wouldn’t hold it?
So I am asking you a simple question in the exact same language we are both speaking: why do you believe your opinion is true?
