Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:38 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 12:53 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 3:55 pm
Of course not. You don't have to believe in unicorns just because you believe in horses.

Exactly, and objective morality is certainly a unicorn.

I knew you'd throw that out there. But if you say "certainly," then how come you can't say what makes you "certain" of it?

Morality is a concept, and concepts only exist as thoughts.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:No, it obviously is true, because everyone has moral opinions of some sort, and they know they have them.

You're missing the point. Nobody denies that people have "opinions." But nothing about the mere having of an "opinion" makes it "moral." It may be "subjective," alright; but it's not evidence how that's "moral."

The word, "moral", as used in the term, "moral opinion", refers to the category under which that opinion falls, not the moral quality of the opinion.

"People have opinions" is obviously true. "People have opinions about moral matters" is true. But that those opinions are right is not only not shown by these things, but cannot possibly be true. Because, as Aristotle pointed out, a basic rule of logic is that genuinely mutually-contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true.

So you agree that people do have opinions about moral matters? Well that is all I am asking of you. That is where my case ends, because I do not believe there is any more to it than that. For you and I to pursue the matter any further inevitably necessitates falling into a discussion about the existence of God, and I have absolutely no interest in going down that road.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:32 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:28 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:21 pm
Why do you keep telling only half the story?

Because I don't know how it ends yet.

But I am not asking you about the future? I am asking you about your past.

If you can't find what you are looking for in what I've already said, then consider it unavailable, because I have said everything I intended to. If I say any more on the subject, it will just be the same stuff as before, but in different words.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:38 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 12:53 pm
Exactly, and objective morality is certainly a unicorn.

I knew you'd throw that out there. But if you say "certainly," then how come you can't say what makes you "certain" of it?

Morality is a concept, and concepts only exist as thoughts.

Gravity is a concept. But it doesn't exist only as a thought.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:No, it obviously is true, because everyone has moral opinions of some sort, and they know they have them.

You're missing the point. Nobody denies that people have "opinions." But nothing about the mere having of an "opinion" makes it "moral." It may be "subjective," alright; but it's not evidence how that's "moral."

The word, "moral", as used in the term, "moral opinion", refers to the category under which that opinion falls, not the moral quality of the opinion.

There's not even such a category, if we're talking about mere subjective assessment. For what can it mean if you tell me, "My view is moral," if I cannot even be expected to recognize that as referring to an objective reality, and perhaps even to agree with it? It's reduced to, "My view is my view," which is a circular, tautological statement, and thus makes no sense.

"People have opinions" is obviously true. "People have opinions about moral matters" is true. But that those opinions are right is not only not shown by these things, but cannot possibly be true. Because, as Aristotle pointed out, a basic rule of logic is that genuinely mutually-contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true.

So you agree that people do have opinions about moral matters?

You jumped too soon. But it's my fault: I should have worded that more precisely.

What I would say, if I put the case precisely, is, "People have opinons about things they refer to as 'moral.'" That much is true. But whether or not those opinions are genuinely moral is quite a different question. Subjectivists must believe they are referring to qualities that do not objectively exist...like having an argument about unicorns.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:25 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:17 pm
So you agree that people do have opinions about moral matters?

You jumped too soon. But it's my fault: I should have worded that more precisely.

What I would say, if I put the case precisely, is, "People have opinons about things they refer to as 'moral.'" That much is true.

that'll do.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:23 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:32 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:28 pm
Because I don't know how it ends yet.

But I am not asking you about the future? I am asking you about your past.

If you can't find what you are looking for in what I've already said, then consider it unavailable, because I have said everything I intended to. If I say any more on the subject, it will just be the same stuff as before, but in different words.

Sure, but I am asking you to say something about the things you didn't intend to speak about. Are you openly admitting obscurantism and speaking only half-truths?

Why do you only speak about your morality; and not about your immorality also?

Why are you lying by omission?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:25 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:17 pm
So you agree that people do have opinions about moral matters?

You jumped too soon. But it's my fault: I should have worded that more precisely.

What I would say, if I put the case precisely, is, "People have opinons about things they refer to as 'moral.'" That much is true.

that'll do.

For what?

All it means is that they delude themselves that their "opinions" are "moral," when, in fact, they also don't believe that "moral" refers to any distinct category of things.

They may as well say, "My opinions are mxtplgz." It would make as much sense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:49 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:25 pm You jumped too soon. But it's my fault: I should have worded that more precisely.

What I would say, if I put the case precisely, is, "People have opinons about things they refer to as 'moral.'" That much is true.

that'll do.

For what?

All it means is that they delude themselves that their "opinions" are "moral," when, in fact, they also don't believe that "moral" refers to any distinct category of things.

They may as well say, "My opinions are mxtplgz." It would make as much sense.

People have personal opinions about things that are collectively agreed upon to be moral issues. If you agree with that statement, which you appear to have done, then I have nothing more to convince you of.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:57 pm People have personal opinions about things that are collectively agreed upon to be moral issues. If you agree with that statement, which you appear to have done, then I have nothing more to convince you of.

So collective opinion/agreement is sufficient to determine which issues are "moral issues", but it's not sufficient to determine which moral issues are right and which are wrong?

How does this mindset work?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:41 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:23 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:32 pm
But I am not asking you about the future? I am asking you about your past.

If you can't find what you are looking for in what I've already said, then consider it unavailable, because I have said everything I intended to. If I say any more on the subject, it will just be the same stuff as before, but in different words.

Are you openly admitting obscurantism

I don't know what it means, so I'm pretty sure I'm not admitting it.

Why do you only speak about your morality; and not about your immorality also?

Because I don't like to boast.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:01 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:41 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:23 pm
If you can't find what you are looking for in what I've already said, then consider it unavailable, because I have said everything I intended to. If I say any more on the subject, it will just be the same stuff as before, but in different words.

Are you openly admitting obscurantism

I don't know what it means, so I'm pretty sure I'm not admitting it.

Why do you only speak about your morality; and not about your immorality also?

Because I don't like to boast.

You may not know what obscurantism means, but you sure are an expert at it...

obscurantism
/ˌɒbskjʊˈrantɪz(ə)m/
noun
the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:01 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:57 pm People have personal opinions about things that are collectively agreed upon to be moral issues. If you agree with that statement, which you appear to have done, then I have nothing more to convince you of.

So collective opinion/agreement is sufficient to determine which issues are "moral issues", but it's not sufficient to determine which moral issues are right and which are wrong?

Something like that.

How does this mindset work?

Quite well sometimes, and not so good other times.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:02 pm
You may not know what obscurantism means, but you sure are an expert at it...

A gifted amateur perhaps, but I don't know about expert.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:49 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:36 pm

that'll do.

For what?

All it means is that they delude themselves that their "opinions" are "moral," when, in fact, they also don't believe that "moral" refers to any distinct category of things.

They may as well say, "My opinions are mxtplgz." It would make as much sense.

People have personal opinions about things that are collectively agreed upon to be moral issues.

But we don't...at least, not in a consistent way. "Collective agreements" are inconsistent, in that regard: look at Hamas and Israel.

But the point goes well beyond this. Subjectivism actually empties the word "moral" of any meaning. So your question is, "Do you agree that people talk nonsense instead of morality?" And I'd have to say, "Yes, sometimes they do." But that doesn't make their prattle substantively "moral" in any detectable sense. It just makes it prattle about the word "morality."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:15 pm

Harbal wrote: People have personal opinions about things that are collectively agreed upon to be moral issues.

But we don't...

But you agreed with me that we do, not long ago. You agreed twice, in fact.

"Collective agreements" are inconsistent, in that regard: look at Hamas and Israel.

You keep referring to Hamas in your replies to me, but it is something I don't know anything about, and have no interest in. Why don't you start a thread about it? because you obviously have something that you want to get off your chest.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:15 pm

Harbal wrote: People have personal opinions about things that are collectively agreed upon to be moral issues.

But we don't...

But you agreed with me that we do, not long ago. You agreed twice, in fact.

You cropped my statement, which misrepresents it. I said that we don't do so consistently, and manifestly, that's true. We don't.

You and I don't agree about the moral status of morality, even.