An Argument for An Objective Moral Theory
-
Kym Farrand
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:06 am
An Argument for An Objective Moral Theory
Post deleted by author, for copyright reasons.
Last edited by Kym Farrand on Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:50 am, edited 3 times in total.
- The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: An Argument for An Objective Moral Theory
Correctness doesn't have to be about anything objective.Kym Farrand wrote:OBJECTIVE MORALITY
Frederick Farrand
The argument below attempts to rationally justify a morality — via investigating what could be evidence for moral objectivity.
Preliminary Comments:-
(a) Rationality inherently seeks and hence values objectivity. Objectivity is possible, e.g., in science. Skeptics/deniers of objectivity contradict themselves, and are hence incoherent, by implicitly asserting it is objective (i.e., correct) that the objective may not or does not exist.
If you asked me how I felt and then made a guess and you were correct then are you saying that my feelings are objective? I would instead say there are a limited amount of categories and that by traces in the real world you would be able to narrow down to which category... but!... you would never know exactly how I felt because only I feel that way.
-
Kym Farrand
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:06 am
Re: An Argument for An Objective Moral Theory
Correctness doesn't have to be about anything objective.
If you asked me how I felt and then made a guess and you were correct then are you saying that my feelings are objective? I would instead say there are a limited amount of categories and that by traces in the real world you would be able to narrow down to which category... but!... you would never know exactly how I felt because only I feel that way.[/quote]
Reply: I'd not be saying your feelings are objective, as a careful read of the post would show. It is objective that feelings are subjective. If I guessed correctly, say, that you are sad, then I'd be saying it is objective, i.e., true, that you are sad. Which, here, is so. As you say, correctness doesn't have to be about anything objective. It can be about the subjective. Of course.
If you asked me how I felt and then made a guess and you were correct then are you saying that my feelings are objective? I would instead say there are a limited amount of categories and that by traces in the real world you would be able to narrow down to which category... but!... you would never know exactly how I felt because only I feel that way.[/quote]
Reply: I'd not be saying your feelings are objective, as a careful read of the post would show. It is objective that feelings are subjective. If I guessed correctly, say, that you are sad, then I'd be saying it is objective, i.e., true, that you are sad. Which, here, is so. As you say, correctness doesn't have to be about anything objective. It can be about the subjective. Of course.
- The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: An Argument for An Objective Moral Theory
Reply: I'd not be saying your feelings are objective, as a careful read of the post would show. It is objective that feelings are subjective. If I guessed correctly, say, that you are sad, then I'd be saying it is objective, i.e., true, that you are sad. Which, here, is so. As you say, correctness doesn't have to be about anything objective. It can be about the subjective. Of course.[/quote]Kym Farrand wrote:Correctness doesn't have to be about anything objective.
If you asked me how I felt and then made a guess and you were correct then are you saying that my feelings are objective? I would instead say there are a limited amount of categories and that by traces in the real world you would be able to narrow down to which category... but!... you would never know exactly how I felt because only I feel that way.
oh key... so what's the point with the original statement then? Btw, it is not objective that feelings are subjective because you don't know if other people have feelings. Sometimes when this knocks you over is when you meet people you expect to feel things but are really just deceiving you or if you face a robot. In other words, at what point does it become objective that feelings are subjective when you can't even know if feelings are subjective other than your own!
-
Kym Farrand
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:06 am
Re: An Argument for An Objective Moral Theory
oh key... so what's the point with the original statement then? Btw, it is not objective that feelings are subjective because you don't know if other people have feelings. Sometimes when this knocks you over is when you meet people you expect to feel things but are really just deceiving you or if you face a robot. In other words, at what point does it become objective that feelings are subjective when you can't even know if feelings are subjective other than your own![/quote]The Voice of Time wrote:Reply: I'd not be saying your feelings are objective, as a careful read of the post would show. It is objective that feelings are subjective. If I guessed correctly, say, that you are sad, then I'd be saying it is objective, i.e., true, that you are sad. Which, here, is so. As you say, correctness doesn't have to be about anything objective. It can be about the subjective. Of course.Kym Farrand wrote:Correctness doesn't have to be about anything objective.
If you asked me how I felt and then made a guess and you were correct then are you saying that my feelings are objective? I would instead say there are a limited amount of categories and that by traces in the real world you would be able to narrow down to which category... but!... you would never know exactly how I felt because only I feel that way.
Reply: None of this is relevant to the central arguments of the post.
- The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: An Argument for An Objective Moral Theory
And because of that you can ignore it? Assume something which isn't true because it'll make everything so much easier?Kym Farrand wrote:Reply: None of this is relevant to the central arguments of the post.
Every piece makes out the structure of a claim. Remove one piece and the structure might fall or appear a bit less pretty.
Last bumped by Kym Farrand on Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:51 am.