Page 1 of 2

Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 8:04 am
by Veritas Aequitas
What is objectivity?

In general,
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
    A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
By the above definition what is objectivity can also be
a concept of truth that is dependent on the shared-views from the consensus of two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge.
Note the basis of framework as mentioned by Richard Feyman in Skepdick's link below;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

However what is objective within objectivity [as defined] need not be true or factual.

For any claims to be true, factual and real, we need to review whether the robustness of the framework and system of knowledge [FSK] that ensure its output is objective.

Beside the definitions above, the reliability of the objectivity of a FSK must meet certain standards and requirement, e.g. see the 7 Dimensions of Objectivity
There is a wide range of knowledge claims of reality and its truths and facts.
Thus each field of knowledge will be confined to its specific Framework and System of Knowledge, e.g. scientific [at its subs], legal, history, astronomy, politics, MORAL, etc.

To ensure a high degree of objectivity within the framework, there is a need to verify and justify the claim empirically and philosophically within the respective framework and system of knowledge.

I don't believe anyone here will dispute, the scientific framework and system [FSK] provide scientific truths and facts of the highest veracity.
Thus the claims of truths and facts from other FSKs should be compared relative to the scientific FSK in terms of its features, qualities and credibility, i.e. in terms of its processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths.

Since specific facts are represented by specific FSKs, moral facts are represented by the Moral Framework and System.
The credibility of the facts from a moral FSK will be rated based on its features against the scientific FSK - the standard bearer.

Therefore Morality is objective in the above sense.

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:15 am
by Peter Holmes
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 8:04 am What is objectivity?

In general,
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
    A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
By the above definition what is objectivity can also be
a concept of truth that is dependent on the shared-views from the consensus of two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge.
Note the basis of framework as mentioned by Richard Feyman in Skepdick's link below;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

However what is objective within objectivity [as defined] need not be true or factual.

For any claims to be true, factual and real, we need to review whether the robustness of the framework and system of knowledge [FSK] that ensure its output is objective.

Beside the definitions above, the reliability of the objectivity of a FSK must meet certain standards and requirement, e.g. see the 7 Dimensions of Objectivity
There is a wide range of knowledge claims of reality and its truths and facts.
Thus each field of knowledge will be confined to its specific Framework and System of Knowledge, e.g. scientific [at its subs], legal, history, astronomy, politics, MORAL, etc.

To ensure a high degree of objectivity within the framework, there is a need to verify and justify the claim empirically and philosophically within the respective framework and system of knowledge.

I don't believe anyone here will dispute, the scientific framework and system [FSK] provide scientific truths and facts of the highest veracity.
Thus the claims of truths and facts from other FSKs should be compared relative to the scientific FSK in terms of its features, qualities and credibility, i.e. in terms of its processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths.

Since specific facts are represented by specific FSKs, moral facts are represented by the Moral Framework and System.
The credibility of the facts from a moral FSK will be rated based on its features against the scientific FSK - the standard bearer.

Therefore Morality is objective in the above sense.
How do we test and falsify the assertion 'killing humans is morally wrong' - or the assertion 'killing humans is not morally wrong'? - without appealing to another moral assertion?

The moral rightness or wrongness of killing humans isn't a feature of reality like those that the natural sciences deal with. So there's no moral FSK comparable to the natural science FSKs. The moral FSK is your question-begging invention.

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:28 am
by Sculptor
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 8:04 am What is objectivity?

In general,
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
    A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
By the above definition what is objectivity can also be
a concept of truth that is dependent on the shared-views from the consensus of two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge.
Note the basis of framework as mentioned by Richard Feyman in Skepdick's link below;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

However what is objective within objectivity [as defined] need not be true or factual.

For any claims to be true, factual and real, we need to review whether the robustness of the framework and system of knowledge [FSK] that ensure its output is objective.

Beside the definitions above, the reliability of the objectivity of a FSK must meet certain standards and requirement, e.g. see the 7 Dimensions of Objectivity
There is a wide range of knowledge claims of reality and its truths and facts.
Thus each field of knowledge will be confined to its specific Framework and System of Knowledge, e.g. scientific [at its subs], legal, history, astronomy, politics, MORAL, etc.

To ensure a high degree of objectivity within the framework, there is a need to verify and justify the claim empirically and philosophically within the respective framework and system of knowledge.

I don't believe anyone here will dispute, the scientific framework and system [FSK] provide scientific truths and facts of the highest veracity.
Thus the claims of truths and facts from other FSKs should be compared relative to the scientific FSK in terms of its features, qualities and credibility, i.e. in terms of its processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths.

Since specific facts are represented by specific FSKs, moral facts are represented by the Moral Framework and System.
The credibility of the facts from a moral FSK will be rated based on its features against the scientific FSK - the standard bearer.

Therefore Morality is objective in the above sense.
How do we test and falsify the assertion 'killing humans is morally wrong' - or the assertion 'killing humans is not morally wrong'? - without appealing to another moral assertion?

The moral rightness or wrongness of killing humans isn't a feature of reality like those that the natural sciences deal with. So there's no moral FSK comparable to the natural science FSKs. The moral FSK is your question-begging invention.
We all know he will never answer that question, because he knows that his entire ediface of ideas crumbles the moment the question is answered.

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:50 pm
by FlashDangerpants
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 8:04 am What is objectivity?

In general,
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
    A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
By the above definition what is objectivity can also be
a concept of truth that is dependent on the shared-views from the consensus of two or more individuals based on a framework and system of knowledge.
Note the basis of framework as mentioned by Richard Feyman in Skepdick's link below;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

However what is objective within objectivity [as defined] need not be true or factual.

For any claims to be true, factual and real, we need to review whether the robustness of the framework and system of knowledge [FSK] that ensure its output is objective.

Beside the definitions above, the reliability of the objectivity of a FSK must meet certain standards and requirement, e.g. see the 7 Dimensions of Objectivity
There is a wide range of knowledge claims of reality and its truths and facts.
Thus each field of knowledge will be confined to its specific Framework and System of Knowledge, e.g. scientific [at its subs], legal, history, astronomy, politics, MORAL, etc.

To ensure a high degree of objectivity within the framework, there is a need to verify and justify the claim empirically and philosophically within the respective framework and system of knowledge.

I don't believe anyone here will dispute, the scientific framework and system [FSK] provide scientific truths and facts of the highest veracity.
Thus the claims of truths and facts from other FSKs should be compared relative to the scientific FSK in terms of its features, qualities and credibility, i.e. in terms of its processes and reliability of verifications, testing, repeatability, falsifiability of its truths.

Since specific facts are represented by specific FSKs, moral facts are represented by the Moral Framework and System.
The credibility of the facts from a moral FSK will be rated based on its features against the scientific FSK - the standard bearer.

Therefore Morality is objective in the above sense.
How do we test and falsify the assertion 'killing humans is morally wrong' - or the assertion 'killing humans is not morally wrong'? - without appealing to another moral assertion?

The moral rightness or wrongness of killing humans isn't a feature of reality like those that the natural sciences deal with. So there's no moral FSK comparable to the natural science FSKs. The moral FSK is your question-begging invention.
We all know he will never answer that question, because he knows that his entire ediface of ideas crumbles the moment the question is answered.
You are probably ignorant of edifice-proper and ideas-proper. A mere edifice of ideas will crumble when nothing holds it up, bu an edifice-proper of ideas-proper is entirely self sustaining without need of foundation.

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:03 pm
by Peter Holmes
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:50 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:15 am
How do we test and falsify the assertion 'killing humans is morally wrong' - or the assertion 'killing humans is not morally wrong'? - without appealing to another moral assertion?

The moral rightness or wrongness of killing humans isn't a feature of reality like those that the natural sciences deal with. So there's no moral FSK comparable to the natural science FSKs. The moral FSK is your question-begging invention.
We all know he will never answer that question, because he knows that his entire ediface of ideas crumbles the moment the question is answered.
You are probably ignorant of edifice-proper and ideas-proper. A mere edifice of ideas will crumble when nothing holds it up, bu an edifice-proper of ideas-proper is entirely self sustaining without need of foundation.
But of course. Our problem is being at the shallow end of the ignorance pool.

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:02 pm
by Skepdick
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:50 pm You are probably ignorant of edifice-proper and ideas-proper. A mere edifice of ideas will crumble when nothing holds it up, bu an edifice-proper of ideas-proper is entirely self sustaining without need of foundation.
It sounds like you think foundations are necessary.

What do you propose we lay the foundations upon?
Surely there's sufficient evidence to discard all forms of foundationalism as nonsense?

This sort of philosophical masochism is inexplicable to me - you keep setting yourself up for failure and then you complain about it for thousands of years ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:32 pm
by Sculptor
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:50 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:28 am We all know he will never answer that question, because he knows that his entire edifice of ideas crumbles the moment the question is answered.
You are probably ignorant of edifice-proper and ideas-proper. A mere edifice of ideas will crumble when nothing holds it up, bu an edifice-proper of ideas-proper is entirely self sustaining without need of foundation.
You've missed something.
So, I'm ignorant?? That's funny.
We shall see. Are you going to wait for him to answer the question?
I'd advise you not to hold your breath.

Whilst we wait, perhaps you can try to define "ideas-proper". Give us all a laugh.

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:42 pm
by FlashDangerpants
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:32 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:50 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:28 am We all know he will never answer that question, because he knows that his entire edifice of ideas crumbles the moment the question is answered.
You are probably ignorant of edifice-proper and ideas-proper. A mere edifice of ideas will crumble when nothing holds it up, bu an edifice-proper of ideas-proper is entirely self sustaining without need of foundation.
You've missed something.
So, I'm ignorant?? That's funny.
We shall see. Are you going to wait for him to answer the question?
I'd advise you not to hold your breath.

Whilst we wait, perhaps you can try to define "ideas-proper". Give us all a laugh.
Pshaw, there must be a proper framework-proper and system-proper of knowledge-proper to decide (intersubjectively and philosophically AND empirically and then philosophically again) what define-proper means, but because of DNA and RNA too, we should totally(well, totally-proper) have properly-proper expectation that something something "bastardised logical positivist" something something <confused Kantian grunting noises>.

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:53 pm
by Sculptor
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:42 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:32 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:50 pm
You are probably ignorant of edifice-proper and ideas-proper. A mere edifice of ideas will crumble when nothing holds it up, bu an edifice-proper of ideas-proper is entirely self sustaining without need of foundation.
You've missed something.
So, I'm ignorant?? That's funny.
We shall see. Are you going to wait for him to answer the question?
I'd advise you not to hold your breath.

Whilst we wait, perhaps you can try to define "ideas-proper". Give us all a laugh.
Pshaw, there must be a proper framework-proper and system-proper of knowledge-proper to decide (intersubjectively and philosophically AND empirically and then philosophically again) what define-proper means, but because of DNA and RNA too, we should totally(well, totally-proper) have properly-proper expectation that something something "bastardised logical positivist" something something <confused Kantian grunting noises>.
I asked you to define something. And what you respond with is "there must be"!!. LOL
Sounds like...
"Yeah, I had it a minute ago - where did I put it?? That proper thingamagig?? Ohhhh it was here, I swear it. I know it has something to do with DNA, I think,er.. Or maybe RNA. It has to be properly proper, I think"

Hey maybe you lost it down the bowl last time you took a shit??

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:16 pm
by FlashDangerpants
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:53 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:42 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:32 pm
You've missed something.
So, I'm ignorant?? That's funny.
We shall see. Are you going to wait for him to answer the question?
I'd advise you not to hold your breath.

Whilst we wait, perhaps you can try to define "ideas-proper". Give us all a laugh.
Pshaw, there must be a proper framework-proper and system-proper of knowledge-proper to decide (intersubjectively and philosophically AND empirically and then philosophically again) what define-proper means, but because of DNA and RNA too, we should totally(well, totally-proper) have properly-proper expectation that something something "bastardised logical positivist" something something <confused Kantian grunting noises>.
I asked you to define something. And what you respond with is "there must be"!!. LOL
Sounds like...
"Yeah, I had it a minute ago - where did I put it?? That proper thingamagig?? Ohhhh it was here, I swear it. I know it has something to do with DNA, I think,er.. Or maybe RNA. It has to be properly proper, I think"

Hey maybe you lost it down the bowl last time you took a shit??
The heathen is ignorant of shit-proper!

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:52 pm
by Atla
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:53 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:42 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:32 pm
You've missed something.
So, I'm ignorant?? That's funny.
We shall see. Are you going to wait for him to answer the question?
I'd advise you not to hold your breath.

Whilst we wait, perhaps you can try to define "ideas-proper". Give us all a laugh.
Pshaw, there must be a proper framework-proper and system-proper of knowledge-proper to decide (intersubjectively and philosophically AND empirically and then philosophically again) what define-proper means, but because of DNA and RNA too, we should totally(well, totally-proper) have properly-proper expectation that something something "bastardised logical positivist" something something <confused Kantian grunting noises>.
I asked you to define something. And what you respond with is "there must be"!!. LOL
Sounds like...
"Yeah, I had it a minute ago - where did I put it?? That proper thingamagig?? Ohhhh it was here, I swear it. I know it has something to do with DNA, I think,er.. Or maybe RNA. It has to be properly proper, I think"

Hey maybe you lost it down the bowl last time you took a shit??
tragicomedy of the highest caliber, and it's free :)

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:33 pm
by Sculptor
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:16 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:53 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:42 pm
Pshaw, there must be a proper framework-proper and system-proper of knowledge-proper to decide (intersubjectively and philosophically AND empirically and then philosophically again) what define-proper means, but because of DNA and RNA too, we should totally(well, totally-proper) have properly-proper expectation that something something "bastardised logical positivist" something something <confused Kantian grunting noises>.
I asked you to define something. And what you respond with is "there must be"!!. LOL
Sounds like...
"Yeah, I had it a minute ago - where did I put it?? That proper thingamagig?? Ohhhh it was here, I swear it. I know it has something to do with DNA, I think,er.. Or maybe RNA. It has to be properly proper, I think"

Hey maybe you lost it down the bowl last time you took a shit??
The heathen is ignorant of shit-proper!
You might need to wipe!

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:34 pm
by Sculptor
Atla wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:52 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:53 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:42 pm
Pshaw, there must be a proper framework-proper and system-proper of knowledge-proper to decide (intersubjectively and philosophically AND empirically and then philosophically again) what define-proper means, but because of DNA and RNA too, we should totally(well, totally-proper) have properly-proper expectation that something something "bastardised logical positivist" something something <confused Kantian grunting noises>.
I asked you to define something. And what you respond with is "there must be"!!. LOL
Sounds like...
"Yeah, I had it a minute ago - where did I put it?? That proper thingamagig?? Ohhhh it was here, I swear it. I know it has something to do with DNA, I think,er.. Or maybe RNA. It has to be properly proper, I think"

Hey maybe you lost it down the bowl last time you took a shit??
tragicomedy of the highest caliber, and it's free :)
You don't even have to spend a penny!

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:45 pm
by FlashDangerpants
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:33 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:16 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:53 pm

I asked you to define something. And what you respond with is "there must be"!!. LOL
Sounds like...
"Yeah, I had it a minute ago - where did I put it?? That proper thingamagig?? Ohhhh it was here, I swear it. I know it has something to do with DNA, I think,er.. Or maybe RNA. It has to be properly proper, I think"

Hey maybe you lost it down the bowl last time you took a shit??
The heathen is ignorant of shit-proper!
You might need to wipe!
Shit-proper doesn't need wipe, it goes down trouser leg!

Re: Objectivity and Morality

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:04 pm
by Skepdick
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:45 pm Shit-proper doesn't need wipe, it goes down trouser leg!
Shit-proper stays in underwear.

Shit-improper runs down leg.

Wonder if tampons work for diarrhea.