Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:51 am The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.
I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality]. This is an objective fact that is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus objective.

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
100% of all normal people will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

Note my definitions;

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  A fact is that which is specific to its Framework and System of Knowledge and Reality.
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Who is arguing 'survival' and 'well being' are matters of opinion and not matters of fact?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:36 am Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

And my definition of dog = cat, we all have our quirks.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:59 am And my definition of dog = cat, we all have our quirks.

So long as there's consensus that we are cooking it for dinner it doesn't matter how you define it. Objectively, its food.

Grilled? Deep fried? Stew? What sauce would you like with it?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:01 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:59 am And my definition of dog = cat, we all have our quirks.

So long as there's consensus that we are cooking it for dinner it doesn't matter how you define it. Objectively, its food.

Grilled? Deep fried? Stew? What sauce would you like with it?

You eat cats for dinner?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:07 am You eat cats for dinner?

No, I eat food.

P.S I thought it was a dog?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:08 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:07 am You eat cats for dinner?

No, I eat food.

P.S I thought it was a dog?

Okay you only know food. So you can't tell a cat from cheese? I imagine they taste differently?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:11 am Okay you only know food. So you can't tell a cat from cheese? I imagine they taste differently?

if you define cat = cheese, then there's no difference in taste.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:36 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:51 am The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.
I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality]. This is an objective fact that is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus objective.

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
100% of all normal people will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

Note my definitions;

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  A fact is that which is specific to its Framework and System of Knowledge and Reality.
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Who is arguing 'survival' and 'well being' are matters of opinion and not matters of fact?

That we should survive, and should want to survive, and should pursue well-being are indeed matters of opinion. To claim these are assertions of fact - just the way things are - is to be deaf to the use of modal should in these clauses. It's the deafness evident in the following argument.

Living things reproduce themselves (fact); therefore living things should reproduce themselves.

Moral realists and objectivists can insist till they're blue in the face that this conclusion follows from the premise. But it doesn't.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:16 am That we should survive, and should want to survive, and should pursue well-being are indeed matters of opinion.

They are matters of opinion (in one perspective) AND matters of fact (in another perspective). Both perspectives are true.

Why do you prefer the "opinion" perspective over the "fact" perspective?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:16 am Moral realists and objectivists can insist till they're blue in the face that this conclusion follows from the premise. But it doesn't.

Moral realists and objectivists don't give a shit if the conclusion follows from the premises, because moral realists and objectivists understand that in order to do any deduction, first you must induce some premises.

But if I can induce true premises, then I can also induce true conclusions.

So, what do I even need deduction for?

From which perspective does a claim express both a fact and a matter of opinion? And is this a fact, or a matter of opinion?

Perspectives aren't true or false. They just do or don't exist. The only features of reality that have truth-value (classically, true or false) are factual assertions. (But is that a fact, or a matter of opinion - a matter of perspective?)

Let's see - why might we prefer facts to opinions, given the choice? Tough question. A real chin-scratcher.

So, moral realists and objectivists don't care about the deductive validity of their argument for moral objectivity. We can only induce factual premises, so soundness is just guesswork anyway. (But is inducing the conclusion that water is H2O the same process as inducing the conclusion that, say, slavery is morally wrong? How is it possible to induce that conclusion?)

Guess it's back to the evidence for a moral assertion. No argument required, such as the argument: 'this is evidence for this moral assertion'. Any old shite will do, such as: what people want; how behaviour has changed; neural programming.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:21 am From which perspective does a claim express both a fact and a matter of opinion?

Look at him, desperately struggling for unification.

I gave you TWO perspectives (plural) you are asking a question about A perspective (singular). What chance of mutual understanding is there if you can't even count?

There may or may not be a perspective from which a claim expresses both a fact and a matter of opinion.
I mean, I could invent such a perspective trivially by using the principle of superposition....

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:21 am And is this a fact, or a matter of opinion?

It's BOTH. That's what superposition means.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:21 am Perspectives aren't true or false. They just do or don't exist.

Precisely.

So there exists perspective A in which the English expression ABCDEFG is seen to expresses a factual assertion.
And there exists perspective B in which the English expression ABCDEFG is seen to expresses an opinion.

Both of these perspectives exist, therefore ABCDEFG can be seen to express a fact AND an opinion.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:21 am The only features of reality that have truth-value (classically, true or false) are factual assertions.

Precisely!

According to A expression ABCDEFG is seen to expresses a fact. Therefore it has a truth-value.
According to B expression ABCDEFG is seen to expresses an opinion. Therefore it has no truth-value.

So whether ABCDEFG is a fact or an opinion depends on the perspective you choose to adopt.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:21 am Let's see - why might we prefer facts to opinions, given the choice? Tough question. A real chin-scratcher.

Gee, who is asking you that question? Not me.

I am asking you WHY you've chosen to adopt perspective A in which the English expression ABCDEFG is seen to express a fact, when you could've just as easily adopted perspective B in which the English expression ABCDEFG is seen to expresses an opinion.

Here is a challenge for the Philosophical Retards (Peter Holmes and others).

Below is a photo, and hereto I give you the English expression (further classification to be determined): "There is a brown cow with a white belly on a tree trunk."

So, Philosophical Retards, please demonstrate HOW you would go about making the two determinations necessary to support your claims.

Determination 1: Does the English expression express a fact or an opinion? Justify your determination.
Determination 2: If the expression is a fact, then is it true or false? Justify your determination.

Props to Quine for Inscrutability of reference

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:36 am Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

And my definition of dog = cat, we all have our quirks.

You are very stupid!
[lack intelligence].

In the context of the OP, what is objective as intersubjective consensus must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
The scientific FSK is the most credible.

You dog = cat is justified from your stupid asshole FSK,
if not explain your basis of justification dog = cat as objective?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:36 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:51 am The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.
I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality]. This is an objective fact that is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus objective.

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
100% of all normal people will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

Note my definitions;

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  A fact is that which is specific to its Framework and System of Knowledge and Reality.
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Who is arguing 'survival' and 'well being' are matters of opinion and not matters of fact?

That we should survive, and should want to survive, and should pursue well-being are indeed matters of opinion. To claim these are assertions of fact - just the way things are - is to be deaf to the use of modal should in these clauses. It's the deafness evident in the following argument.

Living things reproduce themselves (fact); therefore living things should reproduce themselves.

Moral realists and objectivists can insist till they're blue in the face that this conclusion follows from the premise. But it doesn't.

You keep sticking to "Moral realists and objectivists" in general, but the OP is specific to my claims re Moral Empirical Realism.
Despite me mentioning "1000" times you still did not get my point to counter it directly.

Note I repeat the below again.

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  A fact is that which is specific to its Framework and System of Knowledge and Reality.
  
  If there are linguistic, astronomy, historical, scientific, medical, economics and whatever FSK, why not a moral FSK which has credibility close to the scientific FSK.
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
  Moral Facts re facts that are justified empirically and philosophically within a Moral FSK.

Don't be a coward and rhetorically divert to "Moral realists and objectivists" in general, but rather address my specific points in the OP.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:29 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:36 am Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

And my definition of dog = cat, we all have our quirks.

You are very stupid!
[lack intelligence].

In the context of the OP, what is objective as intersubjective consensus must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
The scientific FSK is the most credible.

You dog = cat is justified from your stupid asshole FSK,
if not explain your basis of justification dog = cat as objective?

Try again. 'Objective' means that something is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, therefore it's also independent of intersubjective consensus. But of course your defective mind can't comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute.