Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-07-2015, 11:19 PM
RE: Morality
(29-07-2015 10:40 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 09:37 PM)Hambone Wrote:  ...
Something is either objective or subjective, that is factual or non factual. What other options are there?

Nope.

That a service was rated by 90% of customers as "excellent" is a subjective fact.

Cool

If something is subjective, it is mind dependent as in the case of the customer example...What does that have to do with my argument?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 11:24 PM
RE: Morality
(29-07-2015 11:18 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 09:45 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Declaring a dichotomy is not the same as drawing the line between the elements of the dichotomy. Please describe precisely the distinction you are drawing between objectivity and subjectivity. I know several places where you MIGHT be drawing the line, but I don't know where you ARE drawing it. In particular, please model what the existence of an objective morality would look like or indicate.

Are you asking me to prove objective morality? I cant prove OM, but there are many things that cannot be proven but we are fully rational and justified in believing it to be true. The way it would like is when we use real life examples, and the way we deal with them. As I used the example with the world trade centre and ISIS. Will you conclude the same way you would if you disagree with my taste in woman? If you do, this indicates that you are appealing to a factual/truth.

(29-07-2015 09:45 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Please describe precisely the distinction you are drawing between objectivity and subjectivity.

I am asking you for a precise definition of the terms you are using in your claim. NOT to prove the claim, but to explain what the claim means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 11:27 PM
RE: Morality
Let me try and explain it this way. Unless there is an independent arbitrator that is independent of human taste and preference, morality is like a game of tennis with no baseline.

If one player hits the ball, the person receiving the ball shouts " balls out", the person who hits the ball shouts "no in". Is the ball in or out? How would you know if there isn't a independent arbitrator to compare when the ball landed against? ,ie, the baseline?

This is no different to ISIS saying chopping heads off is right and you saying no its wrong. If there is no independent arbitrator, then who is right or wrong? Neither, each opinion is just as valid as each other in such a case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 11:29 PM
RE: Morality
(29-07-2015 11:24 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 11:18 PM)Hambone Wrote:  Are you asking me to prove objective morality? I cant prove OM, but there are many things that cannot be proven but we are fully rational and justified in believing it to be true. The way it would like is when we use real life examples, and the way we deal with them. As I used the example with the world trade centre and ISIS. Will you conclude the same way you would if you disagree with my taste in woman? If you do, this indicates that you are appealing to a factual/truth.

(29-07-2015 09:45 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Please describe precisely the distinction you are drawing between objectivity and subjectivity.

I am asking you for a precise definition of the terms you are using in your claim. NOT to prove the claim, but to explain what the claim means.

I would define it as a set of moral rules and duties that are factual. That is, they hold true independent of human taste preference and opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 11:30 PM
RE: Morality
(29-07-2015 11:27 PM)Hambone Wrote:  Let me try and explain it this way. Unless there is an independent arbitrator that is independent of human taste and preference, morality is like a game of tennis with no baseline.

If one player hits the ball, the person receiving the ball shouts " balls out", the person who hits the ball shouts "no in". Is the ball in or out? How would you know if there isn't a independent arbitrator to compare when the ball landed against? ,ie, the baseline?

This is no different to ISIS saying chopping heads off is right and you saying no its wrong. If there is no independent arbitrator, then who is right or wrong? Neither, each opinion is just as valid as each other in such a case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 12:08 AM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2015 12:24 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Morality
(29-07-2015 11:29 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 11:24 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I am asking you for a precise definition of the terms you are using in your claim. NOT to prove the claim, but to explain what the claim means.

I would define it as a set of moral rules and duties that are factual. That is, they hold true independent of human taste preference and opinion.

First, a nitpick, but one that might turn important... is it only HUMAN taste, preference, and opinion? If there's some hypothetical extraterrestrial civilization out there of beings similar to us, would objective morals also hold true independent of THEIR taste, preference, and opinion? I'm GUESSING you'll say it's still independent, but I want to be sure.

But mostly, I have to ask what it means for moral rules and duties to hold true.

I know, it sounds pedantic, but it's a very different sort of truth claim than most claims about objective truth, isn't it? I mean, if I claim I have red hair, I can get a bunch of people to look at it, and they'll see pretty much the same color. We could get a camera to measure the hue. We could see whether it reflects different wavelengths of color. That's what that truth claim means.

If I claim that acceleration of a falling object near the surface of the Earth is approximately 9.8 meters per second squared, barring air resistance, we can set up a vacuum and observe the acceleration of falling objects, measure their speed, and confirm this objectively. We could have computers make the observations. We can have people make the observations. They'll all match up, objectively. That's what that truth claim means.

Same for the claim that there are five oranges in a bowl rather than three. Same for the claim that 8th street comes after 5th street when you're going along Chelsea Avenue. Same for the claim that the ancient Greek civilization existed, that the moon landing happened, and so on.

But... none of that's the case with objective morality, is it? This isn't a truth claim that's saying the same sort of things that the other sort of things are saying. So, what IS it saying? How is a "should" true? How is an "ought" also an "is"?

(29-07-2015 11:30 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 11:27 PM)Hambone Wrote:  Let me try and explain it this way. Unless there is an independent arbitrator that is independent of human taste and preference, morality is like a game of tennis with no baseline.

If one player hits the ball, the person receiving the ball shouts " balls out", the person who hits the ball shouts "no in". Is the ball in or out? How would you know if there isn't a independent arbitrator to compare when the ball landed against? ,ie, the baseline?

This is no different to ISIS saying chopping heads off is right and you saying no its wrong. If there is no independent arbitrator, then who is right or wrong? Neither, each opinion is just as valid as each other in such a case.

It sounds like what you're saying is that whether morality is objective comes down NOT to the strength of our convictions in a certain moral principle, NOT to whether we feel this principle should be binding upon others, but whether there is an independent arbitrator on the subject?

If that's what you're saying, then why ask us about our feelings on 9/11 and ISIS? If the arbitrator is what makes morality objective, then our feelings on those subjects will not provide one iota of proof for objective morality. Our feelings on the subject would be completely irrelevant to the topic, and would also (as strong emotions tend to do) cloud the issue rather than clarify it. The entire line of questioning is counterproductive, if this is the definition. It would seem that the only way to demonstrate that morality was objective would be to demonstrate the existence of the arbitrator in its role as arbitrator.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 01:40 AM
RE: Morality
(29-07-2015 11:19 PM)Hambone Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 10:40 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Nope.

That a service was rated by 90% of customers as "excellent" is a subjective fact.

Cool

If something is subjective, it is mind dependent as in the case of the customer example...What does that have to do with my argument?

You seemed to be saying that subjective = non-factual

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
30-07-2015, 02:32 AM
RE: Morality
(30-07-2015 12:08 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 11:29 PM)Hambone Wrote:  I would define it as a set of moral rules and duties that are factual. That is, they hold true independent of human taste preference and opinion.

First, a nitpick, but one that might turn important... is it only HUMAN taste, preference, and opinion? If there's some hypothetical extraterrestrial civilization out there of beings similar to us, would objective morals also hold true independent of THEIR taste, preference, and opinion? I'm GUESSING you'll say it's still independent, but I want to be sure.

This depends, if the moral law giver has assigned the same duties to this extraterrestrial civilization. If so, then yes.

But mostly, I have to ask what it means for moral rules and duties to hold true.

I know, it sounds pedantic, but it's a very different sort of truth claim than most claims about objective truth, isn't it? I mean, if I claim I have red hair, I can get a bunch of people to look at it, and they'll see pretty much the same color. We could get a camera to measure the hue. We could see whether it reflects different wavelengths of color. That's what that truth claim means.

If I claim that acceleration of a falling object near the surface of the Earth is approximately 9.8 meters per second squared, barring air resistance, we can set up a vacuum and observe the acceleration of falling objects, measure their speed, and confirm this objectively. We could have computers make the observations. We can have people make the observations. They'll all match up, objectively. That's what that truth claim means.

Same for the claim that there are five oranges in a bowl rather than three. Same for the claim that 8th street comes after 5th street when you're going along Chelsea Avenue. Same for the claim that the ancient Greek civilization existed, that the moon landing happened, and so on.

But... none of that's the case with objective morality, is it? This isn't a truth claim that's saying the same sort of things that the other sort of things are saying. So, what IS it saying? How is a "should" true? How is an "ought" also an "is"?

Ok, so are you asking how we can know these exist?


It sounds like what you're saying is that whether morality is objective comes down NOT to the strength of our convictions in a certain moral principle, NOT to whether we feel this principle should be binding upon others, but whether there is an independent arbitrator on the subject?


If that's what you're saying, then why ask us about our feelings on 9/11 and ISIS? If the arbitrator is what makes morality objective, then our feelings on those subjects will not provide one iota of proof for objective morality. Our feelings on the subject would be completely irrelevant to the topic, and would also (as strong emotions tend to do) cloud the issue rather than clarify it. The entire line of questioning is counterproductive, if this is the definition. It would seem that the only way to demonstrate that morality was objective would be to demonstrate the existence of the arbitrator in its role as arbitrator.

As I said previously, we refer to our experience and intuition. Suppose I say the earth is flat. You will then see this claim and attempt to correct me on it, simply because you realise I am making to fact. Notice how you will tell me I am wrong for that statement/claim. This only occurs because whether the earth is flat or not is an objective claim/truth.

Now, when we discuss morality, in our experience, like in the example of ISIS, if I say I think what ISIS are doing is right, you will attempt to correct me and say no its not, ie, its wrong to harm others for fun or for an ideology etc etc. You will make a claim to fact, just like in the flat earth example but the methodology is different (we can discuss this later).

You will not respond to me in the same nature as if you disagree with me on my choice of woman, will you? This says to me, that though our experience, we are all appealing to moral FACTS, and don't treat these as merely opinions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 02:36 AM
RE: Morality
(30-07-2015 01:40 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 11:19 PM)Hambone Wrote:  If something is subjective, it is mind dependent as in the case of the customer example...What does that have to do with my argument?

You seemed to be saying that subjective = non-factual

Correct. If I say chocolate cake is better than banana bread, is that a FACT? of course not. Taste is subjective, not factual.

If I say blonde haired woman are better than brunettes, is that a fact? of course not. Beauty is subjective.

If I say Taken 1 is a better movie than Taken 2, is that a fact? Of course not. Movies are subjective.

If I say the earth is in the shape of a ball, is that a fact? Yes, because the shape of the earth wether its flat or a ball is a fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 02:47 AM
RE: Morality
(30-07-2015 02:36 AM)Hambone Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 01:40 AM)DLJ Wrote:  You seemed to be saying that subjective = non-factual

Correct. If I say chocolate cake is better than banana bread, is that a FACT? of course not. Taste is subjective, not factual.

If I say blonde haired woman are better than brunettes, is that a fact? of course not. Beauty is subjective.

If I say Taken 1 is a better movie than Taken 2, is that a fact? Of course not. Movies are subjective.

If I say the earth is in the shape of a ball, is that a fact? Yes, because the shape of the earth wether its flat or a ball is a fact.

How bout saying you prefer chocolate cake to banana bread and that is a fact? It is true that I prefer football to baseball but that does not mean football is objectively better than baseball.

Morality isn't one side of the coin or the other. Why you're trying to make it such a simple concept I am not sure, but morality is a testament to the impressive complexity of the human brain and its evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: