What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2018, 12:51 PM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 12:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Remember the context was defined in my example. It’s wasn’t merely torturing babies, but torturing babies just for fun.

I have trouble imagining your scenario, I have no idea what it would look like to determine that this was moral.

The idea of objectively determining it to be moral, is incomprehensible in my view, and therefore I don’t know how to answer your question.

What you can imagine is totally irrelevant. You also said "torturing INNOCENT babies for fun" is a moral "fact". That implies that GUILTY babies (and guilty others) are OK to torture. Your use of "fact" is totally inappropriate. There is not one ethicist in the field that talks about moral "facts". You made that up.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 12:54 PM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The dictionary, and common uses of the term decide what they mean, they provide the taxonomy, not me. Yours and other dislike of the terms, doesn't negate their meanings.

LOL. "Common uses" are not unitary. It's why in a dictionary, (which you are very clearly, judging from your writing, unfamiliar with), there are multiple definitions.

That's why they use 1.,2.,3.,4., .... get it ? Rolleyes

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 12:58 PM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 12:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 11:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The dictionary, and common uses of the term decide what they mean, they provide the taxonomy, not me. Yours and other dislike of the terms, doesn't negate their meanings.

LOL. "Common uses" are not unitary. It's why in a dictionary, (which you are very clearly, judging from your writing, unfamiliar with), there are multiple definitions.

That's why they use 1.,2.,3.,4., .... get it ? Rolleyes
Aside from that, more common uses can be inappropriate in some contexts, if not outright mis-uses, and less common uses can be far more ... useful sometimes.

Theists have a habit of cherry picking, not just scripture, but also definitions, to suit their needs. Conflating different senses of a word -- sometimes, as in the colloquial vs the religious definition of the English word "faith" -- is a favorite tactic.

There are multiple definitions so that the most accurate and suitable one can be selected for a particular purpose and context.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
01-02-2018, 01:07 PM
What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 12:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 12:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Remember the context was defined in my example. It’s wasn’t merely torturing babies, but torturing babies just for fun.

I have trouble imagining your scenario, I have no idea what it would look like to determine that this was moral.

The idea of objectively determining it to be moral, is incomprehensible in my view, and therefore I don’t know how to answer your question.

What you can imagine is totally irrelevant. You also said "torturing INNOCENT babies for fun" is a moral "fact". That implies that GUILTY babies (and guilty others) are OK to torture. Your use of "fact" is totally inappropriate. There is not one ethicist in the field that talks about moral "facts". You made that up.


Not sure which ethicists Your surveyed, but If they’re moral realist, as most philosophers are, than yes they subscribe to moral facts as well. And it’s typically what separate the moral realist from non-realist views.

“The semantic thesis: The primary semantic role of moral predicates (such as "right" and "wrong") is to refer to moral properties (such as rightness and wrongness), so that moral statements (such as "honesty is good" and "slavery is unjust") purport to represent moral facts, and express propositions that are true or false (or approximately true, largely false, and so on).”

-Moral Realism/ Wikipedia

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 01:34 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 01:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 12:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What you can imagine is totally irrelevant. You also said "torturing INNOCENT babies for fun" is a moral "fact". That implies that GUILTY babies (and guilty others) are OK to torture. Your use of "fact" is totally inappropriate. There is not one ethicist in the field that talks about moral "facts". You made that up.


Not sure which ethicists Your surveyed, but If they’re moral realist, as most philosophers are, than yes they subscribe to moral facts as well. And it’s typically what separate the moral realist from non-realist views.

“The semantic thesis: The primary semantic role of moral predicates (such as "right" and "wrong") is to refer to moral properties (such as rightness and wrongness), so that moral statements (such as "honesty is good" and "slavery is unjust") purport to represent moral facts, and express propositions that are true or false (or approximately true, largely false, and so on).”

-Moral Realism/ Wikipedia

Not the way I define it. There is no "objective" anything in morality, ... every moral concept exists nowhere, except in human brains, .. and THAT is not 'objective" by definition, .. (I could care less what philosophers say, and the words "moral facts" never once came up in any ethics class I took ... and we all know you never took any.)

fact
/fakt/
noun
plural noun: facts
a thing that is indisputably the case.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More
truth, verity, gospel
"it is a fact that the water is polluted"
antonyms: lie, fiction
•used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.
noun: the fact that
"the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut"
•a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
synonyms: detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, ingredient, circumstance, aspect, facet; information
"every fact was double-checked"

Lets see what polling you did.

The fact is, most Catholics believe it is true that abortion is objectively evil, (a "moral fact" ??).
Many others (most others ??) do not buy that.
If it were a moral fact, it would be clearly and easily proven, and accepted by everyone. It is not. The term's usefulness in Ethics is useless, and nothing but opinion.
BTW what is this shit about "for fun" ? What possible usefulness is THAT bullshit ? *As if* killing innocent babies *not for fun* is OK. LOL. Do you even for a moment think about the crap you write ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-02-2018, 01:21 PM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 01:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  “The semantic thesis: The primary semantic role of moral predicates (such as "right" and "wrong") is to refer to moral properties (such as rightness and wrongness), so that moral statements (such as "honesty is good" and "slavery is unjust") purport to represent moral facts, and express propositions that are true or false (or approximately true, largely false, and so on).”

-Moral Realism/ Wikipedia

What about those who think moral predicates (such as ''right'' or ''wrong'')don't refer to moral properties, thus that moral statements don't represent moral facts, thus not a proposition that is true or false (or approximately true, largely false, and so on)? How do they fit in your world view?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 01:39 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 01:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 11:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tommy equates torturing babies with food and fashion.
He should have his garbage searched, and his basement dug up.

I equate subjectivity with preferences such as in food and fashion.

I use these examples because they're neutral enough to discuss the meaning of subjectivity.

Sure you do. Killing and torturing babies is SO fucking "neutral".
Gawd you're a dumbass.

BTW, there were many human cultures, (kinda like your argument for why the concept of god is valid) that practiced human sacrifice and child sacrifice.. which kinda puts the lie to the notion that killing innocent babies is immoral. They didn't think it was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacri...ec_culture
http://www.toptenz.net/10-ancient-cultur...rifice.php

Kinda hard to make a case for objective morality in light of that. They thought they were doing the right thing, pleasing a god.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-02-2018, 01:49 PM
What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 01:21 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 01:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  “The semantic thesis: The primary semantic role of moral predicates (such as "right" and "wrong") is to refer to moral properties (such as rightness and wrongness), so that moral statements (such as "honesty is good" and "slavery is unjust") purport to represent moral facts, and express propositions that are true or false (or approximately true, largely false, and so on).”

-Moral Realism/ Wikipedia

What about those who think moral predicates (such as ''right'' or ''wrong'')don't refer to moral properties, thus that moral statements don't represent moral facts, thus not a proposition that is true or false (or approximately true, largely false, and so on)? How do they fit in your world view?


Don’t know, probably would have to ask them some additional questions, such as do they believe morality is subjective.

Alastair Macintyre’s After Virtue, traces the shifts in moral perceptions, and would reveal that much of our moral beliefs, have been rendered incomprehensible absent of those historical traditions they were once built on.


It’s perhaps why some folks here have a hard time accepting morality as subjective, while at the same time rejecting the idea of it being objective. They’re just victims of the incomprehensible predicament they find themselves in.

They often argue out of both sides of their mouth, sometimes supporting objectively, other times supporting subjectivity. While some want to appeal to some vague third way, that’s neither objective or subjective.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2018, 01:50 PM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 11:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, it doesn't have to be an individual thing. In fact I don't think none of subjective preferences are unique they're shaped by our society, culture, environment, etc...

That seems inconsistent with this:

(01-02-2018 09:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If morality is subjective, than a person who stated that it's morally right, is no more wrong, than someone who disagrees with me that Justin Bieber is a bad singer.

If morality is subjective, it's subjective to a group, not an individual. Therefore, a person (individual) who states something is morally right certainly would be wrong if it goes against the morals as defined by the group. So it's incorrect to say that person "is no more wrong than..."

Fox News: Praying Preying on ignorance since 1996.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
01-02-2018, 02:03 PM
RE: What Exactly Does "Objective" Morality Mean?
(01-02-2018 01:50 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 11:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, it doesn't have to be an individual thing. In fact I don't think none of subjective preferences are unique they're shaped by our society, culture, environment, etc...

That seems inconsistent with this:

(01-02-2018 09:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If morality is subjective, than a person who stated that it's morally right, is no more wrong, than someone who disagrees with me that Justin Bieber is a bad singer.

If morality is subjective, it's subjective to a group, not an individual. Therefore, a person (individual) who states something is morally right certainly would be wrong if it goes against the morals as defined by the group. So it's incorrect to say that person "is no more wrong than..."

That's like saying if a particular society thinks olives taste good, than an individual who states that olives taste bad is wrong. He's no more wrong than they are right, even though they have the numbers. He's just facing a group of individuals that don't share his taste.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: