Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(13-12-2016 08:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Not to mention the guy who believes facts are subjective.
...

Are you familiar with the idea of subjective metrics and objective metrics?

Here's an example:





Although he provides no supporting data, the bloke here is stating that it is a fact that people 'feel' less safe.

Fair enough and if there was the data to support it, that would a subjective metric (qualititive).

The lady is talking about FBI stats (presumably reported crime data and not unreported crime) so the numbers she is offering are objective metrics (quantitative).

It might be easier (because of the tediousness of the objective vs. subjective arguments) to refer to the subjective facts as anthropocentric e.g. it is true that gold is more valuable than silver.

Sure but I bet you can't find a dolphin who will agree with that.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
13-12-2016, 10:19 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(13-12-2016 09:17 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(13-12-2016 09:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I admit I'm wrong all the time.

Not here you don't.

He's talking about his professional life.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-12-2016, 10:29 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Who would have ever guessed the answer to my tomato question was "no" with a sprinkling of idiotic rambling and repetition? That's soooooooo out of character for tomato. /sarcasmfont


Laughat


I don't see anyone agreeing with you, tomato. Most reasonable and rational people might take that as a sign. But what am I saying?!!! You're not reasonable or rational so why would you even care?!!

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
13-12-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(13-12-2016 10:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't see anyone agreeing with you, tomato. Most reasonable and rational people might take that as a sign. But what am I saying?!!! You're not reasonable or rational so why would you even care?!!

Do you see anyone agreeing with you ?

That we can't go on the site you linked to and verify whether they defined the term: Agamospecies as: A species of uniparental (asexual) organisms? That this is indisputably the case (a fact)? It is a fact the site defines the term as such, indisputably the case. Perhaps to everyone here, except you of course.

You dig yourself into a hole, and then make it even bigger for yourself. No one comes to your rescue or support. They preferred to save you the embarrassment and sit on the sidelines with your ridiculous suggestions.

"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
13-12-2016, 11:04 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(13-12-2016 10:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you see anyone agreeing with you ?

Check the "Like" button you are always whining about.

Why clutter up forum space with cheering posts that add little but "GO Dude!"?

Besides if we did do that, you'd complain about that too, wouldn't you?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
13-12-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(13-12-2016 10:18 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(13-12-2016 08:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Not to mention the guy who believes facts are subjective.
...

Are you familiar with the idea of subjective metrics and objective metrics?

Here's an example:





Although he provides no supporting data, the bloke here is stating that it is a fact that people 'feel' less safe.

Fair enough and if there was the data to support it, that would a subjective metric (qualititive).

The lady is talking about FBI stats (presumably reported crime data and not unreported crime) so the numbers she is offering are objective metrics (quantitative).

It might be easier (because of the tediousness of the objective vs. subjective arguments) to refer to the subjective facts as anthropocentric e.g. it is true that gold is more valuable than silver.

Sure but I bet you can't find a dolphin who will agree with that.

Big Grin

Objective vs subjective metrics, doesn't particularly address whether facts are subjective. If a survey was conducted showing that 70% of the US population feels unsafe after the recent election, though feeling unsafe is subjective, the fact that 70% of American feel this way is not.

Now there are atheists, and others, including scientist , perhaps even Girlyman who don't believe objective truth, objective reality, exists. That truth, facts, reality, are subjective, that our perceptions of an independent reality are an illusion: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-...-reality/. But I don't think this is what TbD is going for. But maybe you are?

"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
13-12-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(13-12-2016 11:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
If a survey was conducted showing that 70% of the US population feels unsafe after the recent election, though feeling unsafe is subjective, the fact that 70% of American feel this way is not.
...

BINGO!

So you now get what we're saying when we talk about a topic (carefully avoiding saying "a subject"), e.g. a moral question, as being subjective (e.g. safety (harm-potential) and whether that's a good or bad thing) which can be measured objectively.

[Image: champagne%20pop.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
13-12-2016, 12:03 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(13-12-2016 11:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So you now get what we're saying when we talk about a topic (carefully avoiding saying "a subject"), e.g. a moral question, as being subjective (e.g. safety (harm-potential) and whether that's a good or bad thing) which can be measured objectively.

[Image: champagne%20pop.jpg]

Few things here, TbD believes that morality is subjective, yet doesn't believe it has and the qualities of what it means for something to be subjective. I.E he doesn't believe it's a matter of a opinion, a matter of personal feelings, etc.. He then tried to support his argument by conflating relative and subjective. He seems to have a special idea of "subjective" here that actually only applies to morality. A position he's had a hard time defining, let alone supporting.

Secondly, it seems your conflating is and ought.

Perhaps you develop some quantitive measure and definition of harm. Moral statements aren't the same as a claim that x action is harmful. Morality is prescriptive not descriptive. What would underly this particular moral statement would be that I ought not do what's harmful to others. No ought is derived from the is here (that x action is harmful).

It's subjective. There's no reason why I should avoid doing actions that are harmful to others, other than my own personal affinity to avoid doing so. If for instance there was something I did desire to do, that was perfectly legal, but would harm others, and if you were to say it's immoral, all you'd be saying here is that it bothers you, hurts your feelings, offends your own personal affinity if I did as I desired too.

And thirdly, your underlying moral case here, regarding harm, requires others who subscribe to consequentialist moral outlook, which might be popular among secularist and liberals, but not necessarily everyone else, whose moral outlook might be less concerned about consequences, and more interested in intentions, character development, and values.

"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
13-12-2016, 12:31 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(13-12-2016 12:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-12-2016 11:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So you now get what we're saying when we talk about a topic (carefully avoiding saying "a subject"), e.g. a moral question, as being subjective (e.g. safety (harm-potential) and whether that's a good or bad thing) which can be measured objectively.

[Image: champagne%20pop.jpg]

Few things here, TbD believes that morality is subjective, yet doesn't believe it has and the qualities of what it means for something to be subjective. I.E he doesn't believe it's a matter of a opinion, a matter of personal feelings, etc.. He then tried to support his argument by conflating relative and subjective. He seems to have a special idea of "subjective" here that actually only applies to morality. A position he's had a hard time defining, let alone supporting.

Secondly, it seems your conflating is and ought.

Perhaps you develop some quantitive measure and definition of harm. Moral statements aren't the same as a claim that x action is harmful. Morality is prescriptive not descriptive. What would underly this particular moral statement would be that I ought not do what's harmful to others. No ought is derived from the is here (that x action is harmful).

It's subjective. There's no reason why I should avoid doing actions that are harmful to others, other than my own personal affinity to avoid doing so. If for instance there was something I did desire to do, that was perfectly legal, but would harm others, and if you were to say it's immoral, all you'd be saying here is that it bothers you, hurts your feelings, offends your own personal affinity if I did as I desired too.

And thirdly, your underlying moral case here, regarding harm, requires others who subscribe to consequentialist moral outlook, which might be popular among secularist and liberals, but not necessarily everyone else, whose moral outlook might be less concerned about consequences, and more interested in intentions, character development, and values.

You have to love it when someone straw mans you so badly that all you can do is chuckle. Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
13-12-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(13-12-2016 12:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-12-2016 11:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So you now get what we're saying when we talk about a topic (carefully avoiding saying "a subject"), e.g. a moral question, as being subjective (e.g. safety (harm-potential) and whether that's a good or bad thing) which can be measured objectively.

[Image: champagne%20pop.jpg]

Few things here, TbD believes that morality is subjective, yet doesn't believe it has and the qualities of what it means for something to be subjective. I.E he doesn't believe it's a matter of a opinion, a matter of personal feelings, etc.. He then tried to support his argument by conflating relative and subjective. He seems to have a special idea of "subjective" here that actually only applies to morality. A position he's had a hard time defining, let alone supporting.
...

I confess that I have not been following your discussion with TBD.

I kinda get bored and wander off when people start sparring.

Sorry.


(13-12-2016 12:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Secondly, it seems your conflating is and ought.

Perhaps you develop some quantitative measure and definition of harm. Moral statements aren't the same as a claim that x action is harmful. Morality is prescriptive not descriptive. What would underlie this particular moral statement would be that I ought not do what's harmful to others. No ought is derived from the is here (that x action is harmful).

It's subjective.
...

Not conflating; just not separating.

And not "not".

I would argue that morality is prescriptive and descriptive.

(13-12-2016 12:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There's no reason why I should avoid doing actions that are harmful to others, other than my own personal affinity to avoid doing so.
...

That seems like a good enough reason to me.

And by "personal affinity", that presumably includes an affinity with a personal, internal god-model and a personal affinity to obey local laws.

(13-12-2016 12:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
If for instance there was something I did desire to do, that was perfectly legal, but would harm others, and if you were to say it's immoral, all you'd be saying here is that it bothers you, hurts your feelings, offends your own personal affinity if I did as I desired too.
...

Right. So an example would be building an oil pipeline through Native American territory.

In my sphere (governance) we would use the term 'unethical' (rather that 'immoral') which is a different category to mere preference.

So sure, you can say you prefer to get filthy rich at the expense of others and I can say that I prefer that you didn't. But it's not the same as a preference for blondes over brunettes because the latter example requires no justification.

(13-12-2016 12:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
And thirdly, your underlying moral case here, regarding harm, requires others who subscribe to consequentialist moral outlook, which might be popular among secularist and liberals, but not necessarily everyone else, whose moral outlook might be less concerned about consequences, and more interested in intentions, character development, and values.

It doesn't have to be consequentialist... it could be Buddhist or Imperialist or Marxist or Utilitarian etc. so yes, I agree.

That's trivially true. And?

Girl_nails

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: