Objective vs Subjective Morality

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 510
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 27th, 2018, 12:11 pm

Judaka wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 4:31 am
I am starting to wonder what you think a function is, you speak of it like it's the thing you think has intrinsic value not general well-being. You think demonstrating morality has a function is end the of this disagreement? It's not even relevant :lol: .
Judaka,

I was beginning to enjoy our exchanges, but with comments like this and "Your epistemic subjectivity claims can have an epistemic objectivity basis" I start to feel like there is no point to continue this discussion. Since you told me to "deal with it before bringing up function or morality again" I suppose, I must admit, I am not interested in trying to explain these epistemological distinctions. I really cannot see how you can make such a blatantly contradictory statement and then demand that I deal with it before bringing up morality again.

Respectfully,
Frost

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Londoner » January 27th, 2018, 2:14 pm

Frost wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 12:03 pm

You keep trying to change the statement. The statement was that vanilla tastes better than chocolate. NOT x states that vanilla tastes better than chocolate,
Then who made the statement?
NOT x prefers vanilla over chocolate, or whatever permutation you want to attempt. You are attempting to alter the logical structure of the statement from an expressive illocutionary act to an assertive illocutionary act and then use that mistake to question the distinction I made for epistemic subjectivity.
It cannot be an expressive illocutionary act, because such acts are a response to a proposition, and we haven't had a proposition. An expressive illocutionary act would be if somebody had already said 'vanilla tastes better than chocolate' and then a second person responded 'terrific!' or 'yuk' i.e. indicated their emotional state towards the proposition.

But any tenuous connection this exchange might have once had to the OP has long been lost.
Me: No, I have never been 'aware of intentionality'. What does intentionality look like? What does it weigh?

'Intentionality' is not what you think. One can have 'intentionality' towards God and love and pain as well as mountains
.

Are you kidding me? Read up on Intentionality before asking such nonsensical questions. You will need to understand Intentionality to understand this distinction.
Anyone who is interested in the term can Google it and make up their own minds.

I think you are going to start using 'intentionality' in the same way as 'epistemically' and 'praxeology' , as though it is an answer rather than the name of a type of problem.

It is as if somebody submitted a question about a work of art and I justified my own opinion by declaring it was 'aesthetic'.

Back to the topic:
Well that was a non sequitur. Consciousness I guess has no biological function because it's not a chemical. Nevermind the fact that it is a biological phenomena that evolved. It evolved but it has no function! Amazing. Sounds like magic to me.
Did I actually say that? Are you quoting me? No! It is not a good sign when you need to start re-writing the other persons posts in order to make your point.

1) You say human consciousness is a biological function. The leaves of plants also have a biological function. Both 'biological functions'. So, if you treat humans differently from plants, it cannot be because consciousness is a biological function. It is saying 'some biological functions are more equal than others' which is a value judgement.
2) Human consciousness does not have a specific function. To say 'X is conscious' does not mean 'X should not be having so much sex'. because X's consciousness might be telling them the exact opposite.
Me: Praxeology studies purposeful behaviour. It does not tell us what that purpose should be. It does not tell us we should not have too much sex.
Who said that? Praxeology is a logical analysis. The teleology of biological function provides the basis for epistemically valid moral judgments.
That some young women have too much sex is one of the only two examples of moral judgments you have mentioned so far.

What is the 'biological function' of young women? Suppose they decide they would rather have a different function to the one you think they ought to have?
Me: Normal languages do not have a logical structure. Even if they did, why would we be bound to behave in a particular way just because that was the way our language was constructed?

Wow. I don't even know what to say to this. You need to learn some basic philosophy of language. Add that to the list of basic epistemology and Intentionality. I'm not going to hold your hand and try to walk you through all these. I'm starting to see that there is no point in attempting to explain an epistemically objective morality when you don't have the basic philosophical foundation necessary for the discussion.
Ah, the 'argument from authority'!

Except the reason you need to keep throwing in all these words is that you are bluffing, whereas I really have studied the philosophy of language. Through Frege and Russell and Wittgenstein and the rest there have been attempts to reconcile language to logic, or construct a 'logical language'. There are many problems, not least in that words to not refer in a simple way. In logic, we can clearly distinguish terms like 'X' which have a simple T/F value, from the relationships like 'and', 'or' etc. which connect them. We cannot do that even with simple names.

And again, you dodge the point. Let us say that the structure of language was logical in the same way as a piece of formal logic is logical. What on earth would that have to do with ethics? However closely I analyse the syntax of the sentence 'Don't have sex before marriage' that would not tell me 'logically' it is moral to be celibate.

Judaka
Posts: 233
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Judaka » January 27th, 2018, 6:53 pm

I was beginning to enjoy our exchanges, but with comments like this and "Your epistemic subjectivity claims can have an epistemic objectivity basis" I start to feel like there is no point to continue this discussion. Since you told me to "deal with it before bringing up function or morality again" I suppose, I must admit, I am not interested in trying to explain these epistemological distinctions. I really cannot see how you can make such a blatantly contradictory statement and then demand that I deal with it before bringing up morality again.
There is just no argument you have regarding this topic, always hiding behind your definitions and forcing me to explain simple things over and over again. Epistemic subjectivity claims such as a one's interpretation or method of implementation are necessarily based on things we agree exist. It's the thing in between science and what people like Hitler did with science which does not seem to be accounted for whatsoever within your definitions and it's the answer to why you have such a low opinion of epistemic subjectivity as simple taste preferences between vanilla and chocolate. If epistemic subjectivity is the idea that the premise (vanilla tastes better than chocolate) is subjectively valid (is correct to me) and epistemic objectivity is the premise (mortal men will die) and it is objectively valid (the premise necessarily leads to the conclusion irrelevant of opinion) then you can absolutely have epistemic subjectivity claims which have an epistemic objectivity basis.

Every strong argument I've heard from you in this thread has been about these definitions, you haven't made a big effort to really explain them and while you accepted some of my definitions, you repeatedly ignored my attempts to define epistemic objectivity and epistemic subjectivity. You "emphatically" stated that language cannot be epistemically subjective and consequently ignored my counterarguments as well. You are happy to tell me when I'm getting it wrong but you aren't really helping to clarify anything - which is odd considering how essential you think your terms are to this debate.

You told me you were enjoying our chat because you felt we weren't talking past each other, I'm glad you felt that way but I haven't. I feel you've ignored most of what I've had to say and when things get difficult, hiding behind your definitions again. From arguments against general well-being, to functions, to sciences being studies of causation rather than logic, from teleology requiring axioms to subjective morality already utilising objective validity. Now once again, the importance of definitions, interpretations and the necessary but subjective choices in implementation in both your general philosophy and in general.You've ignored it all.

Your entire philosophy doesn't even say anything Frost, you allow me to interpret and rationalise about general well-being how I want - you don't think that has any meaning or power? The problem with your definitions comes again and again, no understanding of the power and authority of epistemic subjectivity claims, they operate an entire space of their own which is entirely detached from epistemic or ontological objectivity. The whole world is filled with divisions due to them and it's not "oh you like vanilla? Hehe, well I just loooove chocolate!".

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Namelesss » January 30th, 2018, 12:13 am

Judaka wrote:
January 20th, 2018, 4:29 am
My definition of objective morality:
Objective morality = absolute morality = "Absolute morality leads logically to absolute intolerance.
-Michael Shermer (The Science of Good and Evil)"!
Thank goodness that it doesn't exist outside the self-justifying ego of the sinful; "But everyone is doing it, mom!!!!"
The definitions of value, as being something which is determined by how people feel about it, preclude the possibility for an objectively good value.
ALL 'value' exists in the thoughts/ego of the judgmental, vain, beholder!
There is not anything that is 'objectively' anything, especially 'good/evil'!
When there is 'evil/bad' in the thoughts/ego of the observer, he will see it reflected back from everywhere he looks.
(Likewise Love!)
No it is not 'out there' somewhere.
And, if I played that foolish game of objective vs subjective, such judgmentalism is all ego, ALL subjective!
Even modern science has found that each and every observer is uniquely One with the observed!

User avatar
Frost
Posts: 510
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 30th, 2018, 1:06 am

Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 12:13 am
There is not anything that is 'objectively' anything
So 1 + 1 = 2 is not epistemically objective?
Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 12:13 am
And, if I played that foolish game of objective vs subjective, such judgmentalism is all ego, ALL subjective!
It's just matter of opinion that stabbing someone is harmful to their well-being?
Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 12:13 am
Even modern science has found that each and every observer is uniquely One with the observed!
And yet they discover epistemically objective facts all the time.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Namelesss » January 30th, 2018, 10:26 pm

Frost wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 1:06 am
Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 12:13 am
There is not anything that is 'objectively' anything
So 1 + 1 = 2 is not epistemically objective?
No. 1+1=2 ONLY under certain local conditions, such as it must be in a base ten format. There are others, also.
Even in a base ten system, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2. There must be local rules to justify your '2'.
It it is not Universal Law, it is 'subjective'. Not anything exists that is not 'subjectively perceived', uniquely, by any and all observers.
And the observer has been shown to be a unique feature of the observed.
The 'objective' (transcendental, Universal, unconditional, contextless...) cannot be known other than by subjective, unique, percepts (unit of perception. See; Planck moment) of momentarily unique features of Reality/Self.
Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 12:13 am
And, if I played that foolish game of objective vs subjective, such judgmentalism is all ego, ALL subjective!
It's just matter of opinion that stabbing someone is harmful to their well-being?
It is just a matter of judgmental opinion that stabbing someone is 'evil/bad/wrong...'!
Damn few ever walk around concerned with the 'well being' of others!
I can bounce that question right back in the form of;
Had someone stabbed Hitler @ 5 years old, is that harmful to their well being? To the well being of humanity of which he was an integral feature?
Perhaps someone would be well being 'better off' dead?
What about all of God's mighty left arms smacking down the scum of the human gene pool? All mighty left arms are God's! Who are we to judge about well being for others; we don't even know what is best for ourselves!?
Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 12:13 am
Even modern science has found that each and every observer is uniquely One with the observed!
And yet they discover epistemically objective facts all the time.
You err. Science does not find 'facts', science forms theories, tentative theories! Often these theories change, quite regularly.
'Facts' are the same as 'beliefs', neither science or philosophy deal in (emotionally held) 'facts'.

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216551?from=rss

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy
əˌpistəˈmäləjē/
nounPhilosophy
noun: epistemology

the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.


Knowledge = experience!
Everything exists!
Everything is Reality/Truth!
The end of the forever unanswered question of 'epistemology'.
Moving on...

User avatar
Jbnomadicus
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: July 27th, 2017, 12:11 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Jbnomadicus » January 30th, 2018, 11:48 pm

The very phrase "objective morality" seems to me a contradiction in terms. As I see it, objectivity relates only to what is, not what ought to be, which is the realm of ethics. The notion of objective morality may arise from a lack of commensurability between epistemological and ethical arguments.

User avatar
Frost
Posts: 510
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 31st, 2018, 12:06 am

Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 10:26 pm
No. 1+1=2 ONLY under certain local conditions, such as it must be in a base ten format. There are others, also.
Even in a base ten system, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2. There must be local rules to justify your '2'.
It it is not Universal Law, it is 'subjective'. Not anything exists that is not 'subjectively perceived', uniquely, by any and all observers.
Then stipulate the proper conditions under which 1 + 1 = 2. In such a case it is epistemically objective. In a basic arithmetic class, it is not up to the opinion of the student what 1 + 1 equals. You're conflating the epistemic status with the fact that conscious experience is necessary for semantic understanding. The claim that mathematics is epistemically subjective is just complete and utter nonsense. This really might be the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard in my life.

Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 10:26 pm
It is just a matter of judgmental opinion that stabbing someone is 'evil/bad/wrong...'!
Damn few ever walk around concerned with the 'well being' of others!
I can bounce that question right back in the form of;
Had someone stabbed Hitler @ 5 years old, is that harmful to their well being? To the well being of humanity of which he was an integral feature?
Perhaps someone would be well being 'better off' dead?
What about all of God's mighty left arms smacking down the scum of the human gene pool? All mighty left arms are God's! Who are we to judge about well being for others; we don't even know what is best for ourselves!?
We can discover biological functions and it is clear from other species that the function of morality is well-being which is a matter of homeostasis. Man is no different. Whether or not people explicitly care is irrelevant to that biological function. The function of the heart is to pump blood whether or not you care or even know about it. The function of social cooperation is the increased efficiency of work whether you know or care about it.

It is not a mere matter of preference that stabbing an innocent person is bad when this function is known. I don't know why I keep getting the repetitive nonsense where I ask about the badness of a random unprovoked murder and the question keeps being dodged by asking something inane like "well would it be bad to kill Hitler?" I never ask that question.

Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 10:26 pm
You err. Science does not find 'facts', science forms theories, tentative theories! Often these theories change, quite regularly.
'Facts' are the same as 'beliefs', neither science or philosophy deal in (emotionally held) 'facts'.
So that an ordinary falling body in a vacuum on earth is described by d = (1/2)gt^2 is just a "belief," huh? That is not a "tentative theory" or mere "belief." You're confusing the problem of induction with respect to universal propositions of theories and the facts that are discovered within the theory. Quantum mechanics and general relativity did not falsify d = (1/2)gt^2 in the context provided. Are you telling me that scientists may find out that the earth really is flat or that the earth really doesn't revolve around the sun? I guess these aren't "facts" but just "beliefs"! Complete nonsense.
Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 10:26 pm
"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216551?from=rss
Guess what! Seeing something and imagining something activates the same areas of the brain, so I guess in real life you really can't be seeing anything! Completely irrelevant to the epistemic status of a claim.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Namelesss » January 31st, 2018, 2:19 am

Frost wrote:
January 31st, 2018, 12:06 am
Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 10:26 pm
No. 1+1=2 ONLY under certain local conditions, such as it must be in a base ten format. There are others, also.
Even in a base ten system, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2. There must be local rules to justify your '2'.
It it is not Universal Law, it is 'subjective'. Not anything exists that is not 'subjectively perceived', uniquely, by any and all observers.
Then stipulate the proper conditions under which 1 + 1 = 2. In such a case it is epistemically objective.

The question is whether there is any difference between 'objective' and 'subjective'.
Adding multi-syllabic smoke-screen qualifiers ('epistemically') is unnecessary and disingenuous.
In a basic arithmetic class, it is not up to the opinion of the student what 1 + 1 equals.

In class, the student is not allowed to think for himself and question. Your basic class is meaningless here. I learned much crap in any and all classes. If one cannot think for himself, he remains 'filled with crap'.
...I don't know why I keep getting the repetitive nonsense where I ask about the badness of a random unprovoked murder and the question keeps being dodged by asking something inane like "well would it be bad to kill Hitler?" I never ask that question.
Perhaps because you cannot honestly answer it?
There can be no 'badness' in anything other than in your own judgmental thoughts/ego.
Namelesss wrote:
January 30th, 2018, 10:26 pm
You err. Science does not find 'facts', science forms theories, tentative theories! Often these theories change, quite regularly.
'Facts' are the same as 'beliefs', neither science or philosophy deal in (emotionally held) 'facts'.
So that an ordinary falling body in a vacuum on earth is described by d = (1/2)gt^2 is just a "belief," huh?

No, dear, it's a theory. Tentative theory. Look up 'theory'.
It might describe a 'falling body' (as if), but only at the moment measured. It does not automatically cover all moments and conditions. Hence, tentative.
That is not a "tentative theory" or mere "belief."

All theories are tentative. And your 'facts' are no more than 'beliefs'.
You merely demonstrate the ability to find equations and such to toss at me while demonstrating not the least basic understanding of science.
Like a good student.

User avatar
Frost
Posts: 510
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 31st, 2018, 11:03 am

Namelesss wrote:
January 31st, 2018, 2:19 am
The question is whether there is any difference between 'objective' and 'subjective'.
Adding multi-syllabic smoke-screen qualifiers ('epistemically') is unnecessary and disingenuous.

In class, the student is not allowed to think for himself and question. Your basic class is meaningless here. I learned much crap in any and all classes. If one cannot think for himself, he remains 'filled with crap'.
The qualifier "epistemically" is necessary so that you can stop committing a fallacy of ambiguity of the term 'objective.'

So if the kid would think for himself then 1 + 1 would not equal 2? You're outdoing your own nonsense.
Namelesss wrote:
January 31st, 2018, 2:19 am
Perhaps because you cannot honestly answer it?
There can be no 'badness' in anything other than in your own judgmental thoughts/ego.
No, it's changing the damned question.


Namelesss wrote:
January 31st, 2018, 2:19 am
No, dear, it's a theory. Tentative theory. Look up 'theory'.
It might describe a 'falling body' (as if), but only at the moment measured. It does not automatically cover all moments and conditions. Hence, tentative.
What did I just say about conflating individual observations and the problem of induction and universal statements? Did you even read what I said?
Namelesss wrote:
January 31st, 2018, 2:19 am
All theories are tentative. And your 'facts' are no more than 'beliefs'.
You merely demonstrate the ability to find equations and such to toss at me while demonstrating not the least basic understanding of science.
Like a good student.
Yeah, so we sent a man to the moon on mere BELIEFS. How stupid can you get?

Post Reply