Objective vs Subjective Morality

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Judaka » January 26th, 2018, 9:21 pm

Think about this for a moment. If language were epistemically subjective, how could there be such a thing as English class? How could there by syntax if language were mere opinion or whim? There is varying degrees of epistemic objectivity depending on what is being considered. When you get into the philosophy of language there is a deep logical structure to language which is not epistemically subjective.
I don't agree with your characterisation of epistemically subjective but ultimately I will say again that while I do not understand these terms perfectly, I do reject their usefulness to some extent. What objective and subjective meant to me, had real meaning and doesn't appear to be represented by these terms which focus on human experience, so I am not arguing that these terms make complete sense.

Language class just demonstrates that there are things we need to remember, words, grammar and such. There are many examples of needing to learn things yet still just opinion, I play a lot of competitive games online and I could easily teach you my strategies and tactics in these games - which could take months for you to understand and there would be a lot to learn. However these are my strategies and my tactics, many very good players would disagree with my strategies and tactics. What makes it subjective despite being at times valid and effective is that some of my strategies are based on my ideals, my preferences, my skill set and so on, but they're still coherent, well-reasoned, logical, created for a function and they're just like someone would talk about a language as being. You talk like epistemically subjective means it's an opinion unique to you that can't be taught to others, this isn't what it means for something to be subjective.

Language doesn't actually exist and it can be interpreted, contested and it's not objectively valid, there's no way it's objectively true. Not to mention that the connotations of language evolve over time, we see that the U.N doesn't even want to define terrorism because how the word is defined matters to a lot of countries. Is it a liberation movement of a terrorist group - that's too much power for a dictionary to decide. It is a definition which is contested because people know the power of the words and they know words need to be interpreted and implemented - all of which occurs subjectively.
While I think you may be correct, could you please provide several examples of each? Where would you place social institutions?
In the past, I defined objective existence and subjective existence like this, something which exists objectively has a causal relationship with the universe/other objectively existing things and subjective existence was characterised by no causal relationships. Ontologically objective is what I would actually define as objective existence so following that logic, a social institution exists objectively and so it would be ontologically objective.
Could you please elaborate on what each of these means? In particular, what is logic espoused from objective validity? I’m not clear what sense of the term objectivity is being used here. Since you are trying to define a sense of objectivity, it would be best to not use objective in the definition, no?

Objective validity means that the premise necessarily leads to the conclusion. So "mortal men will die" and "an infinite resource cannot be exhausted" are examples of objective validity. This may not represent the reality which is why objectively valid statements are not necessarily objectively true statements. I did talk about this in my OP and it has occured to me that you may be using epistemically objective to mean objectively valid - from the (mostly baseless) assertion that well-being has intrinsic value and the theory of reducing uneasiness.

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

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 26th, 2018, 9:49 pm

Judaka,

Thanks for your response; it is very helpful. I am going to focus in on two parts that I feel are very important since it is getting at fundamental concerns of ontology, causation, and epistemology. I like conversations like this because I often feel that when people talk past each other, it is a result of more fundamental underlying stances, whether implicit or explicit.
Judaka wrote:
January 26th, 2018, 9:21 pm
In the past, I defined objective existence and subjective existence like this, something which exists objectively has a causal relationship with the universe/other objectively existing things and subjective existence was characterised by no causal relationships. Ontologically objective is what I would actually define as objective existence so following that logic, a social institution exists objectively and so it would be ontologically objective.
Why would subjective existence be characterized by no causal relationships? I think that subjective existence certainly interacts with the ontologically objective in a causal manner.
Judaka wrote:
January 26th, 2018, 9:21 pm
Objective validity means that the premise necessarily leads to the conclusion. So "mortal men will die" and "an infinite resource cannot be exhausted" are examples of objective validity. This may not represent the reality which is why objectively valid statements are not necessarily objectively true statements. I did talk about this in my OP and it has occured to me that you may be using epistemically objective to mean objectively valid - from the (mostly baseless) assertion that well-being has intrinsic value and the theory of reducing uneasiness.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that an objective morality would require conclusions which necessarily follow from the premise, or in other words logical truth. Am I understanding correctly?

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Judaka » January 26th, 2018, 10:45 pm

Why would subjective existence be characterized by no causal relationships? I think that subjective existence certainly interacts with the ontologically objective in a causal manner.
This mostly comes back to the distinction between our experience of something like a value and the actual value itself. Also existence does not necessarily reflect accuracy, an example: in an instance where my hallucination (which is real) imagines something which is not real. So opinions, experiences, thoughts - I consider all of these things to objectively exist. Whereas abstract concepts do not. Causal relationships indicate existence within the physical world - which means it exists objectively - it can't simultaneously be an subjective, abstract concept while also doing that.

Experiences the way we experience them objectively exist, it is a real thing that occurred to us but it cannot be understood intersubjectively. I've always defined objective and subjective conceptually and not by our abilities to communicate information - language is relative but concepts shouldn't be.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that an objective morality would require conclusions which necessarily follow from the premise, or in other words logical truth. Am I understanding correctly?
All which is objectively true is also objectively valid however objective validity is not the prerequisite to objective morality, objective truth is. As I said in my OP, subjective morality can have objective validity and so demonstrating objective validity isn't an argument for objective morality.

A statement which is objectively true has to be objectively valid, since it means the premise actually did lead to the conclusion, so it must necessarily lead to it.

So yes, objective morality requires both but really since objective truth leads to objective validity, there's no point in looking for or demonstrating objective validity by itself, which is what I think you are doing.

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

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 26th, 2018, 10:56 pm

Judaka wrote:
January 26th, 2018, 10:45 pm
This mostly comes back to the distinction between our experience of something like a value and the actual value itself. Also existence does not necessarily reflect accuracy, an example: in an instance where my hallucination (which is real) imagines something which is not real. So opinions, experiences, thoughts - I consider all of these things to objectively exist. Whereas abstract concepts do not. Causal relationships indicate existence within the physical world - which means it exists objectively - it can't simultaneously be an subjective, abstract concept while also doing that.

Experiences the way we experience them objectively exist, it is a real thing that occurred to us but it cannot be understood intersubjectively. I've always defined objective and subjective conceptually and not by our abilities to communicate information - language is relative but concepts shouldn't be.
I'm not quite sure I follow on this. It seems you are saying that thoughts have objective ontological existence and because of this they can be causal in the physical world?
Judaka wrote:
January 26th, 2018, 10:45 pm
All which is objectively true is also objectively valid however objective validity is not the prerequisite to objective morality, objective truth is. As I said in my OP, subjective morality can have objective validity and so demonstrating objective validity isn't an argument for objective morality.

A statement which is objectively true has to be objectively valid, since it means the premise actually did lead to the conclusion, so it must necessarily lead to it.

So yes, objective morality requires both but really since objective truth leads to objective validity, there's no point in looking for or demonstrating objective validity by itself, which is what I think you are doing.
So if objective morality must be based on logical truths, then what is the epistemic status of physics since it is not based on logical truths? Is physics not objectively valid or true?

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Judaka » January 27th, 2018, 12:42 am

I'm not quite sure I follow on this. It seems you are saying that thoughts have objective ontological existence and because of this they can be causal in the physical world?
So if one may forced themselves to think about their recently deceased grandmother, which would cause them to feel sad. So all of the hormonal, brain activity, facial expressions and so on that is associated with sadness is part of the physical world, so I would argue this is the causal relationship. I am not an expert on biology so there may be a step in between that I am missing but it seems like a pretty obvious causation to me.
So if objective morality must be based on logical truths, then what is the epistemic status of physics since it is not based on logical truths? Is physics not objectively valid or true?
Objective morality isn't based on logical truths, it is itself an objective truth. I base my subjective moral claims on logical truths all the time. That's pretty much what I'm trying to explain to you. It makes the claim at best, objectively valid like "if you want x then you need to do y" and x is a moral imperative then as long as there's a direct causal link you've just made a valid argument. Naturally arguments can be subjective and objectively valid but both are included in subjective morality. I don't understand much about physics so if have a point to make that hasn't been answered above then you'll need to elaborate.

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

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 27th, 2018, 12:51 am

Judaka wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 12:42 am
Objective morality isn't based on logical truths, it is itself an objective truth. I base my subjective moral claims on logical truths all the time. That's pretty much what I'm trying to explain to you. It makes the claim at best, objectively valid like "if you want x then you need to do y" and x is a moral imperative then as long as there's a direct causal link you've just made a valid argument. Naturally arguments can be subjective and objectively valid but both are included in subjective morality. I don't understand much about physics so if have a point to make that hasn't been answered above then you'll need to elaborate.
I don't understand the first sentence here. Would would an objective truth that is not based on logic look like? What would its structure be?

Regarding physics, I am interested in what you think the epistemic status is of the evidence found in physics since it is not based on logic. It is certainly valid knowledge, so what is its status if is not a matter of logic?

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Judaka » January 27th, 2018, 1:45 am

I don't understand the first sentence here. Would would an objective truth that is not based on logic look like? What would its structure be?
All of which you described as ontological objectivity are objective truths not based on logic. Causal relationships are often not based on logic - a statement like "The Earth orbits around the sun" is not based on logic but observation of causation. There is a chance we are using alternative definitions of the word logic because it does have so many. Basically what I'm saying is that there's no underlying reason behind objective truths - most of them just are the way they are due to causation.
Regarding physics, I am interested in what you think the epistemic status is of the evidence found in physics since it is not based on logic. It is certainly valid knowledge, so what is its status if is not a matter of logic?
My view of physics is that it is a study of causation not logic. Logic as a tool to determine what is true and what isn't true but logic and reason are tools of intelligent beings trying to understand patterns and causation, causation operates regardless of what intelligent species think about it, it's an objective truth and that's what most sciences are about trying to uncover. People categorise things as logical truths but that's actually an expression of something being objectively valid.

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

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 27th, 2018, 1:54 am

Judaka wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 1:45 am
All of which you described as ontological objectivity are objective truths not based on logic. Causal relationships are often not based on logic - a statement like "The Earth orbits around the sun" is not based on logic but observation of causation. There is a chance we are using alternative definitions of the word logic because it does have so many. Basically what I'm saying is that there's no underlying reason behind objective truths - most of them just are the way they are due to causation.
So if we can discover the function of auxin in plants, in that it helps with survival by directing leaves toward the sun, is that an objective truth?
Judaka wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 1:45 am
My view of physics is that it is a study of causation not logic. Logic as a tool to determine what is true and what isn't true but logic and reason are tools of intelligent beings trying to understand patterns and causation, causation operates regardless of what intelligent species think about it, it's an objective truth and that's what most sciences are about trying to uncover. People categorise things as logical truths but that's actually an expression of something being objectively valid.
What is the epistemic difference between logical truths and the truths in physics?

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Judaka » January 27th, 2018, 2:17 am

So if we can discover the function of auxin in plants, in that it helps with survival by directing leaves toward the sun, is that an objective truth?
It's simple Frost, if it's an argument of causation then yes, if you're inferring the purpose of a causation without identifying that in the process then it's subjective. There are plenty of examples where people agree on causation but not on purpose but I would say there are examples where causation demonstrates the purpose - for example digestion. I am not really sure whether we can actually ever classify purpose as being objective and or not, if it were the latter then I suppose it's standards we've placed on to what degree we are ready to accept a process like digestion can be interpreted in some other way. I am a practical person and I don't really care about things unless I see a practical reason to do so, I am satisfied either way with calling digestion having evolved for the purpose of consumption of food.
What is the epistemic difference between logical truths and the truths in physics?
There should be none, the difference could only come from the applicability of the premises in reality but it may not be clear to us currently whether a logical truth is an objective truth even if it were.. Both logical truths and objective truths are objective valid. Though I am still not sure if we agree that epistemic objectivity is an expression of objective validity or not which would make epistemic subjectivity expressions of subjective validity. Having only really thought about these terms since you introduced me to them, I haven't got definitions I am comfortable with yet.

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

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 27th, 2018, 2:35 am

Judaka wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 2:17 am
It's simple Frost, if it's an argument of causation then yes, if you're inferring the purpose of a causation without identifying that in the process then it's subjective. There are plenty of examples where people agree on causation but not on purpose but I would say there are examples where causation demonstrates the purpose - for example digestion. I am not really sure whether we can actually ever classify purpose as being objective and or not, if it were the latter then I suppose it's standards we've placed on to what degree we are ready to accept a process like digestion can be interpreted in some other way. I am a practical person and I don't really care about things unless I see a practical reason to do so, I am satisfied either way with calling digestion having evolved for the purpose of consumption of food.
Whoah, hold up there. Why would you be okay with saying digestion evolved for the purpose of consuming food? That's a teleological explanation that was eliminated long ago with Darwin.

Why would the function of morality be different than other biological functions? We can study it in other animals and see that it serves this function.
Judaka wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 2:17 am
There should be none, the difference could only come from the applicability of the premises in reality but it may not be clear to us currently whether a logical truth is an objective truth even if it were.. Both logical truths and objective truths are objective valid. Though I am still not sure if we agree that epistemic objectivity is an expression of objective validity or not which would make epistemic subjectivity expressions of subjective validity. Having only really thought about these terms since you introduced me to them, I haven't got definitions I am comfortable with yet.
Why "should" there be none? What do you mean about applicability of premises? What would be the applicability of premises in physics?

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Judaka » January 27th, 2018, 3:05 am

Whoah, hold up there. Why would you be okay with saying digestion evolved for the purpose of consuming food? That's a teleological explanation that was eliminated long ago with Darwin.
Haha was it? Well I didn't know that but I'm not surprised because I had my doubts.
Why would the function of morality be different than other biological functions? We can study it in other animals and see that it serves this function
I suppose the difference between morality and other biological functions is that we have a choice.

For what you're describing to not be an appeal to nature, you need to believe that in causal terms, looking at morality that way, will give us the best results. Let's say your idea of the best results and my idea of the best results were the same - I would be arguing for the best result no matter what that was. However if I don't agree that this method gives the best results or I don't agree about what the best results would look like then I won't agree.

As I said earlier, if you want to have a debate about what the most efficient and precise method is then I think that would be an interesting discussion and something I've thought a lot about. However it's not objective morality you're describing and that's what this thread is about. There's a huge difference between the best method (causally) and the correct method (objective morality).

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

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 27th, 2018, 3:16 am

Judaka wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 3:05 am
Haha was it? Well I didn't know that but I'm not surprised because I had my doubts.


I suppose the difference between morality and other biological functions is that we have a choice.

For what you're describing to not be an appeal to nature, you need to believe that in causal terms, looking at morality that way, will give us the best results. Let's say your idea of the best results and my idea of the best results were the same - I would be arguing for the best result no matter what that was. However if I don't agree that this method gives the best results or I don't agree about what the best results would look like then I won't agree.

As I said earlier, if you want to have a debate about what the most efficient and precise method is then I think that would be an interesting discussion and something I've thought a lot about. However it's not objective morality you're describing and that's what this thread is about. There's a huge difference between the best method (causally) and the correct method (objective morality).
Having a choice doesn't change the fact that there is a function.

But again, what is the epistemic status of the knowledge of physics? It has no logical foundation but it is certainly valid knowledge.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Judaka » January 27th, 2018, 4:31 am

Having a choice doesn't change the fact that there is a function.
Firstly that wasn't the question you asked.

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: .

If what I said about having choices isn't enough, refer back to the comment I made previously:
As I asked earlier it would be less confusing if we could separate the biological function and our ability to understand it and implement strategies based on our understanding and the objective truthfulness of the claim when separated from its context. Epistemic Subjectivity is not necessarily a feelings based judgement, often times it's quite the opposite. Your epistemic subjectivity claims can have an epistemic objectivity basis, they can have evidence, logic, validity and be aimed at producing specific results.

Objective morality is the idea that moral distinctions are objectively correct, the basis for this cannot be teleological because those distinctions need to have intrinsic correctness to avoid being relative.

In your example you are using teleology as a subjective axiom, a knife that cannot cut is a "bad knife" is the result of this. If I were to value a knife based on my subjective axiom that beauty is all that matters and this knife is more beautiful than others by my standards, then this knife is a good knife. You may argue that it is impossible for humans to think in any other sense than a teleological sense, it doesn't matter. What matters is that functional exclusivity is not the prerequisite for objective correctness. Objective correctness can't be relative to the capabilities and limitations of humans - it has to be intrinsic.

It is my position that objective morality is an implausible concept, it doesn't make sense as a concept and only God, who breaks the rules of subjectivity can create a "coherent" argument for objective morality. He can make distinctions between behaviours and still be objective because *insert theist logic*. Ultimately I don't understand what it even means to be wrong about a distinction between behaviours. If you say "this rock exists" and I say "it doesn't" then each option is easy to understand. There is a rock to touch or there isn't, there is a rock which interacts the world or there isn't. However when you tell me "well being has intrinsic value" and I say "no it doesn't", from here I don't know what it means if you're right. Intrinsic means it is not based on causation - so it's not necessarily true that your view benefits you more than my view benefits me. I can hold my view forever, nothing will stop me. You'll never use that well-being's intrinsic value for anything - it may as well not exist.

It's a meaningless distinction you're making, one that can only serve to give authority in the eyes of some, to an idea which would otherwise in your view, be a mere opinion. I don't believe your opinion that well-being is important is a meaningless one - ideas can change the world, improve people's lives and so on. It is the highest form of distinction that exists and it's far more important than actual epistemic objectivity claims in determining how one should live. Making it exceedingly valuable and something we need to take good care of, morality being relative does not diminish its importance and it still has functions we would like for it to excel at. I take my morals and values very seriously and you would too.
This pretty much answers this line of thinking, deal with it before bringing up function or morality again.
But again, what is the epistemic status of the knowledge of physics? It has no logical foundation but it is certainly valid knowledge.
Excuse me? Didn't you just ask me this?:
I don't understand the first sentence here. Would would an objective truth that is not based on logic look like? What would its structure be?
I told you physics is the study of causation in the field of physics and that it doesn't need a logical foundation. So why are you telling me that valid knowledge exists without knowledge when that's my position and your position was that objective truth requires logic? Makes no sense at all.
Why "should" there be none? What do you mean about applicability of premises? What would be the applicability of premises in physics?
I'm not saying I'd prefer it if there wasn't any, I said that I'm not sure we agree on the definitions of epistemic objectivity/subjectivity but if you're happy with the definitions I gave then yes, there is no difference. Both logical truth and objective truth have objective validity.

What I mean by applicability is that the premise is correct in the real world. If the premise is false then it can't be an objectively true statement. However the conclusion could still have been correct if the premise were true which makes it a logical truth/objectively valid statement.

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

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Londoner » January 27th, 2018, 6:44 am

Frost wrote:
January 26th, 2018, 1:57 pm
In the first option, if you like chocolate the statement would be false, and if I like vanilla it would be true, which would make the statement both true and false. That’s an obvious contradiction.

The second option is changing the assertion.
Because the assertion is ambiguous. A contradiction only arises if you understand the assertion in two contradictory ways at once. As I explained.
The third option is not meaningless, but rather epistemically subjective.
Yes, again it may be either understood as subjective (adding 'epistemically' is unnecessary) or as about peopl'e's taste generally. In either case we can find out whether it is true or false by asking them; 'Do you agree vanilla always tastes better than chocolate?'

You, however, claimed that it is “an empirical observation, it may be either true or false.”
And it is. How else can we decide if we prefer chocolate, except by tasting it?
When you are aware of a pain, the awareness of is one of constitution. When you are aware of the mountain, the awareness of is of Intentionality.
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.
To this, you said that “So you say, but you need to explain how we could know this.” The existence of the mountain does not depend on your conscious awareness of it, while the existence of your headache does depend on your conscious awareness of it.
But you do not answer my question. How do you know of the existence of mountains except by being aware of them? Apart from them being objects in consciousness? As I wrote before, our consciousness of mountains may be different to our consciousness of pain, we posit that mountains exist even when we are not directly conscious of them through perception, but both are necessarily part of our own consciousness.

Once again, back to the topic:
Sorry. The “something” is simply a moral judgment....

It’s function is to promote the well-being of conscious organisms. This is a biological concept. You are welcome to have a different idea of function, but this is like saying you want to have a different idea of the function of auxin in plants. We discover biological functions, and morality is no different.


But if I said we humans must therefore never damage a plant because that would not promote its well-being, you would object that plants don't count because they are not conscious. So already you have moved from the facts of biology to a value judgement - the value judgement that the well-being of some organisms is more important than others.

So now it is about 'consciousness', and consciousness is not a chemical, it does not have a mechanical function. Suppose two beings with a consciousness have a different idea of their function? What biological fact might we 'discover' that can tell us whether a woman should support 'right to life' or 'right to choose'?
Rubbish. Praxeology is used to determine moral claims related to economics and has absolute epistemic objectivity. With claims along the lines of the promiscuity prior to marriage empirical methods must be used and has weak epistemic objectivity.
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.
With moral claims related to obligations, the logical structure of language is used to determine its status and has absolute epistemic objectivity.
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?
Mathematics was just a simple example of absolute epistemic objectivity. Verbal logic, as mentioned, falls into the category of absolute epistemic objectivity. Logical analysis of the structure of language can dictate the status of obligations, for example, and praxeology uses verbal logic to construct economic theory. For example, the claim that socialism is bad is absolute in its epistemic objectivity due to its basis in praxeological economic theory. There is no valid room for disagreement due to this epistemic status.
What do you mean by 'verbal logic'? If you mean reasoning that incorporates words, like 'chair' and 'socialism', then it is definitely not like either mathematics or formal logic. In maths, 1 + 1 = 2 is necessarily true, because the numbers are abstractions. If they stood for words, like 'an apple plus a tree' then it wouldn't be maths.

You cannot do a sum to show 'socialism is bad' because 'socialism' is not a number, and nor is 'bad'.

However, I am finally working out how you are using the word 'epistemic'; it is to establish a circularity.
For example, the claim that socialism is bad is absolute in its epistemic objectivity due to its basis in praxeological economic theory.There is no valid room for disagreement due to this epistemic status.
Means 'You must accept that what I assert is true because my arguments for it are true, so what I assert must be true knowledge'. And if you accept it is true knowledge you cannot disagree with it'.

That is just saying 'I am right so you must agree with me!', which is not an argument.

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

Re: Objective vs Subjective Morality

Post by Frost » January 27th, 2018, 12:03 pm

Londoner wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 6:44 am
Frost wrote:
January 26th, 2018, 1:57 pm
In the first option, if you like chocolate the statement would be false, and if I like vanilla it would be true, which would make the statement both true and false. That’s an obvious contradiction.

The second option is changing the assertion.
Because the assertion is ambiguous. A contradiction only arises if you understand the assertion in two contradictory ways at once. As I explained.
The third option is not meaningless, but rather epistemically subjective.
Yes, again it may be either understood as subjective (adding 'epistemically' is unnecessary) or as about peopl'e's taste generally. In either case we can find out whether it is true or false by asking them; 'Do you agree vanilla always tastes better than chocolate?'

You, however, claimed that it is “an empirical observation, it may be either true or false.”
And it is. How else can we decide if we prefer chocolate, except by tasting it?

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, 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.

Londoner wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 6:44 am
When you are aware of a pain, the awareness of is one of constitution. When you are aware of the mountain, the awareness of is of Intentionality.
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.
Londoner wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 6:44 am
But you do not answer my question. How do you know of the existence of mountains except by being aware of them? Apart from them being objects in consciousness? As I wrote before, our consciousness of mountains may be different to our consciousness of pain, we posit that mountains exist even when we are not directly conscious of them through perception, but both are necessarily part of our own consciousness.
You are conflating the possibility of mountains being dependent on experience with being dependent on Intentionality. If you really can't understand the difference between the mode of existence of a mountain and of a pain, I don't think there is much that I can do to help you there.
Londoner wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 6:44 am
But if I said we humans must therefore never damage a plant because that would not promote its well-being, you would object that plants don't count because they are not conscious. So already you have moved from the facts of biology to a value judgement - the value judgement that the well-being of some organisms is more important than others.

So now it is about 'consciousness', and consciousness is not a chemical, it does not have a mechanical function. Suppose two beings with a consciousness have a different idea of their function? What biological fact might we 'discover' that can tell us whether a woman should support 'right to life' or 'right to choose'?
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.
Londoner wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 6:44 am
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.
Londoner wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 6:44 am
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.

Post Reply