Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

[GE Morton]

Really? "The sky is blue" is a true empirical statement (it is true at the moment, where I am). Upon what subjective criteria does that statement depend? How about, "Paris is the capital of France?"

The sky is blue is a subjective evaluation.

That doesn't answer the question. Upon what subjective criteria does that statement depend?

Paris is the capital of France is true only within the frame of consensus or dictakt in France and among nations, historically and ongoing.

You're offering conditions which must be satisfied in order for a city to become a capital. They don't bear on whether a city is a capital. It is the capital if it is the place where most government departments have their main offices, where the Assembly sits, where the top government officials reside, etc., which are empirical questions.

What must happen for a tree to grow 10 meters tall has no bearing on whether the tree is 10 meters tall. We can know the tree is 10 meters tall without knowing anything about how it got that tall.

Nor does your answer state what subjective criteria are involved in that statement.

You seem to be saying that many propositions are true only within a certain context. That is true, but that doesn't make them subjective; it only makes them context-dependent.

This argument really depends upon the definitions of "objective" and subjective" you are assuming. Can you spell those out?

[Belindi]

The sky is blue is a subjective evaluation.

That doesn't answer the question. Upon what subjective criteria does that statement depend?

At your age you are expected to think this out for yourself.

Paris is the capital of France is true only within the frame of consensus or dictakt in France and among nations, historically and ongoing.

You're offering conditions which must be satisfied in order for a city to become a capital. They don't bear on whether a city is a capital. It is the capital if it is the place where most government departments have their main offices, where the Assembly sits, where the top government officials reside, etc., which are empirical questions.

It's better to learn from other's ideas than to clutch at straws.

What must happen for a tree to grow 10 meters tall has no bearing on whether the tree is 10 meters tall. We can know the tree is 10 meters tall without knowing anything about how it got that tall.

So you don't know what history means. That is a pity but I am not here to teach slow learners.

Nor does your answer state what subjective criteria are involved in that statement.

You seem to be saying that many propositions are true only within a certain context. That is true, but that doesn't make them subjective; it only makes them context-dependent.

The context is social reality, except when it's a particular and specific universe of discourse, such as botany, or arboriculture, in the case of trees.

This argument really depends upon the definitions of "objective" and subjective" you are assuming. Can you spell those out?

You do it .

[GE Morton]

At your age you are expected to think this out for yourself.

It's better to learn from other's ideas than to clutch at straws.

So you don't know what history means. That is a pity but I am not here to teach slow learners.

Evasions and ad hominems? I expected better from you.

This argument really depends upon the definitions of "objective" and subjective" you are assuming. Can you spell those out?

You do it .

I've given my definitions, several times. I obviously can't give yours, and, apparently, neither can you.

[Belindi]

Evasions and ad hominems? I expected better from you.

Thanks GE Morton. However I am not your instructor and you should understand common ideas . I suspect you can but prefer to be cantankerous.

[GE Morton]

However I am not your instructor and you should understand common ideas.

Your ideas of the meanings of "objective" and "subjective" --- to the extent I can make them out --- are hardly common. They seem to be underlain or infused with various metaphysical/epistemological assumptions, probably derived from Heidegger and his followers, which are incoherent and nonsensical. In any case, they are certainly not the meanings found in common dictionaries.

So if you want to use them in that way you'd be well advised to examine the assumptions upon which they rest --- which I suspect you're not willing to do, because much of the rest of your weltanschauung depends upon them, and you are loathe to subject that to scrutiny.

Of course, I'm only guessing as to those meanings, and if you're unwilling to spell them out, this discussion is idle. Arguments cannot be resolved, or fruitful, without agreement on terminology.

[Sy Borg]

Okay, I'll answer your silly question. Why can't we each experience all of the universe?

Well, first that was not my question. You have a bad habit of re-writing or "re-interpreting" questions asked of you, or statements you are challenging, and evading the actual question or statement. My question was, How do you know of this "reality" which you claim is beyond experience? Which you still have not answered.

You asked me what in the universe is unknowable and I said "most of it" and you disputed it. So I replied.

I did not re-write it, I have been clarifying your misinterpretation. Since you cannot know everything about anything, and everything is related, then you are left with relativities. No escape.

As you say, you can gain other people's opinions, but they have the same limitations. So you have a situation of the blind asking the blind for directions and, because they corroborate, they assume they are correct.

[GE Morton]

Well, first that was not my question. You have a bad habit of re-writing or "re-interpreting" questions asked of you, or statements you are challenging, and evading the actual question or statement. My question was, How do you know of this "reality" which you claim is beyond experience? Which you still have not answered.

You asked me what in the universe is unknowable and I said "most of it" and you disputed it. So I replied.

No, Greta. That is NOT what I asked. Here is what I asked:

Greta: "Most of the universe is a reality can't be experienced."

Me: "Then how can you possibly know of its existence? What is the basis for that claim?"

In a previous post you wrote, "In broader reality, beyond just the human, for those who prefer to think philosophically than obediently following partisan lines, actual reality is obviously only accessible to us as a filtered interpretation, not in its entirety."

One may ask the same question with regard to that one, to wit, "How do you know of this 'actual reality,' if it is 'beyond the human,' beyond experience?"

I did not re-write it, I have been clarifying your misinterpretation.

I'm sure any reader will be able to see that you DID re-write it. I did NOT ask, "What in the universe is unknowable?" I asked, "How do you know of this 'reality' which cannot be experienced?" The only misinterpretation here is yours.

An answer to the actual question asked would be appreciated.

As you say, you can gain other people's opinions, but they have the same limitations. So you have a situation of the blind asking the blind for directions and, because they corroborate, they assume they are correct.

Well, you're right on that point, in a sense. Everyone's knowledge is limited by what can be experienced. But if we're all "blind," I wonder if, or how, we can claim to know anything, or what you would count as "sighted."

[Belindi]

However I am not your instructor and you should understand common ideas.

Your ideas of the meanings of "objective" and "subjective" --- to the extent I can make them out --- are hardly common. They seem to be underlain or infused with various metaphysical/epistemological assumptions, probably derived from Heidegger and his followers, which are incoherent and nonsensical. In any case, they are certainly not the meanings found in common dictionaries.

So if you want to use them in that way you'd be well advised to examine the assumptions upon which they rest --- which I suspect you're not willing to do, because much of the rest of your weltanschauung depends upon them, and you are loathe to subject that to scrutiny.

Of course, I'm only guessing as to those meanings, and if you're unwilling to spell them out, this discussion is idle. Arguments cannot be resolved, or fruitful, without agreement on terminology.

Okay then I will, as well as I can but I can't promise anything great. My notion of 'subjective' is it's 1. a fact of life 2. Without subjective perspectives intelligent living things could not learn and evolve individually and culturally. 3.Subjectivity is probably a fact that all intelligent living things default to, while objectivity is a goal peculiar to scientists and suchlike , sceptical attitude helps objectivity. 4. I should not conflate objective and absolute.

I can't say anything about Heidegger as I don't understand him.


You?

[GE Morton]

My notion of 'subjective' is it's 1. a fact of life 2. Without subjective perspectives intelligent living things could not learn and evolve individually and culturally. 3.Subjectivity is probably a fact that all intelligent living things default to, while objectivity is a goal peculiar to scientists and suchlike , sceptical attitude helps objectivity. 4. I should not conflate objective and absolute.

Well, those (ostensible) facts about subjectivity are not definitions of "subjective." A definition of a term tells us what the term denotes, with sufficient clarity and precision to allow us to recognize instances of it when encountered. Without a definition we can't tell whether any of your 4 propositions are true or not.

Here are the relevant dictionary definitions:

OBJECTIVE: 1b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

SUBJECTIVE: 3a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

If we assume the dictionary definition of "subjective" then your proposition 2 is surely false. Learning presupposes that there is something to learn that is independent of our own minds, something that is "perceptible by all observers," per the definition of "objective."

[Belindi]

GEM, I note your dictionary references.

[Felix]

GE Morton said: Learning presupposes that there is something to learn that is independent of our own minds, something that is "perceptible by all observers," per the definition of "objective."

You've torpedoed your own argument because moral precepts obviously do not have "reality independent of the mind."

[GE Morton]

GE Morton said: Learning presupposes that there is something to learn that is independent of our own minds, something that is "perceptible by all observers," per the definition of "objective."

You've torpedoed your own argument because moral precepts obviously do not have "reality independent of the mind."

Obviously they do. That Alfie stole Bruno's car or broke his arm are objective facts, verifiable by all observers. That those acts harmed Bruno are also objective facts, verifiable by all observers. If one agrees that an aim of moral rules is to prevent or minimize harms to moral agents, then "Alfie ought not steal Bruno's car or break his arm" is a prima facie prescriptive truth, also verifiable by all observers. It follows directly from the stated aim.

[Felix]

"Reality independent of the mind" refers to objective truths such as mathematical equations, not to relative facts that are dependent upon public consensus and subjective evidence such as what is or not considered moral or whether someone committed a crime.

GE Morton: That those acts harmed Bruno are also objective facts, verifiable by all observers.

Yes, I understand that you believe public consensus should rule whether or not Bruno was harmed, his opinion on the matter is irrelevant, and you call this "objective" knowledge.

[Belindi]

GE Morton wrote:

Obviously they do. That Alfie stole Bruno's car or broke his arm are objective facts, verifiable by all observers. That those acts harmed Bruno are also objective facts,

Or not. As a matter of fact Alfie was the unwitting victim of an evil witch who had caused a mischievous spirit to control Alfie. It was the witch who stole Bruno's car and broke his arm.

That those acts harmed Bruno are objective is only a 'fact' because the circumstances are so few when getting his car stolen and his arm broken would be to his benefit. Let us not confuse probability with possibility.

[GE Morton]

"Reality independent of the mind" refers to objective truths such as mathematical equations . . .

No, it does not. It refers to states of affairs--- "sensible experience" --- perceptible by all observers, as the definition states. You're substituting your own definition for the one given.

. . . not to relative facts that are dependent upon public consensus and subjective evidence such as what is or not considered moral or whether someone committed a crime.

Neither of the facts I cited depend upon any consensus, other than a consensus on the meanings of the words involved. It is stipulated that the crime occurred and that harm resulted, i.e., that the evidence for them is conclusive and incontrovertible.

Yes, I understand that you believe public consensus should rule whether or not Bruno was harmed, his opinion on the matter is irrelevant, and you call this "objective" knowledge.

There is no consensus involved there. If Bruno's welfare was reduced by Alfie's acts, he was harmed, by definition. And Bruno's opinion is indeed relevant. If he says Alfie's act did not reduce his welfare, then it didn't. He may forgive the theft (it was still a theft, by definition). But since we know Bruno invested time, money, effort to acquire the car we can assume it did contribute to his welfare, until he tells us otherwise.