Hold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
Is morality objective or subjective?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence. You can't say that "the car is running" weighs so many pounds, or travels at such and such speed. This state of affairs is in a sense like your consciousness. Physical processes occur in your brain as you are having a certain thought, but the thought itself is not a physical component, but something else.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pmHold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
When you put your thoughts in the same box as blood cells or electrical impulses in your head, you reduce them to less than what they are in the process. Freedom is self-evident and always there, and inconsistent with your thoughts being physical. Not understanding exactly what is going on is part of the whole package. If we really understood things all the way through, then only one course of action would be prudent, and our freedom would melt away as we conformed to this path. Freedom is consistent with uncertainty, ambiguity and such. We can't simply accept meaning from outside, but must create it from within in order to be free. So, the inability to explain it all simply promotes the idea that the freedom is genuine.
The attempt to wrap up choices and thoughts with physical brain processes is an inauthentic denial of a freedom which can not be denied when you face reality squarely and honestly. It's there, like it or not, understand it or not. You are free, and if you say you are not, you are lying to yourself, or to me, or both. If you say you are free, on the other hand, then it follows that you are somehow more than the effect of prior physical causes.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
What you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 9:18 pmThe car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pmHold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Meanwhile, the notion that morality is objective is also just words that don't mean much because morality is only broadly agreed upon with cases that are so obvious, no discussion or labelling is necessary, eg. torture of children. With any other so-called moral issues such as women's rights, gay rights, foetal rights, whether it's okay to try to subvert democracy and install an dictatorship and even killing are all subject to furious disagreement. The only way to declare one of those issues an "objective moral" is the railroad significant portions of the population.
The fact is that people's morals on many issues differ massively.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I agree with what you say about morality. But I think the cases where 'no discussion or labelling is necessary' need addressing squarely. You mention torturing children - and moral objectivists often go for 'raping babies just for fun' - rather disturbingly - as though rape (like torture) isn't obviously wicked enough.Greta wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 3:03 am So what? "Physical" and "mental" are just labels. The division is pretty meaningless. The fact is that information and matter are inextricably coupled - one does not exist without the other, based on current verified knowledge. There's the stuff and there's the stuff's configuration.
Meanwhile, the notion that morality is objective is also just words that don't mean much because morality is only broadly agreed upon with cases that are so obvious, no discussion or labelling is necessary, eg. torture of children. With any other so-called moral issues such as women's rights, gay rights, foetal rights, whether it's okay to try to subvert democracy and install an dictatorship and even killing are all subject to furious disagreement. The only way to declare one of those issues an "objective moral" is the railroad significant portions of the population.
The fact is that people's morals on many issues differ massively.
It's fallacious, but the aim is to win an argument by shaming subjectivists: 'if you think there are no moral facts, then you must think that raping babies just for fun isn't necessarily morally wrong'. I've lost count of how often I've had this thrown at me. The supposed 'gotcha' follows inevitably: if there are no moral facts, there is and can be no basis for rational moral judgement.
(Meanwhile - the so-called mind-body problem is simply a consequence of taking the label 'mind' too seriously as the name for a non-physical substance. We can't stop using 'mental' words, but we can cure ourselves of the mentalism - 'meanings are in the mind' for example - that still befuddle us.)
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Issues like torture of innocents, rape etc are so obvious, we can reflexively consider them to be wrong and that's it. Other social species have obvious, instinctive rules too, albeit they tend to be a lot less fussy about morality than humans. That leaves issues where there is significant disagreement, as mentioned earlier.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 4:31 amI agree with what you say about morality. But I think the cases where 'no discussion or labelling is necessary' need addressing squarely. You mention torturing children - and moral objectivists often go for 'raping babies just for fun' - rather disturbingly - as though rape (like torture) isn't obviously wicked enough.Greta wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 3:03 am So what? "Physical" and "mental" are just labels. The division is pretty meaningless. The fact is that information and matter are inextricably coupled - one does not exist without the other, based on current verified knowledge. There's the stuff and there's the stuff's configuration.
Meanwhile, the notion that morality is objective is also just words that don't mean much because morality is only broadly agreed upon with cases that are so obvious, no discussion or labelling is necessary, eg. torture of children. With any other so-called moral issues such as women's rights, gay rights, foetal rights, whether it's okay to try to subvert democracy and install an dictatorship and even killing are all subject to furious disagreement. The only way to declare one of those issues an "objective moral" is to railroad significant portions of the population.
The fact is that people's morals on many issues differ massively.
It's fallacious, but the aim is to win an argument by shaming subjectivists: 'if you think there are no moral facts, then you must think that raping babies just for fun isn't necessarily morally wrong'. I've lost count of how often I've had this thrown at me. The supposed 'gotcha' follows inevitably: if there are no moral facts, there is and can be no basis for rational moral judgement.
(Meanwhile - the so-called mind-body problem is simply a consequence of taking the label 'mind' too seriously as the name for a non-physical substance. We can't stop using 'mental' words, but we can cure ourselves of the mentalism - 'meanings are in the mind' for example - that still befuddle us.)
As for your mind/brain comment, I will agree to disagree since it's a tad off-topic. I think minds are amongst the most significant and impressive aspects of reality, along with the galaxies, stars, black holes, planets and ecosystems from which minds ultimately have emerged with varying degrees of separation.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
One "so what" here would be that if someone is using the word "physical" so unusually that processes aren't physical based on their usage, we'd need them to explain their unusual usage if there's any hope of being able to communicate with them.
Someone essentially saying "you're wrong that x is F because I use the term F extremely unusually and you don't" doesn't exactly amount to much of an argument. Unless it does because one uses the word "argument" very unusually.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 11:21 pmWhat you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 9:18 pmThe car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pmHold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysicalismApplied to the actual world (our world), statement 1 above is the claim that physicalism is true at the actual world if and only if at every possible world in which the physical properties and laws of the actual world are instantiated, the non-physical (in the ordinary sense of the word) properties of the actual world are instantiated as well. To borrow a metaphor from Saul Kripke (1972), the truth of physicalism at the actual world entails that once God has instantiated or "fixed" the physical properties and laws of our world, then God's work is done; the rest comes "automatically".
Physicalism, determinism and fate are all wrapped up together. If you accept that everything is physical, then you have to take the whole package. The end result is that you don't exist in any meaningful way. You are simply an effect of the processes that have been set in motion.
I see that I am free at every moment. Therefore, I must conclude that physicalism is false. I can't work it down any simpler than that. Perhaps it seems odd to you, or implies that I must be advocating religion or magic or something. I'm only standing up for myself. I don't claim to understand how it works, but I am trying to accept reality as it presents.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
The process is physical, yes. But I am trying to peel away the top layer, which is the concept of what is happening, the observation, the understanding, the experience, the meaning, This part can only occur when the experiencer is there to experience it, and when their intent or will is focused upon the event. It is another kind of thing, lacking a physical presence. It is a part of me, which is not my body or my brain, but my understanding. This exists, it is real, but it is unlike any other aspect of the event.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 11:21 pmWhat you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 9:18 pmThe car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pmHold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I'm not going there. I remember a thread where people debated what an object was and I arrived at the conversation with confidence and ended up in confusion. Ontology at fundamental levels of reality still does my head in. By all means carry on.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 6:09 amOne "so what" here would be that if someone is using the word "physical" so unusually that processes aren't physical based on their usage, we'd need them to explain their unusual usage if there's any hope of being able to communicate with them.
Someone essentially saying "you're wrong that x is F because I use the term F extremely unusually and you don't" doesn't exactly amount to much of an argument. Unless it does because one uses the word "argument" very unusually. ;-)
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
What in the world? Your response here has nothing at all to do with the comment that "What you're writing here is extremely confused. 'Physical' doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical." And that is all that I wrote.chewybrian wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 6:16 amTerrapin Station wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 11:21 pmWhat you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.chewybrian wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 9:18 pmThe car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pm
Hold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysicalismApplied to the actual world (our world), statement 1 above is the claim that physicalism is true at the actual world if and only if at every possible world in which the physical properties and laws of the actual world are instantiated, the non-physical (in the ordinary sense of the word) properties of the actual world are instantiated as well. To borrow a metaphor from Saul Kripke (1972), the truth of physicalism at the actual world entails that once God has instantiated or "fixed" the physical properties and laws of our world, then God's work is done; the rest comes "automatically".
Physicalism, determinism and fate are all wrapped up together. If you accept that everything is physical, then you have to take the whole package. The end result is that you don't exist in any meaningful way. You are simply an effect of the processes that have been set in motion.
I see that I am free at every moment. Therefore, I must conclude that physicalism is false. I can't work it down any simpler than that. Perhaps it seems odd to you, or implies that I must be advocating religion or magic or something. I'm only standing up for myself. I don't claim to understand how it works, but I am trying to accept reality as it presents.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
So if the process is physical, then the fact that the car is running isn't something else than a physical fact, is it?The process is physical, yes.What you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.chewybrian wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 6:23 am The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Good grief! Yes the fact that the car is running is an observation of the state of affairs, of physical things and processes. But the observation itself, the experience of knowing that the car is running, all possible meaning to the idea of a car or the purpose of it...these things attach only to the subjective understanding of the physical events. This subjective understanding defies our ability to understand and explain it in a way that the car and its physical processes do not. To try to force your understanding of it into the box of science or physics or whatever is to take a childish view of a complex and messy reality. (Not trying to insult here, but that is the term and the framing of the problem you would find from De Beauvoir) Only by admitting to the obvious messy reality can you be authentic and accept responsibility for your own choices.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 7:36 amSo if the process is physical, then the fact that the car is running isn't something else than a physical fact, is it?The process is physical, yes.What you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.chewybrian wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 6:23 am The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though.
REAL reality is not a simple set of rules. Rules are useful for defining and understanding physical things and processes, but they say nothing about subjectivity. If you attempt to limit reality to physical processes such that 'rules' must always hold, then you are attempting to destroy yourself in the process. You should be having some cognitive dissonance about the beliefs you are stating. Can you ignore or deny that you have freedom of choice? Don't you see how these things are necessarily wrapped up together? You can't fairly describe the world as 100% physical without denying freedom. Freedom is self-evident, so there is a problem there. When you insert freedom, any overarching set of rules tends to fall apart. I guess if you deny freedom, then you don't see a problem there. However, I think everyone sees and experiences the freedom, since I do. Therefore, I must asssume they are not authentic if they claim not to see it, or to accept its implications.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
??? Why would you flip to framing it as an observation?chewybrian wrote: ↑February 10th, 2021, 8:20 am Good grief! Yes the fact that the car is running is an observation of the state of affairs, of physical things and processes.
You mean that if we start a car so that it's running, and then every person suddenly disappears so that there is no one extant any longer to make an observation in the sense you're using that term, then the car is no longer running?
I'm hoping to get back to other stuff from previous posts, by the way, but your responses are increasingly bizarre/absurd, so it's hard to get past something that should be simple to settle.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023