Philosophy for Philosophers
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15719
That's what I was wanting to say.
There's a distinction between (objective) physical colors and (subjective) phenomenal colors (colors-as-experienced).
Just coming back to this digression into the 'objectivity' or 'subjectivity' of colour. The distinction here is between the physical facts - wavelengths of light, and so on - and what each of us experiences as colour.
Agreed - the irony being that independence from the opinion or any agent is what makes a fact a fact. So if there were moral facts, the existence and opinions of a god or gods would be irrelevant. The theistic argument from moral objectivity is a shot in the foot.
Well you can kinda weasel out of that one by claiming that God is infinite and absolute and so on. Making God not just an agent but everything.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 5:02 pmAgreed - the irony being that independence from the opinion or any agent is what makes a fact a fact. So if there were moral facts, the existence and opinions of a god or gods would be irrelevant. The theistic argument from moral objectivity is a shot in the foot.
Yes, slavery in your example is morally wrong, subjectively so. However, slavery is also ethically wrong, though in an objective manner.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 4:23 pmJust coming back to this digression into the 'objectivity' or 'subjectivity' of colour. The distinction here is between the physical facts - wavelengths of light, and so on - and what each of us experiences as colour.
But this is completely different from the application of the objective / subjective distinction with regard to morality. There are no moral facts out there - analogous to wavelengths of light - that we 'subjectively' experience.
If I think slavery is morally wrong, that's my opinion. If ten people agree with me, then a hundred, then a thousand, then a million - then everyone in the world - at no stage does it become a fact that slavery is wrong. It remains an opinion, and therefore subjective.
Are we all in agreement about that?
I've certainly seen that dodge more than once. But I've never seen it justified. It amounts to nonsense: 'God is everything, so there are moral facts.'Atla wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 2:55 amWell you can kinda weasel out of that one by claiming that God is infinite and absolute and so on. Making God not just an agent but everything.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 5:02 pm
Agreed - the irony being that independence from the opinion or any agent is what makes a fact a fact. So if there were moral facts, the existence and opinions of a god or gods would be irrelevant. The theistic argument from moral objectivity is a shot in the foot.
I don't understand your way of putting it. To believe that slavery is wrong is to make a judgement, which is subjective. But that doesn't that 'slavery is subjectively wrong'. Those words make no sense, because the distinction is empty.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 3:14 amYes, slavery in your example is morally wrong, subjectively so. However, slavery is also ethically wrong, though in an objective manner.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 4:23 pm
Just coming back to this digression into the 'objectivity' or 'subjectivity' of colour. The distinction here is between the physical facts - wavelengths of light, and so on - and what each of us experiences as colour.
But this is completely different from the application of the objective / subjective distinction with regard to morality. There are no moral facts out there - analogous to wavelengths of light - that we 'subjectively' experience.
If I think slavery is morally wrong, that's my opinion. If ten people agree with me, then a hundred, then a thousand, then a million - then everyone in the world - at no stage does it become a fact that slavery is wrong. It remains an opinion, and therefore subjective.
Are we all in agreement about that?
Strange way? I am using them by their actual definitions, that is, morality has to do with your personal code of conduct, which is as you state, subjective, whereas ethics has to do with the prevailing standard of a particular group or community, which can be statistically calculated and is therefore objective.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 5:48 amI don't understand your way of putting it. To believe that slavery is wrong is to make a judgement, which is subjective. But that doesn't that 'slavery is subjectively wrong'. Those words make no sense, because the distinction is empty.
And can you explain why 'slavery is also ethically wrong, though in an objective manner'? To me, you seem to be using these words in a strange way.
I'm sorry, but these definitions are wrong or at least misleading. Morality is about what is - or what we think is - morally right or wrong. There's no restriction to personal belief. And ethics is the study of such issues. The claim 'slavery is also ethically wrong, but in an objective manner' is incoherent, even using your use of 'ethic' to mean moral code of a community.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 29th, 2020, 1:16 pmStrange way? I am using them by their actual definitions, that is, morality has to do with your personal code of conduct, which is as you state, subjective, whereas ethics has to do with the prevailing standard of a particular group or community, which can be statistically calculated and is therefore objective.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 5:48 am
I don't understand your way of putting it. To believe that slavery is wrong is to make a judgement, which is subjective. But that doesn't that 'slavery is subjectively wrong'. Those words make no sense, because the distinction is empty.
And can you explain why 'slavery is also ethically wrong, though in an objective manner'? To me, you seem to be using these words in a strange way.
Don't sell us so short. I'll give it one more try:Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 29th, 2020, 1:38 pmI'm sorry, but these definitions are wrong or at least misleading. Morality is about what is - or what we think is - morally right or wrong. There's no restriction to personal belief. And ethics is the study of such issues. The claim 'slavery is also ethically wrong, but in an objective manner' is incoherent, even using your use of 'ethic' to mean moral code of a community.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 29th, 2020, 1:16 pm
Strange way? I am using them by their actual definitions, that is, morality has to do with your personal code of conduct, which is as you state, subjective, whereas ethics has to do with the prevailing standard of a particular group or community, which can be statistically calculated and is therefore objective.
Thanks, but I don't think we'll get anywhere with this conversation.
I seem to have misunderstood what you're saying, for which I apologise.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 29th, 2020, 7:07 pmDon't sell us so short. I'll give it one more try:Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 29th, 2020, 1:38 pm
I'm sorry, but these definitions are wrong or at least misleading. Morality is about what is - or what we think is - morally right or wrong. There's no restriction to personal belief. And ethics is the study of such issues. The claim 'slavery is also ethically wrong, but in an objective manner' is incoherent, even using your use of 'ethic' to mean moral code of a community.
Thanks, but I don't think we'll get anywhere with this conversation.
Slavery (or any other potential issue) can be measured on the morality scale, as you say: "what we think is - morally right or wrong". You and I (and hopefully everyone else) agree this is a subjective measure. IOW "Right" and "Wrong" are subjective.
Slavery can also be measured on the ethical scale, that is: does it conform to the ethical standard of the community. While that standard is a composite of subjective opinions, the fact that these opinions can be tabulated, makes the standard objective. Just as other opinions (in the minority) are objectively less popular. Thus measuring slavery on the ethical scale is objective. ""Conforms" and "Violates" are objective terms.