Freedom of speech is objective morality

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3396
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station » May 19th, 2020, 2:29 pm

Do you think it's not possible to discuss counterfactuals or something?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7690
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Steve3007 » May 19th, 2020, 2:47 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote:And I addressed that issue by explaining the paradoxical nature of your requirement....
As far as I can gather, you've been arguing about this one little point since before here:
viewtopic.php?p=358302#p358302

That's two pages of posts. If you'd just said:

"Yes, fair enough, a fact can't both be and not be a true statement about objective reality. So, moving on...."

you could perhaps have spent those pages talking about something more interesting. But these long fruitless attempts to clarify one simple, trivial point of order happen here all the time. I've been involved in them myself sometimes. I think the reason why is possibly a topic in its own right.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 485
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Marvin_Edwards » May 19th, 2020, 3:44 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
May 19th, 2020, 2:47 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote:And I addressed that issue by explaining the paradoxical nature of your requirement....
As far as I can gather, you've been arguing about this one little point since before here:
viewtopic.php?p=358302#p358302

That's two pages of posts. If you'd just said:

"Yes, fair enough, a fact can't both be and not be a true statement about objective reality. So, moving on...."

you could perhaps have spent those pages talking about something more interesting. But these long fruitless attempts to clarify one simple, trivial point of order happen here all the time. I've been involved in them myself sometimes. I think the reason why is possibly a topic in its own right.
So, how is the weather where you are?

User avatar
GregRogers
New Trial Member
Posts: 19
Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by GregRogers » May 19th, 2020, 7:42 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
May 19th, 2020, 9:06 am
GregRogers wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 7:57 pm
Terrapin, your statement that "'good' is an individual assessment' is an assertion; do you have any argument for this? Quite to the contrary; there is a high degree of consensus that vomiting one's guts out or involuntary convulsions, etc, are not 'good'.
It isn't the blackest (or whitest) cases that illustrate the point, it's the ones in the grey area. And, in this case, the grey area is huge, reflecting the non-objective nature of the issue under discussion. There is no real consensus here.
Really? There is no consensus that the world is round? Agreed, there are "flat earthers" but I don't think that is evidence of a lack of consensus. Regarding your "grey area" comment; I disagree when addressing certain topics. If we agree that the shape of the earth is not flat as a matter of objective truth, then we can build upon that agreement.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3396
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station » May 20th, 2020, 7:10 am

GregRogers wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 7:57 pm
Terrapin,

Your statement that "'good' is an individual assessment' is an assertion; do you have any argument for this? Quite to the contrary; there is a high degree of consensus that vomiting one's guts out or involuntary convulsions, etc, are not 'good'.

I believe 'good' in matters of truth is an objective reality independent of individual subjective assessment.
I never noticed this post until you requoted it. I often miss posts if I'm not "tagged."

So, I'm skeptical first off that you're dubious that individuals make assessments about what's good. Maybe you are, but that's easily remedied. I'm an individual. I see someone do something--like say that I see someone offer a homeless person food and a place to stay for a few days. I feel, and thus say, "That's a morally good thing to do." So I'm an individual who has made an assessment about whether particular behavior is a good. Maybe you'll have some objection about the claim that I'm an individual who made that assessment in that case, but you'll have to present the specific objection to this part.

Now, by no means am I saying that a thousand people (or a million or billion or whatever) can't contemplate the same scenario where 95% (or however many) of them say the same thing--that it was a morally good thing to do. So then we have a consensus, obviously. However, that consensus is just a bunch of individuals--hundreds or hundreds of thousands of however many--thinking about the scenario and uttering their assessment regarding whether it's good or not. The fact that there's a consensus doesn't make the consensus right or correct or true or anything like that, by the way. To claim that it does is to commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Beyond this, there is zero evidence that whatever-you-want-to-call-'ems such as "This is (morally) good" occur anywhere except in the minds of individuals making such judgments as described above.

So this is the argument for my view.

What is your argument for a contrary view?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3396
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station » May 20th, 2020, 7:17 am

Frustrating that I don't proofread better here . . . There are a couple small typos above, but hopefully it's pretty obvious what the changes would be.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 810
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: England

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Pattern-chaser » May 20th, 2020, 7:50 am

GregRogers wrote:
May 19th, 2020, 7:42 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote:
May 19th, 2020, 9:06 am
It isn't the blackest (or whitest) cases that illustrate the point, it's the ones in the grey area. And, in this case, the grey area is huge, reflecting the non-objective nature of the issue under discussion. There is no real consensus here.
Really? There is no consensus that the world is round?
I commented on there being no real consensus as regards moral issues. Please don't move the goalposts. Thanks.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
GregRogers
New Trial Member
Posts: 19
Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by GregRogers » May 20th, 2020, 8:00 pm

Really? So back in the day when most of the people thought the earth was flat (because that is what the poll would say most people thought), the earth was flat? Then, when people's opinions change, the earth became a sphere.

Or, is it possible, that the majority polled could be wrong sometimes (i.e. truth is not a democratic exercise)?

Interesting philosophy, indeed!

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3396
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station » May 21st, 2020, 9:44 am

GregRogers wrote:
May 20th, 2020, 8:00 pm
Really? So back in the day when most of the people thought the earth was flat (because that is what the poll would say most people thought), the earth was flat? Then, when people's opinions change, the earth became a sphere.

Or, is it possible, that the majority polled could be wrong sometimes (i.e. truth is not a democratic exercise)?

Interesting philosophy, indeed!
What are you talking about here?

He pointed out that whether the Earth is flat isn't a moral issue. How is your response a response to what he said?

User avatar
GregRogers
New Trial Member
Posts: 19
Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by GregRogers » May 21st, 2020, 7:23 pm

So what do you consider "moral issues"? You don't believe the question, "should you take arsenic to alleviate the common cold"? is a moral question? If you say "yes", I think your eudaimonia will be limited.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3396
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station » May 21st, 2020, 9:20 pm

GregRogers wrote:
May 21st, 2020, 7:23 pm
So what do you consider "moral issues"? You don't believe the question, "should you take arsenic to alleviate the common cold"? is a moral question? If you say "yes", I think your eudaimonia will be limited.
Morality is focused on normatives about interpersonal behavior that's more significant than etiquette.

So no re the arsenic question.

User avatar
GregRogers
New Trial Member
Posts: 19
Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by GregRogers » May 22nd, 2020, 1:25 pm

Actually, according to Aristotle, morality is focused on well-being. Well-being would include interpersonal behavior but not be limited to it. I align with Aristotle... morality is more than just learning how to get along; albeit that is an important part of it.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 810
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: England

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Pattern-chaser » May 23rd, 2020, 6:01 am

Freedom of speech is objective morality

...
GregRogers wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 7:57 pm
[To Terrapin Station] Your statement that "'good' is an individual assessment' is an assertion; do you have any argument for this? Quite to the contrary; there is a high degree of consensus that vomiting one's guts out or involuntary convulsions, etc, are not 'good'. I believe 'good' in matters of truth is an objective reality independent of individual subjective assessment.
Pattern-chaser wrote:
May 19th, 2020, 9:06 am
It isn't the blackest (or whitest) cases that illustrate the point, it's the ones in the grey area. And, in this case, the grey area is huge, reflecting the non-objective nature of the issue under discussion. There is no real consensus here.
GregRogers wrote:
May 19th, 2020, 7:42 pm
Really? There is no consensus that the world is round? Agreed, there are "flat earthers" but I don't think that is evidence of a lack of consensus. Regarding your "grey area" comment; I disagree when addressing certain topics. If we agree that the shape of the earth is not flat as a matter of objective truth, then we can build upon that agreement.
Pattern-chaser wrote:
May 20th, 2020, 7:50 am
I commented on there being no real consensus as regards moral issues. Please don't move the goalposts. Thanks.
GregRogers wrote:
May 20th, 2020, 8:00 pm
Really? So back in the day when most of the people thought the earth was flat (because that is what the poll would say most people thought), the earth was flat? Then, when people's opinions change, the earth became a sphere.

Or, is it possible, that the majority polled could be wrong sometimes (i.e. truth is not a democratic exercise)?

Interesting philosophy, indeed!
You have misunderstood. My position is that morality (right and wrong, and the difference between the two) is not objective. Your vomiting example, a black (or white) example, is generally agreed to be not-good, but my response only indicates that the grey area, away from simple and obvious black and white examples, is large, and that no consensus exists specifically in the area of moral judgments.

But neither truth nor objectivity can be created by consensus. This is not disputed between us.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3396
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by Terrapin Station » May 23rd, 2020, 4:20 pm

GregRogers wrote:
May 22nd, 2020, 1:25 pm
Actually, according to Aristotle, morality is focused on well-being. Well-being would include interpersonal behavior but not be limited to it. I align with Aristotle... morality is more than just learning how to get along; albeit that is an important part of it.
Are you expecting me to defer to Aristotle's view for some reason?

User avatar
GregRogers
New Trial Member
Posts: 19
Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm

Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality

Post by GregRogers » May 24th, 2020, 12:26 pm

I think it is always helpful to state one's primary assumptions, which usually reduce to certain basic assertions (i.e. when you use the term "moral", what exactly do you mean?). For example, if you are in the realm of "Christian Ethics" then moral means that which is consistent with the will of God; usually as expressed in the Bible.

I am a consequentialist in a general sense (i.e. consequences which impact well-being IS morality by definition); I am not right because I agree with Aristotle... Aristotle was right because he agrees with me :-)

Post Reply