Freedom of speech is objective morality
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
As far as I can gather, you've been arguing about this one little point since before here:Marvin_Edwards wrote:And I addressed that issue by explaining the paradoxical nature of your requirement....
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.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
So, how is the weather where you are?Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 2:47 pmAs far as I can gather, you've been arguing about this one little point since before here:Marvin_Edwards wrote:And I addressed that issue by explaining the paradoxical nature of your requirement....
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.
- GregRogers
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
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 19th, 2020, 9:06 amIt 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 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'.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
I never noticed this post until you requoted it. I often miss posts if I'm not "tagged."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.
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?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
I commented on there being no real consensus as regards moral issues. Please don't move the goalposts. Thanks.GregRogers wrote: ↑May 19th, 2020, 7:42 pmReally? There is no consensus that the world is round?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.
"Who cares, wins"
- GregRogers
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
Or, is it possible, that the majority polled could be wrong sometimes (i.e. truth is not a democratic exercise)?
Interesting philosophy, indeed!
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
What are you talking about here?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!
He pointed out that whether the Earth is flat isn't a moral issue. How is your response a response to what he said?
- GregRogers
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
Morality is focused on normatives about interpersonal behavior that's more significant than etiquette.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.
So no re the arsenic question.
- GregRogers
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: 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.
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.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!
But neither truth nor objectivity can be created by consensus. This is not disputed between us.
"Who cares, wins"
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
Are you expecting me to defer to Aristotle's view for some reason?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.
- GregRogers
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: May 10th, 2020, 2:53 pm
Re: Freedom of speech is objective morality
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
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