But I don't think it objectively true. That does not stop me from thinking it true. — Banno

So either you go by an account of moral truth in accordance with moral subjectivism or you just don't want to use the term "objectively".

I thought it was the latter.

You seem concerned that I don't use the term "moral objectivism". Is it that you think that moral statements being subjective renders them somehow less important? — Banno

No, on the contrary, I have made the point before that they're no less important if they're subjective.

My problem is that you have said things that seem to suggest that you are a moral objectivist, but you just don't seem to want to use that term. I say if the shoe fits, wear it.

Moral statements have a direction of fit such that we change how things are to make the statement so.

Suppose I think that one ought keep holy the Sabbath ( I don't).

If Fred comes along and says that we should open up shops on the Sabbath, I might simply say that he is wrong. That does not make my beliefs about the Sabbath any less subjective.

That is, keeping the Sabbath Holy, while not objective, can still determine my attitude towards Fred.

Yeah, that's not as clear as I would like it to be. We are in a culture that has valued objective truths because it seems easier to reach agreement on them. This has led to a devaluation of subjective truths.

Yet it is our attitude towards things that is most important.

What cannot be said is of far greater import than what can be said. — Banno

It's odd, because that's in sync with my own thinking, but you've said things like, "Kicking puppies is wrong", and seem to have suggested that it's something more than an indication of your own moral judgement, as though it was an independent moral fact that kicking puppies is wrong, irrespective of whether I judge it to be right or make any moral judgement at all on the matter.

I'm happy you agree. — Merkwurdichliebe

You shouldn't be, because there's still a problem, even though we can agree.

Just out of curiousity and ignorance on my part, if you'll breifly explain, what is the more common use of the term? — Merkwurdichliebe

It would be something along the lines of a fact that doesn't depend on anyone's opinion or whether it is a commonly held opinion. Your definition is easily shown to be problematic.

By what metric? What is philosophy... hmmm? and define true! — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Philosophy is whatever I say it is, and truth is whatever I say it is. And everything else is whatever I say it is. Because I'm always right. Because I'm basically a god.

Too strong. Forget meaning -- look instead at what we do with words. — Banno

"For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."

I'll stick with that, since I can't think of a good enough reason not to.

The mere fact that it is possible to hold the opinion in common makes it objective. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not as per how the term is more commonly used, but yes, in some idiosyncratic sense, it can be said to be objective.

Big deal.

A bit out of left field, but OK.

I also claim to prefer vanilla ice over chocolate ice. Do you expect me to provide a warrant for that, too?

Perhaps it is wrong to insist that every true statement demands justification. — Banno

No, I don't expect you to provide warrant for that, just as I don't expect you to provide warrant for saying that you judge murdering a child to be more wrong than swatting a fly.

But I do expect you to provide warrant for saying that "murder is wrong" is objectively true, if that's what you say or imply, and that's a reasonable expectation.

It's narcissistic to assume we're all like you :P — NKBJ

It's narcissistic for me to think that I'm better at philosophy than the rest of you. It's also true.

Philosophy, as I see it, is a bunch of brains thinking about their brains.
— YuZhonglu

Maybe a bunch of brains thinking about other brains? — Bitter Crank

No. Both of those definitions seem to widely miss the mark. Philosophy isn't a bunch of brains full stop. And doing philosophy doesn't consist in thinking about brains, even if some philosophical thinking does. The question of what's the case is philosophical and about reality, not brains, unless we happen to specifically be talking about brains.

This is the finger-moon mistake that Terrapin was getting at.

Can the planet Jupiter exist without you yourself being alive? If so, can it exist without any humans being alive? If so, why would the fact of it's existence need a statement generated by the neural circuitry in our brains? — ssu

This shows that it is not sensible to use "fact" as he does, just as it is not sensible to use "horse" as I did. I only used it that way to demonstrate the general problem of idiosyncratic usage.

If folk keep adding comments at a greater rate than I can reply, this will be my longest ever thread. — Banno

You'll never catch up, like Achilles in the race with the tortoise. :grin:

Is it not a fact that Banno prefers vanilla ice to chocolate, regardless how anyone feels about that, including Banno? Is that not an attribute of Banno?
— Harry Hindu

Someone else said something similar. I don't think so. I think my preference is rather central to the issue, and hence the statement is subjective. — Banno

Why not just accept that it is both subjective and objective in different senses and avoid arguing over whether it is either one or other? That seems like black-and-white thinking which will just lead to problems like talking past each other.

He confuses the ad populum fallacy with the basis of general meaning.

You're just using the terms in a different sense, and a sense which doesn't make much sense in a broader context, because it makes sense to say that my opinion that screamo music is awful is subjective. Yet you say that it could only be subjective if I kept it a secret and never expressed it, so that no one could know of it, which is absurd on the face of it. Your usage is idiosyncratic.

We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4

There is no contradiction in affirming both of those statements. People who think that there's a contradiction just aren't good at logic.

What I find of value in considering such things is the difference between a proposition and the belief in a proposition. In logicians parlance, belief ranges over propositions.

SO "The cat is on the mat" and "It is true that the cat is on the mat" are each only true if the other is true.

In contrast, "The cat is on the mat" and "I believe that the cat is on the mat" are quite autonomous. Each can be true or false, independently of the other.

This point seems lost in so much of what is said in these forums. — Banno

Sometimes the acknowledgement of that gets lost, and sometimes the bigger picture gets lost. In meta-ethics, the application of that would lead to something like error theory. All moral statements would be false or at least unwarranted. Between error theory and moral relativism, the latter seems better. Some people don't end up with this conclusion, though. Some people are dogmatic, and so assert moral objectivism without justification.

I can go by that interpretation. I can apply it. But, in ethics, it doesn't result in moral objectivism.

Apologies for lowering the tone, but on the subject of subjective truth, I was reminded of a John finnemore joke.

"I see you've brought your ridiculous dog with you".

"My dog is not ridiculous"

"Well then whose dog have you brought?" — Isaac

Both funny and salient.

No one has yet defined "meaning." — tim wood

Meaning is use.

Words are used all sorts of ways, by all sorts of people. There might be an individual who uses "cat" to only refer to what most of us call "dogs," for example. Saying that the most common way to use a term is somehow "true" (or correct, etc.) by virtue of that fact is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. — Terrapin Station

No, because that's just what meaning, generally speaking, is. Idiosyncratic use is irrelevant to meaning, generally speaking. A cat is not a dog. And it makes perfect sense to state that a cat is not a dog. It makes perfect sense because of how meaning generally works.

That this text is written in English is not dependent on my own taste or feelings. Hence it is an objective truth.
— Banno

Truth there can't have the property of being objective because the relation in question only obtains via an evaluation that an individual makes, based on how they assign meanings to the words/sentence in question, relative to what they're making the judgment with respect to--that is, a judgment about that meaning and its relationship to something else. Those are mental events, and hence on the definition of subjective as mental phenomena, we're talking about a subjective property, not an objective property. — Terrapin Station

It's an objective truth in the relevant sense. Bringing up a different sense doesn't change that.

I think this is a classic example of a philosophical problem which dissolves when one looks closely at the language. If one say "anchovies are disgusting" I don't think they are making a claim about anchovies at all, they're making a claim about their state of mind, it just sounds like they're making a claim about anchovies because the words are arranged in a similar manner to "anchovies are fish". But look closely at the role such claims actually play in life, they play the role of a claim about preference, and since we have no external cause of meaning other than the role expressions play, we have no cause to think it means anything other.

So "anchovies are disgusting" is just as much an objective claim as "anchovies are fish" because "anchovies are disgusting" means "I don't like anchovies".

"abortion is immoral" is more complicated because there may be implicit in that the proposition that there are external moral codes, but even so, if you look at the job the expression does, it's still really saying "according to my moral code, abortion is immoral", which is an objective claim. — Isaac

I agree with all of that. I'd just point out that they're also subjective in a sense, because that can mean dependent on a subject, or more specifically their judgement, values, principles, etc.

It is not a fact of the world that 'cat' means what it does, it is merely a fact of collective belief. — Isaac

A fact is a fact. That "cat" means what it does because of common usage doesn't do anything in the broader context of what Banno is getting at. What do you think pointing that out achieves? It is objective in the sense that it isn't an opinion, and it is subjective in the sense that the meaning depends on common usage by subjects.

And you mentioned truth as collective belief. Truth is not collective belief. Collective belief is just collective belief.

But it is only the case because it is believed to be so by a sufficiently large number of people to form a language community.
— Isaac

No; it is only so because the cat is on the mat. — Banno

If we're talking about the statement, "The cat is on the mat", then I agree with Banno.

Sure. And going by that, in the context of ethics, it is a subjective fact that you judge murder to be wrong, and "murder is wrong" is unwarranted, because moral objectivism is unwarranted. You assert that the latter is a fact, but you fail to reasonably demonstrate it as such, so your assertion can be justifiably dismissed.

You make bare assertions which indicate that you're a moral objectivist, but you don't identify as one for some reason.

Wouldn't these be factors in addition to logical possibility? — Terrapin Station

Given that what you're referring to is a logical possibility, that would make no sense. Unless you can demonstrate that it is logically impossible through contradiction, it is a logical possibility. And that logical possibility is sufficient for my argument to succeed.

Are you just twisting my words with the aim of scoring a point, or what? What is your intent?

Okay. Is something other than the logical possibility of a necessarily detectable god required to justify the claim that you are justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist? — Terrapin Station

Yes, because the fact that we're talking about god, unspecified, means that we're talking about god, broadly, as per a number of possible conceptions, one of which is an undetectable god. The actual existence of a god as per that particular conception is what you'd have to rule out as impossible.

This still doesn't change anything. You still haven't refuted my argument. You are taking us on a futile diversion.

Philosophy, as I see it, is a bunch of brains thinking about their brains. — YuZhonglu

That's so absurd that it's funny.

Either logical possibility is sufficient to justify a claim or it isn't. If something else is required--so that there are some cases where it's justified and other cases where it's not, then logical possibility isn't actually sufficient. Something else is required. "Sufficient" means that nothing else is required. — Terrapin Station

You don't need to explain to me what "sufficient" means, you need to understand my point and respond appropriately.

Nothing other than the logical possibility of an undetectable god is required to justify the claim that you aren't justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

Do you understand that or not? Because you keep missing the point.

It is sufficient in this case to justify the specific claim that I referenced, and to claim that therefore the contrary must also be justified is illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, logical possibility is sufficient to justify the stance that we don't know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

If you cannot logically rule out the possibility of the actual existence of god, unspecified, then you aren't justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

Do understand why that is?

1. Horse is cooked bread.
2. Cheese on horse consists of cheese and cooked bread.
3. No cooked bread, no cheese on horse.

Anytime you use a concept, you're referring to that concept. — YuZhonglu

Lol.

Yes, you can point at things other than your finger. How does that relate to this debate? — YuZhonglu

I catch his drift, and I agree. I don't need him to explain. Maybe I am more intelligent than you.

I feel my previous posts clarified what YuZhonglu was trying to get across. I could be wrong. — christian2017

I don't need you to clarify to me what he is trying to get across. I understand what he is doing, and I am responding accordingly.

I think YuZhonglu is making the notion that in a historical, crime scene, and scientific perspective that over time new conclusions are made about old results. If i have video footage that Bob robbed my house and 10 years later i discover Bob died in 1990 and infact it was hologram of Bob. The actual person who robbed my house was Frank and he did it with out being caught on camera. — christian2017

Tim is right, for once. This is just a language game. It is a game, so should be treated as such. Who wants to play hopscotch?

My definition makes sense, unlike yours. — YuZhonglu

What doesn't make sense about sliced bread browned on both sides by exposure to radiant heat, such as a grill or fire? That's how I define "horse". It isn't how a lot of other people define "horse".

That's analogous to what you're doing with "fact".

You can't make cheese on horse without bread.

I've reviewed it. I still don't understand.

Facts are generated by the human brain. If there's no brain, then there are no facts.

That's one of my positions. Why do you disagree? — YuZhonglu

I said, "Good for you".

I then told you how I define "horse". What's the problem?

Would you like some cheese on horse whilst you try to grasp what I'm doing?

What logic? I'm not being silly (or at least I'm not trying to). But you are. — YuZhonglu

You only think I'm being silly because you don't get what I'm doing. Review my comments and give it some thought.

Now you're just being purposefully confusing. — YuZhonglu

I'm using logic to to demonstrate that what you're doing is silly.

Without human brains, there can also be no human facts. — YuZhonglu

Without bread, there can be no cheese on horse.

I don't define "fact" like the way a lot of other people do. As I see it, a "fact" is just a strongly held opinion that a person's brain [edit] is really certain about. — YuZhonglu

Good for you. I don't define "horse" like a lot of other people do. I define "horse" as sliced bread browned on both sides by exposure to radiant heat, such as a grill or fire.

I had cheese on horse earlier. I might make some more. Would anybody else like some cheese on horse?