Very well, from the start.Here is a new metaethical theory I am working on that is a form of moral realism, and, since I find it a worthy contender of my moral anti-realist position, I wanted to share it with the forum to see what people think. — Bob Ross
On we go, in good faith ...I do not have a name for it yet, so I will just explicate it. — Bob Ross
I have already given my argument for the uselessness of moral cognitivism. That applies here. To assert uselessness is useless.For the sake of brevity, and because I have already covered arguments in favor of them in my moral subjectivist paper, I am presupposing moral cognitivism and non-nihilism in this thread. — Bob Ross
Here you are throwing out two entire models and expect people to read all and follow. I only expect one post at a time and you are expressing difficulty.If anyone would like me to elaborate on them, then I certainly can; and I suggest anyone who is interested in that to read the relevant portions of my discussion board OP pertaining to moral subjectivism on those two metaethical positions. I will focus on a positive case for moral objectivism, which I deny in my moral subjectivist (anti-realist) view. — Bob Ross
There is so much wrong with this paragraph that it might take infinite time to detail it.The core of this theory is that ‘the good’ and ‘the bad’ are not determined by mind-independent states-of-affairs or arrangements of entities in reality but, rather, are abstract categories, or forms, of conduct. — Bob Ross
You are unclear here as to the 'categories'. I assume you mean good and evil as the only categories. That is confusing because we all know there is a continuum there. If one is dealing with a continuum one must/should specify the dividing line between them. So what precisely denotes good and what evil? What filter do I use to distinguish between them? How does a behavior fall into one category or the other?The (mind-independent) states-of-affairs, or arrangements of entities, in reality inform us of what is right or wrong in virtue of being classified under either category. — Bob Ross
This paragraph explains NOTHING OF USE about the former paragraph and yet that is what it purports to be doing. No help. Why?For example, there is no mind-independent state-of-affairs (or arrangement of entities) in reality that makes it true that “one ought not torture babies” but, rather, it is true because it corresponds appropriately to the mind-independent category (i.e., abstract form) of ‘the good’. — Bob Ross
And you wonder why I got confused. No. Stick with one theory at a time. You are laying out tenets of a subjectivist theory in an objectivist thread. People will of course respond to each/both.So, in light of this and in an attempt to contrast with my other moral anti-realist theory, I would like to point out the flaw, from the perspective of this theory, of my moral subjectivist argument; so let me outline it briefly again: — Bob Ross
Wow! There is nothing to support this wild conjecture at all up to this point. In fact I would offer a much more reasonable proposition which is this:P1: The way reality is does not entail how it should be. — Bob Ross
No they are not.P2: Moral facts are statements about states-of-affairs which inform us of how reality should be. — Bob Ross
I do not know what you mean here. What is TF, true, false? By the way this statement undoes YOUR P2 completely so you have two contradictory premises. You say what a moral fact is and then say they cannot exist. Again, putting TF in front of this statement with no explanation is messy at best.C: TF, moral facts cannot exist. — Bob Ross
I like that. It's not discrete but it says the right things to be considered in support of realism.Analyzing this argument from this theory, as opposed to moral subjectivism, P2 is false; because moral facts are not only about states-of-affairs, in the sense that they are made true in virtue of corresponding to some state-of-affairs in reality, but, rather, are made true in virtue of how the state-of-affairs sizes up to the abstract category of ‘the good’ and ‘the bad’. — Bob Ross
Smaller sentences might help. This is hard to follow. You merely claim it is a misunderstanding and although this sentence is perhaps one of the longest in history it does not say why there even is a misunderstanding.So, the key misunderstanding of moral subjectivism, or so the argument goes (:, is that a fact is a statement that corresponds to reality and not solely states-of-affairs in reality—as abstract categories are still mind-independently true insofar as, although we can semantically disagree, the actions are subsumable under more general classifications and this is not stance-dependent—and thusly P2 is false. — Bob Ross
You do not say what this means. So what if P1 only refers to states and not truths? And this is wrong anyway.Likewise, P1, if taken as true, only refers by 'reality is' to states-of-affairs or arrangements of entities in reality and not abstract categories of events or actions in that reality (nor what potentially could occur in that reality). — Bob Ross
Is that a sentence? Smaller is better. Discreet! You asked me to address ONE thing instead of a complex and interweaved response to you, but sentences like this are a tornado through a trailer park. Wreckage abounds.Although there is a lot I would like to say, I want to keep this brief—so I will say only one last thing: this is not a form of platonism. By abstract form or category I do not mean that there exists an abstract object, or a set of them, in reality that in virtue of which makes moral judgments (which express something objective) true—as this falls into the same trap that they are indeed states-of-affairs, or arrangements of entities, in reality and this violates P1. — Bob Ross
This is nothing more finally than conceit.Instead, by form or category, I just mean an abstract category we derive by validly subsuming actions or events into more general classifications. — Bob Ross
Ok let's examine that.To my mind the idea that morality is objective and that acting immorally leads to unhappiness, makes no logical sense. — LuckyR
So far so GOOD.If morality is objective, then in one way or another just about everyone has one (or more) personal, subjective moral codes that are (randomly) in conflict with the ONE TRUE (objectively correct) moral code, — LuckyR
Because the happiness value the choice inflicts upon the chooser is only and always based on the actual distance from perfection objective moral truth, which you just admitted is different.so if one acts according to a personal moral code, yet defies the objectively correct version, why would one be unhappy? — LuckyR
Not at all. In fact you have stated the very clear case for a simply immoral choice.One would have a clear conscience. — LuckyR
That is your assessment, not mine. Of course I mention them only because to me they are relevant in the case of my stance FOR moral realism. I suppose I could take the con to moral objectivity and argue that, but that is not my belief, and I prefer genuine argument meaning arguing only for that which one does actually believe.I think it might be best if I give a brief elaboration of this moral realist theory, and see what you disagree with. So far, it seems as though most of your critiques and points are irrelevant to the OP. — Bob Ross
I mean you did not answer my earlier critiques and instead retreated back into your 'jargon' I prefer to believe I refuted, actually answering your comments.This theory posits that morality is objective—i.e., that there are states-of-affairs or arrangements of entities in reality that inform us of what is moral or immoral. It posits that what is good (viz., The Good, in the sense of an objective goodness) is flourishing—i.e., goodness is identical to flourishing. Flourishing is, at its core, the fulfillment of something relative to its purpose. Flourishing is contextual and objective: it is contextual insofar as one must posit a context in which one is assessing flourishing (e.g., I am flourishing, you are flourishing, we are flourishing, society is flourishing, etc.) and objective insofar as it is a mind-independently existing relation between a purpose and fulfillment thereof (viz., one’s psychology has nothing to do with flourishing being identical to the fulfillment of purposes). — Bob Ross
I can agree that because I believe morality to be objective that to me flourishing is objective. But that merely means that subjective opinions on flourishing are all always wrong in some way. They simply can never be perfect.This relation, however, contains an element of subjectivity insofar as purposes are subjective (i.e., what it means for something [within a context] to fulfill its purpose is relative to the psychology of one or more subjects): this does not make flourishing itself subjective but, rather, merely that that very objective relation is that of (subjective) purposes being fulfilled. — Bob Ross
Yes, my system of belief is in alignment with that, except in one way that should be stated.Each context one could posit, for evaluating flourishing, which is infinite in amount, is hierarchical in the sense that larger contexts have more flourishing and smaller contexts have less flourishing (in total); and, consequently, the larger the context of flourishing, the greater the good (i.e., the greater the flourishing). Thusly, the highest good is universal flourishing, because it has the greatest amount of flourishing being the largest context. The highest good has the most good and is, therefore, the best good: it is the ultimate good. Therefore, if one is committed to being good, then they should strive for this best good, this highest good, this universal flourishing, instead of a lower one. — Bob Ross
I just stated why. I am a moral realist so I do not disagree with what I define that to be, in general. Any model that ends up supporting the tenets I defined as moral realism, because that is what I understand and believe it to be, is fine with me.With that being said, what do you disagree with in that theory? — Bob Ross
As mentioned, we should both be able to easily agree that all understanding is incorrect when compared to perfection. So, we do not have to harp on that.I would like to also disclaim that this position is not “fake”, as you implied multiple times in your response: by noting that I have a separate thread for moral subjectivism, I was not meaning to imply I am a moral subjectivist. Personally, I hold this theory instead; but I am more than happy to discuss moral subjectivism, as I think it gets a very bad wrap by most people who, quite frankly, do not fully understand the theory. — Bob Ross
And I never said that it did.Normativity is (pardon) bovine poo revisionism for objective morality. It's just another way of saying moral subjectivism has merit in and of itself.
I don’t think removing normativity from the good makes moral subjectivism itself have merit. — Bob Ross
Indeed not. Normalizing to an imperfect standard is merely immoral. It is an error, just like moral subjectivism. There is no need even giving pretense to errors, finally.Instead, it just fixes a lot of problems with moral realist theories which posit the contrary and makes more realism more plausible. — Bob Ross
There is zero difference in these things you claim as partially different. No single choice is neutral. There is nothing in this universe but morality of state and accuracy of moral aim towards objective moral perfection. Those are the core tenets of objective morality.Another thing I would like to disclaim is that when I say flourishing has that subjective element of being the fulfillment of a (subjective) purpose: I am referring to the depths of the soul and not whimsical day-to-day opinions or desires a person has. — Bob Ross
The entire universe is evidence but I know that is a dodge.It doesn't matter what people believe because what is good is a law of the universe, objective.
So, this is not something posited in my theory; and I don’t see any evidence to support the good being a natural law. — Bob Ross
And I did not say they were. They are however, as mentioned, parts of goodness. And the way they are arranged or add value to perfection is discrete meaning objective. But this is objective in multiple ways at the same time. People do not realize that virtues have discrete structure and value. People will often devalue one virtue compared to another. That is a moral error. All virtues that I am referring to, that can be properly named as such, have a discrete interaction between them. And they are all equal, precisely perfectly equal.Well yes, I follow your distinction here. But no, you are sidestepping a dangerously important issue. If you fail to realize that virtues ARE the quantum discrete parts of goodness, you fail (in general).
I didn’t follow any of this: what is a ‘quantum discrete part of goodness’? Virtues are habits of character that are good: they are not identical to goodness. — Bob Ross
That is sad because it is just as easy to quote the whole thing and avoid this problem, facilitating all of our efforts at communication.Well you did what the other guy did and did not put your part my part refers to that you are referring to here with your response. That makes it too hard to respond.
Correct. I am not going to quote everything you say, because there is too much. I only tag the portion relative to what I am responding to, and trust you will be able to navigate your own responses. — Bob Ross
And yet it is moral to inflict suffering on others to help them earn wisdom in a 'safer' setting. Otherwise there is no need to teach, ever. There is no need to communicate ever. This forum is purposeless without that tenet in place. Suffering the exposure to others ideas is the potential for communication/teaching/learning and the best incidence of those is the earning of wisdom.I said necessary. But yes, if it is necessary. It is not torture as that implies negative intent, negative wants.
It is immoral to torture someone (or torture them absent of this ‘negative intent’ you mentioned) for the sake of building their virtue. — Bob Ross
And I did not say it did. Any given beauty is a partial error and there would then be a perfect beauty that would then instantiate objective moral truth. The fact that imperfect beauty can still be quire moral and amazingly beautiful is included and fine. But no beauty we see except all is perfect and we cannot grasp all, ever. So, although we experience all, we sit within it, we cannot really perceive it yet. We are evolving to perceive it accurately.Beauty and accuracy are objective.
What do you mean by accuracy? Accuracy of what?
I don’t think beauty necessarily instantiates objective moral truth. — Bob Ross
I disagree and for the reasons stated already and not refuted in any way.Being ugly has nothing to do with what is moral or immoral. There could be a reality with universal flourishing and every person therein is uglier than a bat. — Bob Ross
So, you are wrong here. So far, YOU are correct, and now you will say the incorrect part.If my goal is to kill Asians, then if I succeed I am flourishing. That is subjective morality
The first sentence is in principle correct, the second is not implied from the first. In the smallest, or one of the smallest, contexts of flourishing, of good, if one has the purpose of killing asians, then they would thereby flourish if they are sufficiently killing asians. — Bob Ross
And THAT is the second order distinction I have been talking about.However, the buck does not stop here: the highest good is universal flourishing, and killing asians clearly violates that. So, colloquially, my theory would state “it is immoral to kill asians for the sole sake of fulfilling one’s own desire”. — Bob Ross
I do not claim to know moral cognitivism. It is not necessary to know it to assert what I refer to as my objective morality, perfection. The one true moral judgment is perfection, to me, so there is no need to say that either. Thus only item 2 pertains to me. And I contend that it is all that is needed.Objective morality says that killing people just because they are Asian is incoherent immoral nonsense.
No it does not. Objective morality (i.e., moral realism) is a three-pronged thesis:
1. Moral judgments are propositional (moral cognitivism).
2. Moral judgments express something objective (moral objectivism)
3. There is at least one true moral judgment. — Bob Ross
And I disagree.Moral realism itself does not entail that moral anti-realism is internally incoherent, although a particular theory may advertise that, nor that it is nonsense; but, rather, just that it is objectively wrong to do so. — Bob Ross
I covered that earlier. Flourish is from any state, a different vector but that differing does not support subjective morality.Now you just added another component, 'harmoniously'. You cant do that either
It is implied by the highest good: universal flourishing requires, nay presupposes, universal harmony. — Bob Ross
I agree the OP intends to be discussing objective morality, not subjective morality as I thought earlier.Oh lordie! The mind-independent thing again. As shown later that is a rug and a bad one. nothing is mind-independent in the way you seem to suggest. We are all connected.
You cannot claim that moral is objective and turn around and deny that objectivity is ‘that which is mind-independent’.
I will stop here for now, so that we can hone in on our conversation to the OP. — Bob Ross
Interesting. Well, that's just crazy. And it is of course born of subjectivist delusion, but I do not want to just throw a no without reason.
…
I mean, come on, you're the one trying to defend subjective morality.
I am not arguing for moral subjectivism. This position (in my OP) is a form of moral realism. — Bob Ross
OK so now, the whole rest of this post will be you and me mostly agreeing. I was fairly sure you stated that you posted an argument for moral realism to DESTROY it with your 'real' argument.That means if I believe the word flourish means killing babies with x traits on that basis alone is possibly moral or a principle of only 'my morality'.
Nope: we don’t define what flourishing is other than the word to semantically refer to it.
So, your postion is based on the rough equivalence of desire and morality.
Not at all. This moral realist theory posits that The Good is identical to flourishing, and The Good is analyzed within contexts; and the smaller the context the lower the Good, and the larger the context the higher the Good. — Bob Ross
Yes and that would be only 'meeting desires ends by attaining them.' In other words morality redefined as desire only.Hilarious. Myself and at least one other person here have pointed out that you are sweeping the second order issue under the rug. You just tied like 6 goals into that definition
Flourishing is just the fulfillment of something relative to its purpose. I don’t think this is all that controversial.
What “second order issue” are you referring to? Normativity? — Bob Ross
Well yes, I follow your distinction here. But no, you are sidestepping a dangerously important issue. If you fail to realize that virtues ARE the quantum discrete parts of goodness, you fail (in general).The good is all virtues. So you could have a dimension for each virtue and then any choice must include n-level complexity (and it does). The word 'goals' is your rug that you are sweeping all of truth into as to hard to look at. Stay messy. Stay real.
The Good, in this view, is flourishing: it is not virtues. Virtues are habits of character that are good. — Bob Ross
But you miss a critical point that CANNOT be missed unless you are wrong (you are wrong):By ‘goal’, I just mean ‘purpose’; and I think I have been really open about that flourishing is sufficient fulfillment of something relative to its purpose. I don’t think I am sweeping it under the rug at all. — Bob Ross
Well you did what the other guy did and did not put your part my part refers to that you are referring to here with your response. That makes it too hard to respond. I have no idea. I dont want to back trace it. Please quote the WHOLE thing each time. Computers carry forward the cumbersome whole easily. That's their purpose.this statement taken at the meta level is telling and horrifying. Wear you hair shirt on your own time. This is said in humor.
I am not following. — Bob Ross
Good, then we agree on this. Again, your earlier part is not included so I dont know what I was really commenting on.Wisdom is only ever earned via suffering
One can be flourishing in insufferable conditions; and I never said that we can’t use suffering to flourish more (in the long term). — Bob Ross
Wisdom is many things. It is a trait that as shown above is ALL, repeat ALL, bar none virtues combined, both in belief and in expression of belief as action. Wisdom is the know, do, want of GOOD.Also, wisdom is not The Good. This is a separate issue, but I am assuming you are also leveraging this critique against The Good as well. — Bob Ross
I said necessary. But yes, if it is necessary. It is not torture as that implies negative intent, negative wants. But because I know one must suffer to decide that it will act in alignment with objective moral aims and that one must also decide to want these aims, I will inflict necessary suffering on one. That one includes myself. What is necessary is not then rightly called torture. But it will be deemed torture by the weak.Necessary suffering is wise to inflict upon people in order to facilitate them earning wisdom
I do not necessarily agree with this, if you are implying we should torture people to give them “more wisdom”. — Bob Ross
I missed that admittedly and I apologize. No wonder at all then. I thought you were basically saying things that sounded like realism and that your intent was to say things that were subjectivism.You're the subjectivist. I will instead tolerate the many subjectivist errors towards wisdom because the intent to become wise seems present.
I think you have misunderstood the OP: this is not a thread about moral subjectivism. I have a separate thread for that metaethical theory if you would like to discuss that there. If you are accusing this theory of truly being a form of moral subjectivism, then I am not seeing yet why that is the case. — Bob Ross
Beauty and accuracy are objective. That is part of the problem of subjectivism. It does not admit to this. In wanting what is immoral it decides that all wants are equal in 'goodness'. That is dangerous lie.Does it not also include growth? What about accuracy? Is beauty a part of your flourish. It's so unclear really
Flourishing, being the fulfillment of something relative to its purpose, is not necessarily, in -itself, dependent on anything other than the purpose being fulfilled. That purpose can be anything. For most people, yes, personal growth is going to be a part of that. I am not sure to what extent beauty factors in for most people, and I am not sure what you mean by accuracy: accuracy of what? — Bob Ross
The which says NOTHING about morality at all. If my goal is to kill Asians, then if I succeed I am flourishing. That is subjective morality. Objective morality says that killing people just because they are Asian is incoherent immoral nonsense. So, objective morality would claim that it matters not how well you flourish killing Asians, you missed the point of morality.You again included the goal. That is the meta second level of distinction that I was referring to.
The Good, as flourishing, is not dependent on a goal itself: it is the objective relation between a thing and its purpose such that it has been sufficiently fulfilled. — Bob Ross
Ok, as expected there will be a lot of me saying 'nevermind' because I thought you were saying here that the good is subjective. You are claiming that in another thread so these arguments are still valid for you to respond to.OK, so there is no way for us to be objective. We can only try to be objective.
That is irrelevant to what I said, which was that I deny that the Good is subjective. That our striving towards the good is subjective does not entail whatsoever that the good itself is subjective. — Bob Ross
Now you just added another component, 'harmoniously'. You cant do that either. You didn't say that before. Saying that is a meta level difference and I can almost agree. But no, people are often harmoniously evil together. So, wrong again. More is needed. That more is objective. It is all good virtues combined.it is not the highest good.' What? Seriously? YOU can't say that. There is no good to you.
The highest Good is universal flourishing, which is the flourishing of everything harmonously (with one another). Again, I think you misunderstood the OP. Perhaps you were forwarded here from someone in the TFP that was asking you to analyze my other thread about moral subjectivism. This thread is about a moral realist position I have come up with. — Bob Ross
Oh lordie! The mind-independent thing again. As shown later that is a rug and a bad one. nothing is mind-independent in the way you seem to suggest. We are all connected.You say 'factually wrong' and I am thinking you think facts are objectively correct.
A fact is a statement about reality that properly corresponds to it. Facts are objective insofar as their agreement with reality is mind-independent. — Bob Ross
Nope. Reality is subjective delusion. Truth is objective. Facts are only currently held as 'true' beliefs about truth. They never describe truth accurately. Their correctness is only scale of how wrong they are, often relative to one another.When I say ‘factually wrong’, I mean that there is a state-of-affairs or arrangement of entities in reality in virtue of which make it true that it is wrong. This is objective, not subjective. — Bob Ross
Truth is the only thing that is objective.Due to experience, everything, even existence itself, is subjective
You are conflating experience being subjective with everything being subjective. — Bob Ross
Agreed and admitted.Lol, so again, you are back to declaring my argument, objective morality. I can't tell. Maybe you are a moral realist.
I would like to ask, and I mean this with all due respect: did you read the OP? I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, but I am now suspecting you may have jumped into this thread from someone else who notified you of my moral subjectivist metaethical theory that I defended in a different thread (or actually multiple threads). Am I right? If not, then I apologize. If so, then I would suggest reading the OP: it is a pretty quick read and you will probably understand better what this moral realist position is (and what it isn’t); and, that way, we can hone-in on our conversation to the OP itself. — Bob Ross
Again, you are right. It was because I can only ever focus on the real. If you present a front, a fake realism, and I read before as I did that you are a subjectivist, I can't help but speak to you, the real you, that is a subjectivist. Also the sheer length of some of this made me lose my awareness of the former position as a stance only, a pretense. Again sincere apologies.You ARE a moral realist and you just don't realize it.
I am still confused at why you think that this theory (I have presented) is purporting to be a moral anti-realist position; let alone moral subjectivism. — Bob Ross
It is not. It is a law of the universe. It is the only law, really. All else can be derived from it.Secondly, there is no such law of the universe that dictates that we have free will: it is a biproduct of our ability to cognize. — Bob Ross
(This is a) Wildly conceited and egoic point of view. We did this? Really? The same people that invented twinkies and cigarettes? I see (backs away slowly).
My claim (that you quoted) never attempted to say that we invented free will. It is a biproduct of our ability to cognize. — Bob Ross
That much is clear. We will meet again, when you are you. Luckily for you, morality is objective.Free will is what causes physical reality to occur.
It seems as though, and correct me if I am wrong, you are think that there is a natural law of morality which actually forms things, like a force. I don’t see why that is the case. — Bob Ross
Will do! Thanks for understanding!I will say that I disagree with most of what you said about moral subjectivism, but this thread isn’t meant to debate that; so if you want to discuss that then shoot me a message on the moral subjectivism thread of mine. — Bob Ross
I find it far more repetitious that I am and it vomits politically correct boilerplate in each reply.
— Chet Hawkins
Can you give some examples? — RogueAI
I suspect objective morality only. It is a theory for me. I cannot prove anything. No one can really. My arguments are to support my suspicion.As in objective moral truth, the GOOD, is a law of the universe, a mind-independent state for real.
— Chet Hawkins
Yeah, but you've totally avoided ever (I mean, over multiple threads now) letting us know what your formulation for objective morality is. — AmadeusD
This is precisely incorrect.What's it grounded in? How is it measured (Happiness, already having been rejected by you as a measure)? — AmadeusD
In general I respond. I am an anger type person. Combat is acceptable.and I do, so we can
— Chet Hawkins
Ah. Feel free to not respond to me if I seem too combative :P I'm unsure we can get anywhere. — AmadeusD
Your blind assertion that the relationship is not objective is itself baseless here. You are thus guilty of what you accuse me of.If you would care to state which relationship you mean more explicitly, I will re-answer.
— Chet Hawkins
I literally quoted your assertion that Happiness is evidence for Morality. That is a relationship. I asked you to express how you're actually making that connection. It is patently not objective, in any case. — AmadeusD
You are not efficiently copying my earlier text, like I am. This makes it harder to know how to respond here to this one statement in isolation. Please, stop doing that. Carrying forward the entire stream in each post is better, more proximal.So, no, your attempt to answer your own Q is dead wrong matey :) — AmadeusD
Again, in isolation I'd have to keep referring back. For the purposes of this post, I really am not sure what you are responding to here.I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman.
— Chet Hawkins
Very much no, unless you intend to disabuse me of your previous claim (dealt with above). — AmadeusD
I have offered reasons as to why this is so, but, I believe my original post mentioned that I assume it as a part of this sub-theory. To argue in good faith here it is required to assume that as well.Morality is objective.
— Chet Hawkins
No it isn't. *shrug*. — AmadeusD
Perhaps I might suggest you define happiness your way instead of just poo poo ing my assertions baselessly and claiming my assertions are baseless (when they actually are not).Objective moral truth does not inflict unhappiness upon you like some petulant tyrant.
— Chet Hawkins
It doesn't even exist. My entire point is you've said absolutely nothing that could possibly support this contention (hence, questioning the relationship between Happiness being evidence for Morality. That's both subjective, and nothing to do with proving morality is objective. I've yet to see something to support that contention in this exchange. — AmadeusD
I do not suggest that humans can 'know' anything, especially objective morality.And don't you go misunderstanding again! I am watching you! ..... You did that via free will. Jump off cliffs, sure, by all means, but don't then claim to be a 'victim' of gravity. Gravity did not change at any point. Some chooser wants a scapegoat for immoral (dysfunctional) observation and immoral (dysfunctional) desire. Self-termination is your right, but own it!
— Chet Hawkins
I can't really make heads of tails of this paragraph (beyond responding as above). It doesn't seem to ahve anythign to do with what i've said. It assumes objective morality, and further assumes that this can both be known by humans, and humans have the capacity to 'choose otherwise' as they say. Not seeing anything establishing those, though, so again - no heads or tails for me. — AmadeusD
Again, we cannot be objective. We can only try to be objective.But our interpretation of what happened is never objective at all.
— Chet Hawkins
Well then, conversation is at an end. Objective morality can't obtain if we are never aware of any objective facts. — AmadeusD
That is correct.So what happiness actually happened is objective or not a matter of opinion, at all.
— Chet Hawkins
If i'm reading you right, you contend that you (given the right information, short of mind-reading) could literally tell someone else they aren't happy, despite their claim to the contrary? (or, obviously, any equation where you're positing something other than the claimed mental state). If i'm not, please do clarify! — AmadeusD
Right back at you.So, no, wrong, I am not talking about what happened subjectively. I am referring to the objective happening, truth, the mystery of the universe we are here to discover, it would seem.
— Chet Hawkins
This seems too glib for the conversation i'm trying to have. — AmadeusD
All academia partakes of order-apology, fear oriented dependence only on a single path of happiness, that of fear. Fear seeks certainty and safety which are effectively delusional. They hide in fortresses of logical construction, unaware that logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. Logic is feels.Nothing in this part seems to address the issues, other than denying you're relying on a subjective account - but you only claim that what happens is objective, and not the morality(hint: that's an interpretation, whcih you've admitted is subjective). It would seem you're attempting to equate "moral" with "factually correct" whcih is totally counter to any use of 'moral' i've ever heard of outside of academic honesty conversations. — AmadeusD
A free standing denial is nothing really. No reason is given or explained.How can we first measure/judge intents in others(always in error) and then match that with subjectively observed (always in error) consequences and expect to glean some iota of objective moral truth (or even propose it exists)? It's a sticky wicket to be sure and our bowlers this year are real punters. Look at them go. Someone fix that wicket please so we can continue with the game!
— Chet Hawkins
Its utterly impossible, in fact. — AmadeusD
Yes, well, egg-breaking, omelet. You are saying nothing. I have no idea how to respond.Tomorrow I still hit.... will never change ...).
— Chet Hawkins
Same as previous "6th Contention" No idea what you're getting at.. But it does seem you're 'mucking around' so maybe that's the point :smirk: — AmadeusD
EQ is the emotional analog to IQ.EQ? What is EI?
— Chet Hawkins
Emotional Intelligence and Spatial Intelligence (not sure why you've said EQ lol). — AmadeusD
You do not say why it is incoherent. That helps no one.\But, caution, more awareness is needed. That is because if you increase the facility/ body automation ... with moral agency you add more potential for good aiming and more potential for evil-aiming at the same time. Awareness and judgment (virtues) must be ... good ... to proceed in the correct direction of less unnecessary suffering.
— Chet Hawkins
This seems totally incoherent and not relevant to establishing an objective morality. I leave that there. — AmadeusD
Your inability to argue in a classy straightforward way is obvious. Humor is acceptable. Even anger. But just saying 'no you're wrong' is not helpful in any way.You missed it.
— Chet Hawkins
I did not, and in fact quoted it, addressing it. Which you replied to. Something weird is going on here... — AmadeusD
As mentioned that was assumed here.objective nature of moral truth, to the GOOD.
— Chet Hawkins
But this is false, and you've not said anything that could possibly establish same. I'm still wondering how you are establishing it? I did ask in my reply and you've not addressed it. — AmadeusD
But you do not say why it is bizarre and unsupportable. So, who cares? I do, but that is because I adhere to caring as an objective moral principle and I feel happier when I care and express it.Giddiness in general is an excellent red flag. Giddiness is like foam on the top of the thing, happiness. It is shedding off the consciousness of the person experiencing it precisely because they cannot integrate it. It shows immoral addiction, rather than genuine happiness. This is just one tiny example of what I am referring to.
— Chet Hawkins
I would, in this case, suggest you are perhaps less-than-adequately across psychological data and understandings of behaviours. But I'm also no expert, so I'll also leave that one by just saying "I think thats bizarre and unsupportable" :P — AmadeusD
Read the other thread as I was told (effectively) to post there in this thread.I will re-quote what i really want you to do for me:
How are you grounding objective morality? Nothing, so far, does this for you in your replies. Very keen to get that in view. — AmadeusD
Eh? Absolute?It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality.
— Chet Hawkins
How? Noting that, as far as I can tell, the rest of the paragraph states your opinion, not an argument for this relationship being absolute. — AmadeusD
I never made that claim so who's claim are you referring to? You are about to burn a strawman. Yikes!Further it is my 2nd contention that morality is only one thing, objective.
— Chet Hawkins
morality is only one thing, objective.
— Chet Hawkins
This could only make sense to me if you could justify the former claim (that Morality is = Happiness up or down). — AmadeusD
My 3rd contention is that there is such a thing as genuine happiness and delusional, fake, or partial happiness
— Chet Hawkins
This seems to be true. But the next lines seem to betray a certain kind of moral self-reference. I'm unsure you could support your first contention while maintaining this position. It reduces happiness to an opinion in solely your mind, in sorting out what is virtuous/moral or 'happiness-inducing'. — AmadeusD
Sure you can.My 5th contention is that wisdom is only properly described as a collective virtue which must include all virtues.
— Chet Hawkins
I don't really disagree here, but as with above, I don't think you can support an 'objective' account, when it seems to be relying on subjective aggregates of opinion or use. — AmadeusD
If 'virtue' is just what people, in aggregate, take to be virtuous, given people actually differ in degree (i.e what constitutes a virtuous intelligence? Hard pressed to find agreement across the globe there i'd say) and kind (i.e some think EI is the only measure of Wisdom (further complicating your account) and some SI, etc...) it seems that you have a patent obstacle to your first couple of assertions on empirical grounds. What are you grounding the objectivity in? I can't find that in your exposition. — AmadeusD
And you didnt include it in the text, slacker! Now I have to go look it up to respond 2nd order to my own post! Arg! Your meat is fine. Your desert sucks!My 6th contention
— Chet Hawkins
I found this whole assertion incoherent. Probably just me not getting it, but wanted to note why I haven't commented on it reasonably. I just don't get wth is going on there :sweat: — AmadeusD
No worries! I am nothing if not pedantically elaborate. I know it can be a good thing, but not necessarily. I promise my intent is as good as I can make it currently.I appreciate your elaborate response! — Bob Ross
Quote entire response/post and copy the opening tag. Then when you read until you need to answer, close the quote with the ending tag and answer. Paste the opening tag from the copy buffer and on you go until you finish.Unfortunately, it is so long that I am having a hard time knowing where to start (and end), — Bob Ross
No worries! That is my general state of affairs. Sometimes I am life the Mask from the movie, 'Somebody stop me!'so let me just respond to the key points (that I was able to decipher from your post). You let me know if there is anything in particular you would like to discuss (that I may have perhaps overlooked). — Bob Ross
Interesting. Well, that's just crazy. And it is of course born of subjectivist delusion, but I do not want to just throw a no without reason.Firstly, you seem to be still thinking that The Good requires “a second-order inclusion of meaning” (presumably a standard) which I am overlooking. I say to this, that it does not have any such thing. — Bob Ross
Hilarious. Myself and at least one other person here have pointed out that you are sweeping the second order issue under the rug. You just tied like 6 goals into that definition. Nope. It has to be more primal. And even the triangle one breaks down at a high enough filter level. The critic at higher detail says "This triangle is here! That one is there! You should say 'trianglehere' and 'trianglethere' and give rise to the German language. You are wrong! Blah blah blah."Secondly, you ask what ‘flourishing’ is? I would say that it is the ‘optimal or sufficient actualization of goals’. — Bob Ross
this statement taken at the meta level is telling and horrifying. Wear you hair shirt on your own time. This is said in humor.I use it very similarly to ‘happiness’, except that I think that ‘happiness’ has a certain connotation of ‘feeling pleasant’ that I wish to avoid. — Bob Ross
Does it not also include growth? What about accuracy? Is beauty a part of your flourish. It's so unclear really. And then you are forced as well to explicitly state an infinitude of cases because you must pin down the particulars. There is no over-arching category that applies. You are ... lost amid the infinite seas of chaos/desire. Subjectivity is disintegration, a lack of wisdom, finally.Flourishing is sufficient realization over time relative to a goal (or goals). — Bob Ross
What? Eh ...Thirdly, you seem to also worry, subsequently, that flourishing may be subjective, which I deny. — Bob Ross
I mean you as a subjectivist just said, '... it is not the highest good.' What? Seriously? YOU can't say that. There is no good to you. If everything is possibly good finally, then nothing is good. Good vanishes. And you certainly cannot by your own stance forbid anyone else's radical nonsense as not good. You have no basis.To take your example, it is entirely possible that a society could be flourishing relative to their own goal of sacrificing babies (to whatever extent they want)—just like how a psychopath serial killer can be happy by torturing other people—but this is not the highest Good. — Bob Ross
No. A much better definition for the lowest good is 'nothing'. I'm not going to bother defending that because my ego is something. And that's better than nothing. Oh wait, I just defended it!The lowest Good, afterall, is, by my own concession, egoism — Bob Ross
Nope.and some intermediate level is a society which has set out goals which make them fulfilled (pyschologically) by sacrificing some babies, — Bob Ross
Yes perfection, one and only one thing, objective. You are arguing my point for me.but the highest Good is the ultimate sight for the eyes of the moral, virtuous man. — Bob Ross
Yes, but, those levels only serve to inform us where the top is. Perfection, unique, one way.You seem to have forgotten that The Good, under this view, has levels. — Bob Ross
It great that you can selfishness, self-indulgence, and pretend it is wisdom. It is also terrifying and morally corrupt. It is pandering to chaos/desire.Flourishing, as I have defined it, is relative to goals/purposes; and from this one can abstract the highest form of The Good, which is everything flourishing [relative to their own goals]. — Bob Ross
i agree but you are arguing the objectivist point of view and just do not realize it. Ok call an apple and orange and we will all just walk around carefully remembering that to support your 'special' subjective reality. Nope. I don't have time. I don't have patience. And I am not just attacking you here, I am humoring the scenario as I show my point of view.Therefore, what that society is doing, in your example, is factually wrong (in light of the highest Good). — Bob Ross
Due to experience, everything, even existence itself, is subjective. The only thing that is not subjective is morality. The objective nature of morality ... provides for ... the fulcrum of choice, free will. This is why we ... cannot ... be objective. We can intend toward perfect objectivity, perfection, the GOOD, only. What we achieve ... will be ... subjective, not objective. Just ask any two people!This form of the Good, as the form or relation of flourishing, is not subjective: — Bob Ross
Lol, so again, you are back to declaring my argument, objective morality. I can't tell. Maybe you are a moral realist.what it means for a particular person to flourish is relative to their own goals, but what it means to flourish (in general) is not; — Bob Ross
No no, you are confusing being, current state, with meaning, which is timeless.and flourishing of all, as the highest Good, does not waver with opinion. So you are partially correct in inferring that what it means to flourish is going to have that subjective element of being relative to a goal, but that itself, in form, is objective. I do not get to choose what it means to flourish, but what it means for me to flourish is. — Bob Ross
I named it and invented it. I can call pants pants if I want.Fourthly, you briefly asserted, without any real elaboration on any positive argument for it, a ‘brevity principle’: “As far as humanity can tell using all its resources to date that are widely known enough to be discussed, morality has to have been objective since at least the expected dawn of time.” I honestly did not understand why this would be the case nor why it is called the brevity principle. — Bob Ross
You ARE a moral realist and you just don't realize it.Fifthly, I think you are misunderstanding, or perhaps we just disagree, on the implications of moral subjectivism; and, more importantly, the nature of desire. Just to briefly quote you:
What subjectvists do not understand is this short and simple: If morality were subjective all stability as 'good' is not something you can put forth or depend on. You have embraced pure chaos.
This is not true at all if moral subjectivism is true, nor is it true of the nature of desire. Desire—i.e., will—is subjective, but it is by-at-large very persistent, as opposed to whimsical: people are psychological motivated by the deepest depths of their psyche, which their ‘ego’ has no direct access to, and this evolves very slowly. People depend on their desires all the time and with quite impressive precision and for large lengths of time. The only kind of chaos that might occur due to moral subjectivism is people’s fundamental desires may not agree with other people’s. — Bob Ross
indeed. Amplitude of moral agency is not relevant to outcomes.Sixthly and finally, you claimed that objective morality provides free will equally to subjects; which is not true at all. Firstly, it is clear that all animals of the animal kingdom (including humans) have varying degrees of free will, — Bob Ross
(This is a) Wildly conceited and egoic point of view. We did this? Really? The same people that invented twinkies and cigarettes? I see (backs away slowly).Secondly, there is no such law of the universe that dictates that we have free will: it is a biproduct of our ability to cognize. — Bob Ross
It does. You are precisely right. I could not have said it better myself. You are strong in moral realism, just not in correct labelling.Thirdly, if morality is objective, then it says nothing about what free will we may or may not have: it says what we should be doing or/and what is good to do. — Bob Ross
For you, what is the difference, the distinguishing factor, between the triangle analogy and The Good such that you would accept the former and reject the latter?
...
I think people do generally agree. We see a basic triangle and say “yep, that’s a triangle”. Likewise, we see someone feeding a starving child and say “yep, that’s good”. Perhaps, to help convey my point, strip the general conception of The Good of the word ‘good’: let’s call it G instead. G is just the general conception of acts which promote flourishing, and is abduced from particular acts [which promote flourishing]. No different than how the general conception of a triangle, let’s call it T instead to remove semantics, is the general conception of a “three-sided shape”, and is abduced from its particulars (e.g., a right triangle [a right T], an obtuse triangle [an obtuse T], etc). — Bob Ross
Ethics cannot be done from an armchair, — Bob Ross
Ok that particular is fine. It is something the senses can seize upon to make a category distinct.I would say that we do it like any other categories we make: we induce it from particulars.
I see this right triangle, that obtuse triangle, that isosceles triangle, etc. and I formulate/induce the general category of a triangle. — Bob Ross
Nope. You're totally off the rails there. You cannot judge what is good without some standard. There is nothing here for a declared subjectivist to lock onto. You say x, Fred says Y, Rita likes z. Nope. You have made a useless category.I see someone helping the needy, being nice to someone else, being respectful, upholding a beings sovereignty, etc. and I induce the general category of the good. — Bob Ross
Same trouble. The complexity of your categories in these good/bad judgments requires a second meta level of pattern matching not possible without some n-dimensional similarity and that is exactly what you are trying to refute. You are proving objective morality, not your case.I see someone torturing a baby for fun, a person being incredibly rude, a person demeaning another, a person being incredibly selfish, a person having complete disregard for life, etc. and I induce the category of the bad. — Bob Ross
Nope, and for the reasons mentioned.Just like how I can separate triangles into one pile and squares into another, and more generally shapes into one pile and non-shapes into another, I, too, can put generous acts into one pile and respectful acts into another, and more generally good acts into one pile and bad acts into another. — Bob Ross
I agree on this spreading and uncertain breakpoint analysis. Just like electron shell discretion in quantum mechanics there do seem to be a lot of this cant or this must rules in life. But is the fact that people can even agree on a category at all over time a hint at some meta level order to the universe? Is awareness then subjective, really. If we get it more right, it's closer to something. What is that? It's objective truth. Is awareness part of morality?Am I going to sort each into each pile 100% accurately? Probably not. Does that take away from the plentiful evidence that the categories do exist? Certainly not. — Bob Ross
Will do. I had kind of resisted the temptation to tack on after 17 pages of ... engagement. I wanted to imply in no way that I had read it all. What do you think? Is it a sin (ha ha)?Have a look, for example, at the discussions that Bob Ross has started, you will find many discussions of these topics. — Wayfarer
Just so, and of course, as follows, all us jolly good chaps would naturally seek that method out. That is what I am trying to help say, do, etc.Ah, you mean it’s a scientific question, but our science just ain’t good enough? — Wayfarer
Well, let's attempt to be realistic in some ways despite the immoral cop-out. My life has finite time in it and stating the entire canon of human philosophy in a single post thread is epically hard.I think this is what Vaskane was getting at - Nietszche’s remark about ‘Englishmen’ being, I think, that they have an assumed moral code, which of course, any decent chap will just see is The Right Thing. Anything else wouldn’t be cricket, you know. — Wayfarer
Agreed and this is the, you guessed it, immoral cop out, of not knowing how currently. Part of my aim is to suggest that we as a species need to develop better and better means of measuring not just consequences of choices, but in fact the intents behind them (such that Kant would be proud).The problem here is that gravity is objectively measurable, in a way that many (or most) moral actions are not. You - or anyone - can drop objects and measure the rate at which they fall. — Wayfarer
Disagreements are to be adjudicated in the same way they always have been and must be, by conflict. You can call this conflict war, discussion, or merely change and none of that makes any difference (to me).What would be the measure for such cases, and how would disagreements about what they were be adjudicated? — Wayfarer