the choice of words is misleading to say the least because subjectivity has nothing to do with it. Why cause confusion by choosing words that could, like inter"subjectivity"? — TheMadFool
The necessary moral conditions for communicative debate are not in place. Language is made up, therefore it's all bullshit! :vomit: — unenlightened
The only problem we end up with is what do we make of the person who has no conscience and can live with the consequences of anything: murder, rape or genocide. That is where things become a bit tricky with what I will call the subjective utilitarian approach. Do we say that there is no objective criteria and that there are no objective moral principles at all? This is where we begin to get into the rough waters and possible moral nihilism. Okay, most of us have consciences but, unfortunately, not everyone does. — Jack Cummins
"We" did make it up; that doesn't mean it is merely arbitrary and capricious opinion. It's is also true, especially in your case, that your mere opinion will not outweigh everybody else's. — Bitter Crank
Plus isn’t that a fallacy or appealing to popularity? — Darkneos
I mean...when you get down to it the whole thing IS arbitrary and capricious opinion. That’s not my opinion that’s a fact. — Darkneos
But how many times have people done that and it led to ruin? — Darkneos
Obviously as stated the conclusion doesn't follow. It needs the following premise added to it
1. Different people and groups have different moral beliefs
2. If different people and groups have different moral beliefs, then morality is individually or collectively subjective
3. Therefore, morality is collectively subjective — Bartricks
Regardless though, if you agree that:
1- People generally have the same moral compass.
2- There are and will continue to be punishments for immoral acts
3- You have no basis on which to say those should stop.
Then really your view is practically the same as meta ethical realism or relativism. You will continue to try to be moral and avoid being immoral to avoid punishment. And you will not have a basis to argue something like “Murderers should not be punished”. And you will probably also continue to feel like murderers and such “deserved it”.
Which is why I think meta ethical questions are usually a waste of time. — khaled
Bob and Alice decide it would be good to tie you down and do to you things that caused you some experience (what does not matter much). Are your experiences capricious and arbitrary?
Or another way. You see in the newspaper a photograph. What is it a photograph of? Is it a photograph? What is it?
The point is that meaning is provided at an appropriate level or closeness of engagement with the thing to which the meaning is given. Not so close or far away that meaning is lost. And that meaning is neither capricious nor arbitrary, rather instead it is meaning itself, and according to the precision of that application, absolute.
We usually do not question if good things befall us - maybe we should. But these matters are usually honed and stropped on bad things. So the question becomes what is the value of the capricious and arbitrary. If your objection to being hurt by Bob and Alice is mere arbitrary caprice. What claim can you make on them to get them to stop? — tim wood
Incorrect. Premise two is redundant and unnecessary. Premise 3 logically follows from premise 1. Though judging by your post I find you to be an idiot. — Darkneos
And idiots also call themselves "experts" even though they aren't.Experts seem like idiots to idiots. — Bartricks
Strawman. I never claimed or implied that 'mere consensus' denotes objectivity.↪180 Proof Because what you have listed are still just value judgments and I already said that everyone sharing a value doesn't really make it objective fact. — Darkneos
Yeah, and not everyone accepts that the earth is round either. :roll:Not everyone sees pain as bad or crippled as bad either.
1 is false. People I come across have quite the different moral compass when it comes to a variety of issues. I'm still reminded of abortion debates or welfare or government assistance. Folks don't have a moral compass. — Darkneos
2 isn't entirely true and some "immoral" acts are quite legal and people can and do perform and get away with them. Repeatedly. — Darkneos
3 is on you to say why they should even start to begin with. — Darkneos
I do in fact have a basis that murderers should not be punished, mainly that there isn't a basis to begin with when punishing them. — Darkneos
You keep trying to foot the whole thing on me but the reality is that it's on YOU and anyone espousing morality as to why such things are right or wrong to begin with. — Darkneos
I don't understand the question. — 180 Proof
As pointed out above, the difference is that the latter is socially constructed and the former ineluctably precedes as well as exceeds (though doesn't necessarily exclude) social construction.Well, what are the differences between objectivity and intersubjectivity? — TheMadFool
By objective I denote subjectivity [perspective, consensus (intersubjective), language, gauge]–invariance e.g. arithmetic, gravity, boiling point of water, species functional defects of humans, etc. — 180 Proof
Well, an objective X, as I discern it, is intersubjectivity-invariant, that is, 'group consensus' (whether aware or unaware) does not 'socially construct' (affect) X – it's there, or how it is, no matter what an individual or group 'believes' or accepts or does not (yet) know about X, like e.g. gravity or what harms all species-members, etc. — 180 Proof
Well, what are the differences between objectivity and intersubjectivity?
— TheMadFool
As pointed out above, the difference is that the latter is socially constructed and the former ineluctably precedes as well as exceeds (though doesn't necessarily exclude) social construction.
re: 'objective' ...
By objective I denote subjectivity [perspective, consensus (intersubjective), language, gauge]–invariance e.g. arithmetic, gravity, boiling point of water, species functional defects of humans, etc.
— 180 Proof
re: 'intersubjective' ...
Well, an objective X, as I discern it, is intersubjectivity-invariant, that is, 'group consensus' (whether aware or unaware) does not 'socially construct' (affect) X – it's there, or how it is, no matter what an individual or group 'believes' or accepts or does not (yet) know about X, like e.g. gravity or what harms all species-members, etc.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof
There are actions and consequences and it really only boils down to whether you can live with the results of your actions. — Darkneos
the only thing that really matters is the cost for going against them. — Darkneos
I don't believe in right and wrong. — Darkneos
I believe you're mistaken, Fool. There is no "consensus" – outside of a negligible fraction of human beings alive today – acknowledgement that e.g. relativistic time-dilation happens, and yet it's an objective fact impacting the lives of every person using GPS and/or a cellphone that bounces synchonized signals off of satellites over the horizon. A state-of-affairs which is "consensus"-INVARIANT is neither established by, nor subject to, the assent/dissent of anyone or any group and this is what is meant by objective (e.g. Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, heliocentricity, DNA, the bottom of the Mariana Trench, date time & location of your birth, etc).I'm of the view that consensusdefinesobjectivity ... What gives? — TheMadFool
There is no "consensus" — 180 Proof
And "what really matters" will be what counts for us (how we will account for ourselves), what we will take as our culture, our words, that we will be heard in, be bound to, answerable for (or flee from). — Antony Nickles
The fact is that harm (e.g. hunger, pain, bereavement, isolation, etc) always causes dysfunction, or worse, especially when it is ignored and not alleviated adequately somehow. This is objective because it obtains whether or not "everyone sees it as bad". — 180 Proof
And why isn't this an acceptable description of where we are in a moral moment? There are such things as actions: a slight, or betrayal, lies, recrimination; and also reactions: an excuse, qualification, etc. And if we look at what they tell us about moral action, we might see that there is the act, then there is the reckoning for it; that there is a responsibility after the consideration of ought and the founding of morals. Most times we know what to do and what to expect, but then there are times when we don't know exactly what to do; nonetheless we act (or fail to). The moral realm is where we stand for what we say (or not), act beyond what is good and right, or against it. But we are held to it, we are separated by it. Where our knowledge of morality ends, we begin; into our future, our self--can you live with the results? — Antony Nickles
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.