Are you just saying that ALL information must be interpreted by an agent, so it is all subjective? So does that mean if life disappears then everything vanishes because there are no agents to interpret? — ZhouBoTong
I will stick with, facts are objective, opinions are subjective. — ZhouBoTong
I think the existence of happiness and suffering is objective. The idea that reducing suffering is good, I would count as subjective (I whole-heartedly support this as a good starting point for morality - analyzing the facts as objectively as possible leads me to BELIEVE that is as good a starting point as any), but isn't morality by definition, "how one ought to live"? Doesn't the ought make it subjective? — ZhouBoTong
But once we take it to this extreme, language has lost its purpose — ZhouBoTong
Are those who are wrong, worse than those who are right? Are criminals worse than non-criminals? Are people better than ants? — ZhouBoTong
I am distinguishing between facts and the interpretation of facts. — Judaka
If you disagree then which part? You believe meaning is not subjective or that rules have special properties which elevate them from being arguments with contestable premises and conclusions? — Judaka
What's the difference between fact and opinion? — TheMadFool
Personally speaking, a fact is true whether you believe it or not. An opinion doesn't have to be true but may be held as a belief. — TheMadFool
Don't you see any facts to ground morality on?
Isn't suffering-joy a fact. People may deny it but still feel pain at the loss of a loved one and joy when winning a lottery. — TheMadFool
Our wants boil down to dislike of suffering and like of happiness. Right? So, it seems to me that moral oughts have an objective basis right there. — TheMadFool
I agree these are the facts we base our morality on. But I don't see how to get past morality (how we ought to live) as subjective. — ZhouBoTong
If our morality is objective, why does it apply to animals far differently than it applies to humans? Is it a fact that animals are inferior to humans? — ZhouBoTong
What do we mean by ''we ought to do x''? It's a directive to follow a certain course of action and it needs a justification. I can't simply say ''we ought not steal'' or ''we ought to give money to the poor''. People will ask ''why?'' That query, the ''why?'', is another way of asking whether the basis of a moral injunction is objective or not. I guess I'm saying that the objectivity of an ought is simply the objectivity of its basis and that I've stated is the undeniable fact of suffering-joy. — TheMadFool
The purpose (According to whom? Purposes are alwaysto someone) of language is to pretend that value judgments/evaluative utterances are objective in some contexts? :joke: — Terrapin Station
This is not to say I don't have my own ideas of right and wrong. I do. But I don't view myself as better than anyone else (overall). But that is just ME.
So, my short, concise answer to your question is: NO (to all of them) — StaggeringBlow
so it's down to the righteous judgement. — kill jepetto
Haha. Darn right. I actually just meant "to communicate" but I think you got that. I do believe we have taken this about as far as it can go...maybe in a couple years we can have the conversation again and see if anything has changed — ZhouBoTong
Are you still in the process of formulating your views? (If you were thinking me, I'm a guy rapidly approaching 60, and a lot of my views have been the same for four decades or so) — Terrapin Station
Actually, according to the Bible, God is the ONLY judge, but, being omniscient, he judged us BEFORE time. The problem with God, or, rather, our attempt to comprehend him is that we can't because, assuming that God is omniscient, and that we are not even close to that, we can't reconcile Him or his thoughts in our minds. It's either a cop out or a fact. — StaggeringBlow
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.