Do you think that beliefs change objective reality? Do you think that just because people believed that 5+5=11 (and not just redefined 11 to mean 10, but they actually believed 11), having 5 objects and then adding 5 would become 11? — SonJnana
Just so I can understand your position even more clear... does your claim of objective morality rely on the assumption that there is teleology, perhaps a god? — SonJnana
No, I don't think beliefs change reality. But I don't think you quite understand that it's not obvious to me, based on what you've said, that mathematics is objectively part of the world. And it certainly is not obvious to me that we somehow "see" mathematics in the sense datum. — darthbarracuda
No, I don't think so - at least not in the sense of there being a transcendent and all powerful being. Again, my position is that if we agree mathematics is indeed objective, then we also have reason to believe morality is objective, since both are synthetic a priori. — darthbarracuda
If you agree that a person who believes 5+5=11 saw 5 objects added to 5 more and ended up with 10 should re-evaluate their reasoning based off of that empirical evidence, you agree that the math knowledge we talk about is based off of an actual objective math law. And we know math laws are objective because we see them in reality. — SonJnana
My own view is that there is an essential property to an immoral act, and that property is harm. All immoral acts cause harm to the one committing the act, or to the one who is the object of the act, or to both. If there is no harm, there is no immorality. When I say this I'm not saying that every harmful act is an evil, only that all evil or immoral acts cause harm. — Sam26
Proof for the objectivity of morality comes from where? Conscience isn't good enough. 5 objects + 5 objects = 10 objects even before humans were around. That's because the math law is objective. However I can't distinguish whether it is objectively morally wrong to murder independently of human thought, or if humans evolved to believe that it is wrong to murder because it's useful. You have to demonstrate that. — SonJnana
Why do you not doubt that numbers are real but doubt that suffering is bad? Is it not intuitive that suffering is bad in the same way it is intuitive that 2+3=5? — darthbarracuda
Even if it was intuitive, you still have to explain that there is an objective morality that exists outside of human thinking and that it's not a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society. — SonJnana
The same could be said about mathematics. You keep going in circles, assuming mathematics is objective and empirical. — darthbarracuda
Because clearly you do see some things that are good and bad, right and wrong, or you wouldn't even know what morality is (apart from some empty commands with no content - is this how you really take morality to be?) — darthbarracuda
You need to explain why morality cannot be objective, not just state you don't "see" it intuitively. — darthbarracuda
My own view is that there is an essential property to an immoral act, and that property is harm. All immoral acts cause harm to the one committing the act, or to the one who is the object of the act, or to both. If there is no harm, there is no immorality. When I say this I'm not saying that every harmful act is an evil, only that all evil or immoral acts cause harm.
The second component is that immorality is objective, that is, it's not subjective, or a matter of opinion, or a matter of consensus. For example, if I cut someone's arm off without good reason, there are several factors that make this an immoral act, and moreover, make it an objective immoral act. First, it's objectively true that the arm has been cut off, we can see it on the ground. Second, we can objectively observe the screams of the victim. Third, we can also witness the screams and tears of family and friends. These three reactions show the objective nature of the harm done. No opinion or consensus will or can change the objective nature of these observations. — Sam26
I don't have to explain why it can't be objective because I'm not even asserting that it's non-objective. I thought we cleared my position up a long time ago. You are the one asserting why it is objective and if you can't demonstrate that, then you haven't backed up your claim. — SonJnana
Look, I've already demonstrated to you that morality can come in the form of valid logical syllogisms, and that the premises are what are being doubted here. But I've also shown that mathematics also relies on certain premises. Both mathematics and morality are synthetic a priori. — darthbarracuda
If you do not recognize the concepts right or wrong, good or bad, then there's nothing I can do to convince you. — darthbarracuda
Surely you would not think that a child who does not understand mathematics shows that mathematics is entirely subjective? — darthbarracuda
So I have provided what I see to be a plausible theory of what morality is. As a response you have merely asserted that morality could be something else entirely. I cannot cover all my bases, I cannot knock down every alternative you present. You need to go on the offensive and explain to me what about my theory is false. — darthbarracuda
No I wouldn't because I could demonstrate it with objects and it'd be true independent of whether they think it is an objective law or not. But I can't demonstrate that killing is objectively morally bad independent of whether people think it is true. That's the distinction. — SonJnana
How even could I go on the offensive and back up my claims when I'm not making any? It's you making the claim and me seeing if it makes sense or not. — SonJnana
It would just mean that the subjective opinions are consistent. Consensus on an opinion or belief doesn't mean that the opinion or belief itself is objectively true. — SonJnana
Now you're begging the question, though. In what way is demonstrating a mathematical proof different than demonstrating a moral proof? — darthbarracuda
Yes, I am making claims and trying to convince you of them. If you disagree you will need to give reasons why you disagree, which is just simply going on the offensive. It's just you saying that there is something wrong with my argument which is preventing you from agreeing with it. — darthbarracuda
The fact that I think morality is intuitive makes it difficult to show that it is objective to anyone who does not recognize or is not willing to recognize these intuitions. I've tried to make it easier by drawing the similarity between morality and mathematics in that both are synthetic a priori and both are grasped through reason and not empirical observation. — darthbarracuda
a person who is unconvinced of the truth of a certain moral claim (such as that murder is wrong) does not show that this claim is false or could not possibly be true. — darthbarracuda
I don't think I could deductively prove that moral realism is true. I think I can only show it to be coherent and plausible. — darthbarracuda
Anyone can make a logical proof about anything. The question is whether it is sound. The reason for objective law of mathematics being sound is the fact that we can demonstrate it. If you say 5+5=11, I can prove to you that you are wrong by showing you that your knowledge of math is not consistent with the objective math law that is independent of whether or not people think it is true. I know that math law is objective because it can be demonstrated. — SonJnana
But just because something is intuitive or not doesn't make it true. If a kid doesn't intuitively understand math, that doesn't mean that there is no objective math law. If I intuitively think what I see in a magical illusion is real, that doesn't mean that what I intuitively may think the magician is doing is actually happening. — SonJnana
It is a very hard think to do. I do not believe that you've shown it to be coherent or plausible to be honest, but I do respect that attempt that you've made thus far. It's made us both think more and that's the best part about this thread. — SonJnana
I may be wrong but how does one test for objectivity of observations?
For me being objective has two parts:
1. We must be logical in our thinking
2. Our observations of the world must be accurate
1 is taught to us and we learn to avoid logical missteps.
2 can only be achieved through consistency over space, time and observers. For instance a lump of sugar tastes good in China and America, in January and in June, to me and you and Mr. X. So objectivity is achieved through consensus in my opinion. I think I'm wrong on this. Can you point out my error. Thanks. — TheMadFool
Yet Descartes specifically argued that an evil demon could be tricking us into believing 2+2=4. — darthbarracuda
Do you understand what I mean when I say "intuitive"? I'm not meaning it like some warm fuzzy feeling or whatever, I'm meaning in the same way we "intuit" mathematical truths. When you're in math class and learning math, you are doing so through the operation of reason. Math isn't science. — darthbarracuda
As I said, it is difficult to show that moral realism is true, given how morality must be if it is real. It is not as if I would be able to show something to be incoherent in moral anti-realism and thus affirm realism — darthbarracuda
What I am aiming to show is that there aren't any good reasons to deny objective morality. Now that doesn't show objective morality exists but it does show that it is not incoherent and is at least something we can plausibly believe in. And, I think perhaps both of us will agree, there being objective morality is superior than there being none. We ought to hope there is objective morality and be disappointed if there isn't. — darthbarracuda
I think it depends on how you make the statement. For example, if I say that ice cream tastes good, that's an opinion. I could say that it's objectively true that ice cream taste good to me which would be another way of saying that it's objectively true that I like ice cream. Usually that's implied when I say ice cream tastes good. But the statement itself "ice cream taste good", using the word good here is implying that one subjectively likes it.
Haven't really thought about this much, but I guess that's what I can come up with right now. — SonJnana
I've realized something. Something is objective if and only if there's observer consistency (across space, time and different observers). — TheMadFool
1. Everyone wants happiness
2. No one wants to suffer — TheMadFool
Can you explain to me what you see to be the difference between mathematics and morality in terms of objectivity, and why the former is objectively real but the latter perhaps not? — darthbarracuda
I don't agree with those definitions. — SonJnana
You can't get an objective morality from this just like you can't say it is objectively true everyone should eat ice cream even it is objectively true that everyone wants ice cream. — SonJnana
What is your definition of objectivity? How can one know that he/she is being objective? — TheMadFool
Why not?
1. It is moral to make people happy
2. It is immoral to make people suffer — TheMadFool
How do we demonstrate mathematical law, and how is this different to moral law? — darthbarracuda
We don't "see" numbers. — darthbarracuda
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.