Why, simply because it is a moral judgment, by an individual thought, makes that thought by definition subjective. — Rank Amateur
↪Rank Amateur There is no more or less objective the way that I use the term. Something either is or isn't. And morality isn't. Nor is it universal. Near universal isn't universal, so if a moral judgement is near universal, then it isn't universal. — S
I understand the point, what has not been explained is the link that makes these judgments subjective by definition because a human being makes them. It is a source argument. And my point is there is either some source behind these near universal judgments that we all share, making such judgments objective. Or, are we all the individual source of all our own judgments, and it is just a matter of coincidence that on some issues all these individual mental actions the same. — Rank Amateur
you did not address the source of these judgments. — Rank Amateur
We can try. We ought try.
— creativesoul
Sure, but only to the extent of patience, re: when barking at the moon and Wiki have equal dialectical authority, I find myself with nothing to say. — Mww
If one gets that(non and/or prelinguistic thought/belief) wrong, then they've gotten all sorts of other things wrong as a result.
— creativesoul
Quite so. As we can see here........
“Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be deriv’d from reason... — Mww
Non-sequiturs won't do here.
— creativesoul
Aren't non-sequiturs only pertinent to arguments? I wasn't forwarding an argument in what you quoted relative to this response. I was simply making some comments. — Terrapin Station
I already have very little reason to believe what you say about Hume. — S
Meaning there is some source of this judgment that is not relative or subjective to the person, the culture or the time. — Rank Amateur
I'm confused then, I suppose. Did you not quote me and charge the excerpt with ignoring and/or neglect?
Yes, that actually happened.
Three charges of neglect. None true.
When I wrote "non-sequitur" I was drawing your attention to the situation at hand. None of those charges follow from my position. You quoted me, and then aimlessly opened fire. "Non sequitur" was not about your argument, it was about the fallaciousness of your inquiry. — creativesoul
I do not understand your link between our near general agreement agreement about some things, and our biological development. — Rank Amateur
If you include some near universal evolutionary dispositions I am there. But I don't get the link between we all have a nose and 10 toes so we all think the same about a specific thing and it is subjective. — Rank Amateur
Why, simply because it is a moral judgment, by an individual thought, makes that thought by definition subjective. — Rank Amateur
People in that same mental phenomenon make a moral judgment, that the sorce of that thought is nearly universal, inherent in being human. Call it human nature or evolution- but if you agree such judgments exist they would seem to be much much more objective than subjective. — Rank Amateur
I understand the point, what has not been explained is the link that makes these judgments subjective by definition because a human being makes them. It is a source argument. And my point is there is either some source behind these near universal judgments that we all share, making such judgments objective. Or, are we all the individual source of all our own judgments, and it is just a matter of coincidence that on some issues all these individual mental actions the same. — Rank Amateur
The 10 toes was part of an example about something else (medicine) besides morality where we make “near universal” judgements based on our bodies developing in certain ways.
Correct me if im wrong on that Terrapin. — DingoJones
Meaning there is some source of this judgment that is not relative or subjective to the person, the culture or the time. — Rank Amateur
Since I'm calling mental phenomena "subjective" and I'm reserving "objective" for things that aren't mental phenomena, then if we're talking about people making a moral judgment as mental phenomena--we're saying that what it is to make a moral judgment is to be in a particular mental state, then even if 100% of everyone, throughout all of history, has that same exact moral judgment, because of how humans have evolutionarily developed, and that led to their brain working a particular way so that they all make that same moral judgment, then I'm calling that moral judgment "subjective," solely because/only because we're talking about mental phenomena, and "subjective" is a term I use to refer to mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station
So exactly how many does it take in your world to shift it from objective to subjective 1 in 7.5 Billion, 10, 1000, 1%. ? Rare exceptions does not proof subjectivity. — Rank Amateur
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.