I'm happy you agree. — Merkwurdichliebe
Just out of curiousity and ignorance on my part, if you'll breifly explain, what is the more common use of the term? — Merkwurdichliebe
It would be something along the lines of a fact that doesn't depend on anyone's opinion or whether it is a commonly held opinion. — S
Banno
5k
↪Frank Apisa
Two possibilities: Gods exist; Gods do not exist.
Two attitudes: I believe that.. ; I do not believe that...
Four possibilities:
a) I believe that gods exist
b) I believe that gods do not exist
c) I do not believe that gods exist
d) I do not believe that gods do not exist.
One cannot consistently hold (a) and (b) because they imply "I believe that gods exist and do not exist.
One can consistently hold (c) and (d), by not having a belief about gods.
One cannot consistently hold (a) and (c), since one is the negation of the other.
One can believe (b) and (d) by being agnostic. — Banno
You seem concerned that I don't use the term "moral objectivism". Is it that you think that moral statements being subjective renders them somehow less important? — Banno
Moral statements have a direction of fit such that we change how things are to make the statement so.
Suppose I think that one ought keep holy the Sabbath ( I don't).
If Fred comes along and says that we should open up shops on the Sabbath, I might simply say that he is wrong. That does not make my beliefs about the Sabbath any less subjective.
That is, keeping the Sabbath Holy, while not objective, can still determine my attitude towards Fred.
Yeah, that's not as clear as I would like it to be. We are in a culture that has valued objective truths because it seems easier to reach agreement on them. This has led to a devaluation of subjective truths.
Yet it is our attitude towards things that is most important.
What cannot be said is of far greater import than what can be said. — Banno
It's odd, because that's in sync with my own thinking, but you've said things like, "Kicking puppies is wrong", and seem to have suggested that it's something more than an indication of your own moral judgement, as though it was an independent moral fact that kicking puppies is wrong, irrespective of whether I judged it to be right or make no judgement at all. — S
I said "authored," not written. I use my term liberally, to include any that have been conceptualized, regardless of whether memorialized in writing, by utterance, or otherwise.There are sentences that have not been written, — Banno
If you received a text with various misspellings and incorrect words placed in error by spell check, would you look to use or try to figure out what was meant?sentences come from a specific perspective, and my saying that we ought look to the use of a sentence in preference to looking at its meaning. — Banno
Because knowledge involves belief. But knowledge and truth are distinct. — Banno
I think this more aptly describes the universal rather than the objective. — Merkwurdichliebe
But kicking puppies is wrong. You agree with me. What more do you want? It's being objectively true (to misuse "objectively") would not make it any more true...? — Banno
What is raw truth? — Hanover
When you say "truth" is that the noumena? — Hanover
If all I can know is the phenomenal... — Hanover
...then why talk about what really is? — Hanover
Do you insist that every sentence has an implied perspective?
— Banno
I insist that every sentence is authored, and every author has perspective, so every sentence must have perspective. — Hanover
I said "authored," not written. — Hanover
I think we do. But only about how we ought use the word "objective". — Banno
The universal would be something along the lines of true in all cases or believed by all — S
It would be something along the lines of a fact that doesn't depend on anyone's opinion or whether it is a commonly held opinion. — S
My argument:
A "fact" is just an opinion that a person is confident about. For example, the statement "it's a fact the Earth goes around the Sun" actually means "we're really really confident the Earth goes around the Sun."
However, before anyone jumps in and claims I'm a relativist moron, I also claim that some opinions are better and more useful than others. For example, While both of the following statements "the Earth goes around the Sun" and "the Sun goes aorund the Earth" are technical opinions, the first opinion is more useful for launching satellites and doing astronomy then the second. Just because all statements are opinions, does not mean all opinions are created equal.
Why am I posting this? Because I'm tired of people claiming "X is a fact.' The moment someone claims anything, they're just offering their opinion.
What are your thoughts? — YuZhonglu
It is my opinion moral objectivism and moral subjectivism are misleading terms... — Merkwurdichliebe
Right. In other words, subjective statements are value statements. They associate some notion of "good" and "bad", or "right" and "wrong" to some aspect of the world. Subjective statements are similar to a category error in that a person associates the feeling with the object - as if it were an objective feature of that object that everyone would agree with. — Harry Hindu
S & Banno:
It is my opinion moral objectivism and moral subjectivism are misleading terms...
I prefer moral relativism and absolute morality. But I don't expect anyone to adopt my definitions, I'm not a nazi of lexicon like S. — Merkwurdichliebe
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.