Yes, I'm the pope. I have to be nice to losers all day long so I unwind by being really nasty to some on the internet in the evenings. — Bartricks
That's exactly what I'm bloomin' well doing! Literally. Here. Now. I'm presenting the argument in the cold light of day on a philosophy forum to see how it fares. Answer: hasn't even been dented. — Bartricks
As I have explained numerous times, it is valid. — Bartricks
Premise 1 says that if moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same. — Bartricks
if I am the subject whose valuings constitute moral valuings — Bartricks
Because they have the same meaning. I assume basic comprehension skills on the part of others. They all mean exactly the same thing. — Bartricks
Like I say, I am no longer willing to argue with someone who thinks that premise 1 is false or that the argument is invalid, because that's just not going to be worth any of my time or theirs, is it? — Bartricks
If it said: "if moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same."
Then it would be pointless, because that doesn't describe any subjectivist position. It's clearly nonsense to claim that "moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same". — Echarmion
Do you mean just because of "my"?
I read "If moral valuings and my valuings are one and the same" to amount to "If moral valuings and the valuings of subjects are one and the same." I know that "literally" it's not the same, but I don't figure that anyone is going to literally equate all moral valuings with only their own valuings, unless they're also a solipsist, which is unlikely. So I figure that "my" is a way to say "one's," with a connotation that we're talking about every one. — Terrapin Station
The issue here is with the identity of moral values and values in general. If they are "one and the same", every member of the set "my valuings" is also a member of the set "moral valuings". But that would be an absurd claim. — Echarmion
Ah. Wouldn't you normally just assume that "my valuings" is "my (moral) valuings," but where "moral" isn't repeated because that should be clear from context?
I would rather be surprised to learn that someone who wrote that sentence was thinking of "my valuings" in a literal, context-independent way, to refer to every single thing they value, moral or not. — Terrapin Station
"My moral valuings are not necessarily moral values", something which I think you wouldn't accept without justification. — Echarmion
↪TheMadFool No, because to say that something is 'subjective' is to say something about its composition.
Pain is subjective because it is made of states of a subject.
Pain cannot be true or false. Truth and falsity are properties of propositions.
The proposition "Mike is in pain" is true if Mike is in the subjective state constitutive of pain, false if he is not.
So, subjective and objective are terms that I am using to refer to something's composition.
Truth and falsity are properties of propositions. — Bartricks
Let us suppose that society never spoke of abstract pain, and that it instead invented a unique "pain designation" term for each and every person, that applied only to that particular person. E.g, "Bartrick-ouch", "MadFool-ouch" etc. In such a community, would it make sense to classify utterances of "Bartrick-ouch" as being subjective/objective ? — sime
Imagine a language-less creature that has just touched fire for the first time. (...) All that is needed is a creature capable of drawing correlations between their own behaviour(the touching) and the pain that immediately ensued. — creativesoul
What we're reporting upon(the thought/belief of a language-less creature) is not existentially dependent upon language. Our report most certainly is. — creativesoul
Definition and conception are not required for rudimentary level thought/belief..... — creativesoul
There are no false statements in a sound syllogism. It is impossible to falsify a true statement. — creativesoul
Those premisses cannot be verified. Logical possibility alone(argument by definitional fiat) is inadequate ground for belief. Some valid syllogisms predicated solely on rational premisses can most certainly be falsified. — creativesoul
See my critique of the OP's first premiss... — creativesoul
What makes you think that subjectivity/objectivity isn't also a property of propositions? — sime
Or take this argument:
1. If P, then Q
2. Not Q
3 Therefore not P.
is that valid or invalid? Well, it is obviously valid. Someone who kept insisting that it was invalid is just a berk, plain and simple. And yet there are many above who have denied that my argument is valid despite it having precisely that form.
Am I just 'deciding' that they are wrong? Doesn't your reason confirm that the above argument is valid? — Bartricks
If being morally valuable and being valued by me are one and the same property, then if I value something it must be morally valuable. — Bartricks
Applied to moral values: an objectivist believes that moral values - so moral goodness and badness - exist, if they exist, outside of minds. Our minds give us some awareness of moral values, just as our minds give us some awareness of tables and chairs. But the moral values, like the tables and chairs, exist extra-mentally (if they exist at all).
Subjectivists about moral values believe that moral values exist as subjective states, if or when they exist.
I think moral values are demonstrably subjective. Here is my simple argument:
1. For something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued.
2. Only a subject can value something
3. Therefore, for something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued by a subject. — Bartricks
I think it would help if you answered my more abstract questions about your motivations. Are you trying to show that a 'true' or 'absolute' morality depends on something like a god? — joshua
Premise 1 does, however, cast the morality in terms of 'subjective' experience (the experience of value) to begin with. In others words, you are perhaps assuming what you'd like to prove. — joshua
When people say 'murder is wrong,' they don't mean 'I feel that murder is wrong' or even that 'we feel murder is wrong.' They are generally aiming at something beyond mere feeling. — joshua
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.