What advantage does that give you that a lack of an objective reality lacks? What does it allow you to say that the no objective reality model doesn't? — khaled

You can analyse people's biases, it makes sense to do so. And hence you can start to resolve differences of perception. In today's post-truth wako world, it's important to postulate that we all live in the same world, in spite of our differences of opinion about it.

My answer is "What's the difference?" Or, in more detail: Why propose an objective reality that you can be wrong about? What advantage does that give you that a lack of an objective reality lacks? What does it allow you to say that the no objective reality model doesn't? Same question with objective moralities. — khaled

Two people who agree that there is an objective answer and disagree about what it is have reason to try to sort out which if either of them is right. If they think there is no such thing as objective answers at all then there’s no point trying to figure out what it is... so if there actually is one, they’ll never figure it out, simply from lack of trying. That’s why that’s an impractical way to go about things for anyone interested in figuring out what if anything is the correct answer to their question.

But it does make a huge difference in the case of God. — khaled

Then it is in principle possible to judge whether or not God exists between these on the basis of that difference, and you’re not appealing to things beyond all phenomenal experience after all.

You can analyse people's biases, it makes sense to do so. And hence you can start to resolve differences of perception. — Olivier5

To postulate an objective reality that we can be wrong about is to say that everyone is biased. Or at least, that there is no way to tell that you have the “one and only unbiased objective view”. So you still can’t resolve these differences conclusively. All you can do is reach an agreement. Which you don’t need that postulate for.

You can reach agreement without objectivity. Which is what makes me wonder why you would want to postulate an inaccessible objectivity. Seems as useless as proposing the existence of an undetectable, massless teapot that cannot interact physically with anything. Just why?

Then it is in principle possible to judge whether or not God exists between these on the basis of that difference, and you’re not appealing to things beyond all phenomenal experience after all. — Pfhorrest

To do that we’d have to understand what happens to consciousness when we die. We don’t yet.

We can’t ask the dead if they’re in heaven. You can twist any of the major religions to fit in with the science. And it’s not even hard to do so.

Two people who agree that there is an objective answer and disagree about what it is have reason to try to sort out which if either of them is right — Pfhorrest

But they will never know is the point. You’re proposing an inaccessible objectivity. There is no point at which they can’t doubt the agreement they came to. There is no point at which they know their answer is the objective one.

If they think there is no such thing as objective answers at all then there’s no point trying to figure out what it is — Pfhorrest

Sure. But that doesn’t preclude trying different answers, seeing which work best, and reaching agreements. Which is exactly the same thing that you would be doing if you propose the inaccessible objectivity anyways. It only precludes going for the objective answer. Which is not possible even if you proposed an unknowable objectivity anyways.

All you can do is reach an agreement. Which you don’t need that postulate for. — khaled

You do need to agree that the world is one in spite of our different views of it, in order to WANT to resolve differences of opinion. Otherwise e.g. the flat-earthers' world would be actually flat and there would be no need for them to discuss this with non-flat-earthers, who literally would live on another planet.

Otherwise e.g. the flat-earthers' world would be actually flat — Olivier5

What does "flat earthers' world" even mean?

You do need to agree that the world is one in spite of our different views of it, in order to WANT to resolve differences of opinion — Olivier5

Doubtful. Or else every moral relativist would never speak about morals again. But they do. Wanting agreement is not dependent on whether or not a correct version exists. I would say wanting agreement precedes the meta consideration of whether or not a correct version exists.

What does "flat earthers' world" even mean? — khaled

The world in which those people who believe the earth is flat are living.

Wanting agreement is not dependent on whether or not a correct version exists. I would say wanting agreement precedes the meta consideration of whether or not a correct version exists. — khaled

Nope. Without the idea that we all live in the same world, perceived by each of us differently, without this axiom, there is nothing to try and agree about.

there is nothing to try and agree about. — Olivier5

False. We can still agree and disagree about our perceptions. In the sense that we can have different ones. And we can also want everyone to have the same ones as us. There are clear advantages to that.

We can still agree and disagree about our perceptions of it. — khaled

Of it? What does 'it' stand for in your sentence?

Changed it. Don't need the "of it" in that sentence.

Why should we want everybody to live in the same world if they don't actually live in the same world?

Why should we want everybody to live in the same world if they don't actually live in the same world? — Olivier5

As I said, there are countless advantages. Having people who agree with you is great. You can cooperate, agree on certain things, reinforce each other's beliefs, defend each other from opposing beliefs, create a harmonious community, etc etc. I'm sure you can think of many more on your own.

And what does "They don't actually live in the same world" even mean? Here you are proposing the existence of multiple, objective, and independent worlds. Idk why you are still doing that.

The closest thing it could mean that makes sense is "Why would we want everybody to have the same views when they don't actually have the same views", which I answered. But also, not postulating an objective reality doesn't prevent people from having the same view as you so idk where you get that either.

Having people who agree with you is great. You can cooperate, agree on certain things, r — khaled

Once again, if your world is different from mine, there's nothing to agree about. Like if you were watching some crappy TV show on channel 1 and I was watching some crappy western movie on channel 2 and then we can agree that what we both watched was crap?... I don't see the point. It was two different sorts of crap. Likewise if we all live in different worlds then any cooperation is logically an illusion.

if your world is different from mine, — Olivier5

And what does "They don't actually live in the same world" even mean? Here you are proposing the existence of multiple, objective, and independent worlds. Idk why you are still doing that.

The closest thing it could mean that makes sense is "Why would we want everybody to have the same views when they don't actually have the same views", which I answered. But also, not postulating an objective reality doesn't prevent people from having the same view as you so idk where you get that either. — khaled

channel 1 and I was watching some crappy western movie on channel 2 — Olivier5

What is channel 1 and channel 2 supposed to be analogous for?

Here you are proposing the existence of multiple, objective, and independent worlds. Idk why you are still doing that. — khaled

Oh, so you agree we all live in the same world? That's all I want to point out.

If it's the same then the same things happen or are the case in your world and mine. And our different views of it may be related to our viewpoint, our angle, our perspective, which are indeed different by definition. IOW, our biases are often best explained by our respective positions in this common world of ours. Rich and poor people often don't share the same views of the world, to take an obvious example, because they view it from different social positions.

In a forum discussion long ago, someone proposed to have solved this problem by pointing out that ethics was originally a part of aesthetics, and that it was aesthetics that dictates what is ethical.
How do you feel about this?

Oh, so you agree we all live in the same world? — Olivier5

Those aren't the only two alternatives. How about: No world, only perceptions? Like the idealists like it.

Those aren't the only two alternatives. How about: No world, only perceptions? Like the idealists like it. — khaled

Well then, once again there would be nothing to agree or disagree about, and no collaboration would seem possible.

Well then, once again there would be nothing to agree or disagree — Olivier5

Does that setup somehow make it impossible for people to have the same perceptions/views? No.

Last I checked idealists did not spontaneously lose their ability to collaborate with others.

Last I checked idealists did not spontaneously lose their ability to collaborate with others. — khaled

These idealists must have assumed they lived in the same world as other people, then.

the same perceptions/views? — khaled

Of what?

Precisely because it's trivial. You could find some literature supporting pretty much any common sense position. In fact even the most non-sensical positions would have some literature backing them up. — Olivier5

I don't follow what that's got do do with it. As I said, quite clearly, in my post "The purpose of a citation is so that we can see where the opinion derives from and follow the line of argument. Without it, there's nothing to argue. We might as well just write "yes it is", "no it isn't" all day - pointless."

The purpose is not to say "I've got a reference so I must be right". I cannot argue against, nor learn from, a position whose supporting evidence is not properly cited. That much should be obvious. This is not an exercise in canvassing the opinions of some random people on the internet.

It's still fresher than Buridan, who dates back to the middle ages and is what you seem to go by. You are just another behaviorist if you ignore the multilayered complexity of our cognition, and the role of language in it, and behaviorists are basically treating people as beasts, like Buridan was doing. That's bad middle age thinking... — Olivier5

I have literally no idea what you're talking about here. My understanding of moral development comes from researchers like Karen Wynn, Tania Singer, Alison Gopnick, Paul Bloom, Naomi Ellemers, Joshua Greene... None are from the middle ages.

Of what? — Olivier5

Why do they need to be of anything? I literally just said "perceptions with no world".

Granted though I'm venturing into some very weird territory here and I do in fact agree that we're all living in the same world and I'm not an idealist. But I just wanna see how far I can take this. In my view, there is an objective reality, but one that is inaccessible, and is just there out of logical necessity (because perceptions need to be of things).

But as for an objective morality however, that I don't see at all. Doesn't seem to be a logical necessity required for anything. Nothing about reality implies an objective morality in an of itself. And postulating an inaccessible objective morality doesn't seem to have any practical value.

These idealists must have assumed they lived in the same world as other people, then. — Olivier5

They didn't.

The purpose of a citation is so that we can see where the opinion derives from and follow the line of argument. Without it, there's nothing to argue. We might as well just write "yes it is", "no it isn't" all day - pointless." — Isaac

Right from the start, my argument was that if what feels good hedonistically was always equal to what is a moral course of action, then there would be no need for punishments and rewards. This is pretty clear, and dare I say obvious. You could have addressed the point a long time ago if you wanted to.

my argument was that if what feels good hedonistically was always equal to what is a moral course of action, then there would be no need for punishments and rewards. This is pretty clear, and dare I say obvious. You could have addressed the point a long time ago if you wanted to. — Olivier5

No, I couldn't because you provided no evidence for your assertion for me to examine. Would "no, you're wrong" have been a remotely interesting response for anyone else to read? A thing appearing obvious to you does not constitute evidence that it is the case.

In my view, there is an objective reality, but one that is inaccessible, and is just there out of logical necessity (because perceptions need to be of things). — khaled

I agree. But it's useful to postulate the existence of an objective reality, and also to assume that we can say something true about it. These are just axioms: points of departure which themselves are not proven. But without them one lands logically into very weird territory.

But without them one lands logically into very weird territory. — Olivier5

What’s the weird territory you land in for not having:

also to assume that we can say something true about it. — Olivier5

Because I can’t think of any.

The evidence is in the presence of punishments and rewards in all societies. Why do you think they exist and are so universal?

If truth is impossible, why even bother thinking about it all? Just gobble up whatever Trump says.

Because in the process you come up with better and better solutions to problems. At no point does your conclusion become unfalsifiable though.

also to assume that we can say something true about it. — Olivier5

Is to say that there is a point at which you can be sure you’re not making a mistake. Which from the definition of a mistake, is impossible. Short of some sort of divine intervention which waves the problem away.