I'd submit that in its usual use and here "being objective" in the sense of "trying to minimize one's personal biases to achieve a more collectively consistent perspective" is a much better description of "objectivity" than "possessing objective knowledge". — Pantagruel

I’d go one step further and say that the “objective” in “objective knowledge” or “objective reality” or “objective morality” just means that same thing: unbiased, divorced from any particular point of view, consistent with all points of view — which is not the same thing as consistent with all opinions, else it would be impossible for anyone to ever be wrong about objective things.

I’d go one step further and say that the “objective” in “objective knowledge” or “objective reality” or “objective morality” just means that same thing: unbiased, divorced from any particular point of view, consistent with all points of view — which is not the same thing as consistent with all opinions, else it would be impossible for anyone to ever be wrong about objective things. — Pfhorrest

:up:

How do people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other take any action at all? These people sound positively dangerous to me, in a dynamic situation such as real life. — Isaac

I don't need to have "strong opinions" in order to have preferences that guide and motivate my actions. By "strong opinions" I have in mind political and religious ideologies; they are what most of the conflict are over. And they are a distraction, because we don't need strong opinions at all to realize that most of us are being fucked over by the elites.

If everyone refused to consume the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, that action by itself would bring immense change. It's really up to the individual to take responsibility for their own lives, and I think common decency and compassion dictate that we should also take care of those who are unable to care of themselves. Nothing to do with "strong opinions'!

Nothing imposed from "above" is ever going to solve the problems we face, because the imposers are always prone to corruption. That said, of course the law should codify values which support social harmony; that is only pragmatic. Again, nothing to do with "strong opinions".

If everyone refused to consume the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, that action by itself would bring immense change. — Janus

's really up the individual to take responsibility for their own lives — Janus

common decency and compassion dictate that we should also take care of those who are unable to care of themselves. — Janus

Nothing imposed from "above" is ever going to solve the problems we face — Janus

the imposers are always prone to corruption. — Janus

the law should codify values which support social harmony — Janus

They sure sound like a list of strong opinions. Are you prepared to actually give the alternatives to all those positions a 'fair shake'?

Let's try them. I propose, for a five year period (one parlimentary term), we consume all the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, take over responsibility for other people's lives, not take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, impose all these solutions 'from above', ignore corruption, and not codify values which support social harmony. Are you prepared to give that a shot?

I seriously doubt it. So why do none of them qualify as "strong opinions"?

So why do none of them qualify as "strong opinions"? — Isaac

Because they are not based on ideology but on pragmatics, common sense and decency. If you can't see the difference, then I'll leave you to to it.

they are not based on ideology but on pragmatics — Janus

Yeah. And your political opponents wouldn't say exactly the same about their positions?

Because they are not based on ideology but on pragmatics, common sense and decency. — Janus

In other words, good reasons.

So, you're suggesting that it could be arguable that consuming all the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, taking over responsibility for other people's lives, not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, imposing all these solutions 'from above', ignoring corruption, and not codifying values which support social harmony are examples of measures based on pragmatics, common sense and decency?

In other words, good reasons. — Pfhorrest

Sure, but I was addressing the issue of rival ideologies that are "strong opinions" held for what their proponents think are "good reasons". I'm suggesting that there is never a good reason for holding to an ideology. Those pragmatic, common sense and decent values are not strong opinions or ideologies but necessary values if your aim is to achieve social harmony and fairness. If your aim is not that then you are one of those

people who honestly and devoutly have genuinely bad intentions: don't engage with them, ignore them, ostracize them, lock them up or kill them as the situation requires and/ or allows. — Janus

Those pragmatic, common sense and decent values are not strong opinions or ideologies but necessary values if your aim is to achieve social harmony and fairness. — Janus

I think that you take “ideology” and “opinion” to mean something different and much more pejorative than I do. To “have an opinion that such and such” is just to “think that such and such”, as I mean it. For that opinion to be strong is just to not be on the fence about it: to be really sure that such-and-such. An ideology is just a comprehensive set of opinions, usually normative opinions: it’s your big picture thoughts about things, usually about how they ought to be.

So if you think (as I do) that there ought to be social harmony and fairness, and that a variety of things are necessary toward that end, and you are very sure about all that, then that corpus of thoughts you hold are a set of strong opinions, an ideology. People like us who agree about those things see each other as group 1.

I see plenty of people who agree with most of the things I think ought to be, but do so without having really thought through why, they just agree with what whoever they think are good people think. Those are our group 2.

Then there are people who aren’t exactly opposed to those things we think, but they’re not solidly opposed to those who think otherwise either, they haven’t made up their minds yet. Those are our group 3.

Then there’s the people who were once group 3 and could have been swayed to our group 2 but instead were swayed the other direction. Those are our group 4.

And then there’s those who just don’t share the same values or means of reasoning or anything like us as all, who come to conclusions that are the opposite of what we think are those pragmatic necessities toward good ends, either because they’ve somehow come to value completely different ends or because they for some reason can’t see the pragmatic necessity that we see. Those are our group 5.

So, you're suggesting that it could be arguable that consuming all the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, taking over responsibility for other people's lives, not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, imposing all these solutions 'from above', ignoring corruption, and not codifying values which support social harmony are examples of measures based on pragmatics, common sense and decency? — Janus

Yeah, easily.

consuming all the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on - makes businesses profitable which leads to more jobs and more prosperity, and anyway, all that unnecessary shit is stuff we want, that's why we buy it so it would be against values of autonomy to discourage people from doing so.

taking over responsibility for other people's lives - is only our duty as good citizens, some people are too irresponsible to look after themselves and it would be both disruptive to social harmony and indecent of us to just let them ruin their lives out of a misplaced sense of individual freedom. The harmony of the community as a whole must come above individual freedom if the community is to thrive.

not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves - People who are unable to take care of themselves are a burden on others, it will be painful at first to not take care of them, but it will be best for the long-term health of the community if we don't continue to support their dependency. All they need is a bit of a 'kick out the door' and they'll stand on their own two feet, which will not only benefit the community, but give them more self-respect and dignity.

imposing all these solutions 'from above' - is necessary because only that way can the voices of the dis-empowered be truly heard. If we let community groups manage their own affairs it's too easy for the loudest voices in those groups to simply dominate and we can police that as well with hundreds of small groups as we can with one big government.

ignoring corruption - is necessary because corruption does not actually change policy to any great extent yet focussing on it takes government and policing effort away from matters which actually affect people to the detriment of society. There are serious crimes like murder and rape, there are important decisions to make like fighting terrorism and this focus on a trivial matter of a few thousand in bribes detracts from that important work.

and not codifying values which support social harmony - is important because societies are dynamic and policies toward social harmony need to be reflective of that fast moving situation. Codifying them in law would make yesterday's solutions legally binding for today's problems. We need as small a law as possible so that we can remain adaptive to changing circumstances.

I'm suggesting that there is never a good reason for holding to an ideology — Janus

'Other folks have "ideologies". I just have principles!'

And you're not willing to give any other views a fair shake? — Isaac

Awww. You're trying to clearly delineate a philosopher's efforts that testify of his love of wisdom, you're looking for the principles by which love of wisdom proceeds, right?

So let's try with this one:
A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so.

This distinguishes him from the wannabe and the juvenile who has not set such boundaries and limitations.

In other words, good reasons. — Pfhorrest

Who decides what are "good reasons"?

How do people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other take any action at all? These people sound positively dangerous to me, in a dynamic situation such as real life. — Isaac

There's a difference between having strong opinions and voicing strong opinions in a particular social setting.

It seems to me that people typically have strong opinions, but they often don't voice them.

A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so. — baker

Who isn't?

There's a difference between having strong opinions and voicing strong opinions in a particular social setting.

It seems to me that people typically have strong opinions, but they often don't voice them. — baker

Yes, I find that too.

Who isn't? — Isaac

To be clear: You're looking for the principles by which love of wisdom proceeds, right?
How is a philosopher different from a non-philosopher?

A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so.
— baker
Who isn't? — Isaac

Some people are by default opposed to consider any other views than their own (some religious people are like that, some politicians, some psychologists, for example). So that's one group of people who aren't willing to give all ideas a fair shake, ever. Some of these people can rightly be considered ideologues, some are just so authoritarian that they don't allow anything else to exist in their proximity, some are extremely narcissistic.

My point is that if one doesn't believe in objective morality, then how can one hope to get along with others in the pursuit of some common goal (which is, presumably, what politics is about, ie. the pursuit of some common goal)?

I also don't believe there is objective morality, but I think it is of vital importance to assume and act as if there was objective morality. Otherwise, we're talking about a bunch of moral egoists/moral narcissists who will never be able to get anything done together. — baker

We are all human beings, and most humans share the same goals. It's just the means by which we attain them can vary. Most agree that being happy and healthy is good, but we disagree on what makes one happy and healthy or the means by which we obtain happiness and health.

We are also social animals and social animals depend on the social relationships with others of their kind to be happy and healthy. How we go about establishing relationships, and what kinds of relationships, can vary. There is no particular right way to be happy that applies to all. There is a wrong way to be happy and that is to take other's happiness away. That is the only means by which one can obtain happiness that should be denied. Why should it matter how another obtain's happiness if it doesn't affect how you obtain happiness? If you are only happy in telling others how to live their lives or that they should obtain happiness and health the way you do then you are the problem of society, not those that don't agree with that assumption.

Why on earth should that be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in objective morality? — baker

There is what is true in one instance, and then there is believing that makes it true in all instances.

This is an odd thing to say. If I'm unsure which path to take, and I decide the left is more likely to lead home than the right, are you saying that, in the absence of a person to talk to about it, i don't consider my assessment of likelihood as 'right'? What status would you say I'd assigned it then? — Isaac

This is a red herring. The right way home for you is not the right way home for others, nor will it be the right way home all the time as traffic, accidents, and other obstacles can change which way is the best way home from day to day.

In assuming that you are right, you are only assuming that it right for yourself. To assert that it is right for others, you need to ask them, not assume it.

That is what you and Pfhorrest fail to understand. It's no surprise that you don't understand it. Authoritarians inherently have trouble understanding this. It's what makes them authoritarians.

Some people are by default opposed to consider any other views than their own (some religious people are like that, some politicians, some psychologists, for example). So that's one group of people who aren't willing to give all ideas a fair shake, ever. — baker

How is that different from them being "willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when [they] decides to do so"? 'Never' is just the 'if and when' that they decide upon.

The right way home for you is not the right way home for others, nor will it be the right way home all the time as traffic, accidents, and other obstacles can change which way is the best way home from day to day. — Harry Hindu

I don't see how that changes the logic. You're right, of course, when dealing with subjective preferences, but since politics and ethics hardly ever deal with subjective preferences, I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion.

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you give me an example of an ethical or political dilemma where the 'right' answers can be tailored to each individual?

taking over responsibility for other people's lives - is only our duty as good citizens, some people are too irresponsible to look after themselves and it would be both disruptive to social harmony and indecent of us to just let them ruin their lives out of a misplaced sense of individual freedom. The harmony of the community as a whole must come above individual freedom if the community is to thrive.

not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves - People who are unable to take care of themselves are a burden on others, it will be painful at first to not take care of them, but it will be best for the long-term health of the community if we don't continue to support their dependency. All they need is a bit of a 'kick out the door' and they'll stand on their own two feet, which will not only benefit the community, but give them more self-respect and dignity.

imposing all these solutions 'from above' - is necessary because only that way can the voices of the dis-empowered be truly heard. If we let community groups manage their own affairs it's too easy for the loudest voices in those groups to simply dominate and we can police that as well with hundreds of small groups as we can with one big government.

ignoring corruption - is necessary because corruption does not actually change policy to any great extent yet focussing on it takes government and policing effort away from matters which actually affect people to the detriment of society. There are serious crimes like murder and rape, there are important decisions to make like fighting terrorism and this focus on a trivial matter of a few thousand in bribes detracts from that important work.

and not codifying values which support social harmony - is important because societies are dynamic and policies toward social harmony need to be reflective of that fast moving situation. Codifying them in law would make yesterday's solutions legally binding for today's problems. We need as small a law as possible so that we can remain adaptive to changing circumstances. — Isaac

Think Laws (and taxes) seems like a pretty good idea anyways. Gives people room for initiatives within given frames and still possibilities to give help for the ones really in need. You have a lot of stuff here, som that I approve of and some not, but the concept of a state with an effective framework of laws, taxes and government has proven to be a useful solution to the problems you mention.

The Globalized world makes this a little more tricky, of course.

Someone who is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so, occasionally decides to do so. The people I listed above never do so, as a matter of principle; it's not an option for them.

Someone who is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so, occasionally decides to do so. — baker

I don't see how that follows. Either the philosopher is deciding at random which ideas to give a fair shake, or he is deciding based on some factor. If the latter, its not prima facie impossible that such a factor might, by chance, never arise.

Either way, is there some minimum number of ideas then one must give a fair shake in order to count as a philosopher? If I give one idea fair shake in my teens, am I then set for life to be a dogmatic idealities and still be called a philosopher?

I don't see how that changes the logic. You're right, of course, when dealing with subjective preferences, but since politics and ethics hardly ever deal with subjective preferences, I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. — Isaac

Thats is where you are wrong. If that were the case, then why all the political disagreements, wars, ethical dilemmas, etc.? It's like asserting that there is only one god, but then all I have to do is point to all the other gods that are believed in. Which god is the right god?

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you give me an example of an ethical or political dilemma where the 'right' answers can be tailored to each individual? — Isaac

That would require me to know what it is like for every individual - what makes them happy and their preferences for obtaining happiness. I know that you haven't been really reading what I've said, but I'll say it again: That isn't knowable unless you ask them first. It's not something that you assume.

Can you give me an example of a moral conclusion that can be applied in all instances for everyone person in the same way that gravity works for every person?

If that were the case, then why all the political disagreements, wars, ethical dilemmas, etc.? — Harry Hindu

You seem to be confusing different opinions about the right course of action with different possibilities over the right course of action. There can, for example, only be one import tax rate. There might be a hundred different opinions as to which is the best rate, but there can be only one rate, and so somehow a choice must be made about which is the right rate given all those diverse opinions. We cannot have one rate each.

That would require me to know what it is like for every individual - what makes them happy and their preferences for obtaining happiness. I know that you haven't been really reading what I've said, but I'll say it again: That isn't knowable unless you ask them first. It's not something that you assume. — Harry Hindu

I didn't ask for the answers people would give. I asked for an example of a dilemma for which it is possible to tailor the answer to each individual. For example, two men share a car, one thinks they should go left, the other right. It is simply not possible to tailor the answer to this dilemma to satisfy their individual preferences. There's only one car and it must go either left of right. I'm saying most ethical and political dilemmas are like this, I'm asking you to give me any examples of ones which aren't.

Can you give me an example of a moral conclusion that can be applied in all instances for everyone person in the same way that gravity works for every person? — Harry Hindu

Yes. That carrying a weapon in public is wrong. It only works if it's considered wrong for everyone. If it's the case that those who think it's wrong don't carry one but those that don't can carry one with impunity, then everyone will have to carry a weapon to defend themselves. Moral rules which de-escalate violence only work if they apply to everyone.

You seem to be confusing different opinions about the right course of action with different possibilities over the right course of action. There can, for example, only be one import tax rate. There might be a hundred different opinions as to which is the best rate, but there can be only one rate, and so somehow a choice must be made about which is the right rate given all those diverse opinions. We cannot have one rate each. — Isaac

It's not that simple. There can be different import tax rates for different countries, and the right rate depends on the country. So there isn't only one import rate. There are numerous rates dependent upon the needs of the country and it's relationship with other particular countries.

I didn't ask for the answers people would give. — Isaac

LOL! I know! Because you don't give a shit what other answers people would give. You already assume that you know what the right answer is for them. That's my point!

I asked for an example of a dilemma for which it is possible to tailor the answer to each individual. For example, two men share a car, one thinks they should go left, the other right. It is simply not possible to tailor the answer to this dilemma to satisfy their individual preferences. There's only one car and it must go either left of right. I'm saying most ethical and political dilemmas are like this, I'm asking you to give me any examples of ones which aren't. — Isaac

Whether you go left or right depends on where they want to go. What if they want to go to different places? Your examples are stupid.

Yes. That carrying a weapon in public is wrong. It only works if it's considered wrong for everyone. If it's the case that those who think it's wrong don't carry one but those that don't can carry one with impunity, then everyone will have to carry a weapon to defend themselves. Moral rules which de-escalate violence only work if they apply to everyone. — Isaac

Carrying a weapon in public does nothing to infringe upon your right to be happy and healthy. Using a weapon on an unarmed person is wrong as it goes against what I said in infringing on other people's goals of being happy and healthy. So you are confusing the distinction between carrying a weapon in public and using one on innocent, unarmed people. Carrying a weapon can prevent you being a victim of an armed attack. Speak softly but carry a big stick.

It's not that simple. There can be different import tax rates for different countries, and the right rate depends on the country. So there isn't only one import rate. There are numerous rates dependet upon the needs of the country and it's relationship with other particular countries. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I was talking about within one country, obviously.

Whether you go left or right depends on where they want to go. What if they want to go to different places? — Harry Hindu

So what? There's still only one car. How do they decide?

To make it clear why I'm picking examples like that (which I thought might have gone without having to explain), there's only one atmosphere, there's only one ocean, there's only one biosphere. And that's for the whole world. When it comes down to countries and communities, there's only one hospital, there's only one school, there's only one park, there's only one road network...

The example is like every political dilemma I can think of. Which is why I asked you for any alternatives. You seemed to think we can have one right answer each.

you are confusing the distinction between carring a weapon and using one on innocent, unarmed people. — Harry Hindu

No. If people generally carry weapons, then others will feel the need to do so themselves, violent assaults are then more likely to involve weapons and therefore be more harmful to all involved. Do you think the difference in homicide rates between the US and the UK is entirely unrelated to the fact that we've banned guns?

Yes, I was talking about within one country, obviously. — Isaac

Then, again, you've forgotten that you were the one trying to make the case for what is right for all, not just one (objective vs. subjective morality).

So what? There's still only one car. How do they decide? — Isaac

That's your problem, not mine. Remember that you were the one asserting the existence of objective morality, not me.

To make it clear why I'm picking examples like that (which I thought might have gone without having to explain), there's only one atmosphere, there's only one ocean, there's only one biosphere. And that's for the whole world. When it comes down to countries and communities, there's only one hospital, there's only one school, there's only one park, there's only one road network...

The example is like every political dilemma I can think of. Which is why I asked you for any alternatives. You seemed to think we can have one right answer each. — Isaac

My point is that even if the two occupants of the vehicle can come to an agreement about where to go, that doesn't mean that that is the right conclusion for everyone in every situation where the occupants of a vehicle can't agree on where to go.

There are many variables that can affect what type of compromise can be reached. Whose car is it and who is driving? You can always go to both places, but not at the same time. So if one isn't in a hurry then the other gets to go where they want to go first. These are but a small fraction of variables that can be in effect, and they are not all the same in each and every instance where occupants of a vehicle cannot decide where to go.

Like I said, it's the problem of induction. How do you know that what is true in this instance is true in every instance? Well, the problem is that every other instance is unique. States-of-affairs can be similar, but never exactly the same. The amount of similarity and difference between states-of-affairs is dependent upon the level of detail (measurement) we are talking about, or that is useful in some particular instance.

No. If people generally carry weapons, then others will feel the need to do so themselves, violent assaults are then more likely to involve weapons and therefore be more harmful to all involved. Do you think the difference in homicide rates between the US and the UK is entirely unrelated to the fact that we've banned guns? — Isaac

Again, you are conflating carrying a weapon with using it against innocent unarmed people. Does carrying a hammer make you want to bash people's heads in? Does driving a car make you want to run people over? Not everyone that owns a hammer, car, or gun harms innocent people with those things. In fact, most people that own those things don't harm innocent people with those things. Taking away the rights of everyone based on the actions of a few is what I consider wrong as it infringes upon the rights of innocent people. This is no different than racial profiling, which I think you would agree is wrong. So, why would you want to be inconsistent in your application of the rules, if not because of some political bias?

Then, again, you've forgotten that you were the one trying to make the case for what is right for all, not just one (objective vs. subjective morality). — Harry Hindu

There's more than one person in a country. You know that, right?

Remember that you were the one asserting the existence of objective morality, not me. — Harry Hindu

Where? Quote me doing that....literally anywhere on this site.

My point is that even if the two occupants of the vehicle can come to an agreement about where to go, that doesn't mean that that is the right conclusion for everyone in every situation where the occupants of a vehicle can't agree on where to go. — Harry Hindu

Indeed. Nor did I ever, anywhere, say that it was.

Does carrying a hammer make you want to bash people's heads in? — Harry Hindu

Where did I say it did?

Taking away the rights of everyone based on the actions of a few is what I consider wrong as it infringes upon the rights of innocent people. — Harry Hindu

But I thought you said...

How do you know that what is true in this instance is true in every instance? — Harry Hindu

So this is what? An exception to the rule? Something you somehow know to be right in ways others can't access?


Anyway, since you seem more happy arguing with a simulacrum than taking any notice of what I've actually written, I'll leave you to it. Do drop me a line every once in a while though, just to let me know all the things I'm saying, it's nice to be kept in the loop.

Well there's always the possibility that you are or I am wrong, no? If two people disagree about something, isn't it strange to assume that one is always automatically right and the other must be wrong? Seems like a constructive conversation would have to start from the idea that you might also be wrong about some things. Otherwise aren't you effectively always taking on the role of teacher/moral authority? I don't think anyone really likes being on the receiving end of such a conversation.

But aside from that I also do believe that you can come to different conclusions on ethical questions. And I don't mean this in a totally relativistic sense, better and worse arguments can be made, something can be more or less coherent, you can be misinformed etc... but usually - if it's not about extreme clear-cut cases - ethics is not like mathematics or science where you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that this one answer is the right one. And with politics I think this becomes even more questionable because of the enormous complexity involved. There are ideas that seem better or worse, but I don't think anybody really "knows" with any kind of certainty, and I would have that epistemic uncertainty reflected in the terms I use and in the way I approach those conversations. — ChatteringMonkey

I came late to this, but think you are right on here as to what a constructive debate entails, and the way to approach ethics. In purely ethical matters this respectful stance of interlocutors should be taken. However, I can see @Pfhorrest frustration maintaining respect for people who may not agree on basic historical facts or always doubt to the point of absurdity. They can always say that you are being duped by media and the deep state and nothing convinces. But you are absolutely right in terms of how to not be a condescending prick debates where it is purely logic applied to moral axioms and applications.