I will argue that it can be objective. — Marvin Katz
Jesus! This is painful! — L'éléphant
That quibble aside — 180 Proof
my normative ethics is Negative Hedonic Utilitarianism (i.e. "right" judgments and conduct that prevents or reduces harm); and my applied ethics is Negative Preference Consequentialism (i.e. "right" policies-practices that prevents or reduces injustice). — 180 Proof
Arithmetic is objective, yet many are (functionally?) innumerate. Grammar is objective, yet too many are (functionally?) illiterate. This planet is objectively 'round', yet more and more socially-mediated Earthlings subjectively (make)believe "Earth is flat". :mask:In other words, morality only appears subjective ... — Agent Smith
n my first post, the o.p. above, I tried to convey that a presentation of academic material in a classroom (no matter how technical) which can be properly described as 'objective' is in fact,inter-subjective. — Marvin Katz
Arithmetic is objective, yet many are (functionally?) innumerate. Grammar is objective, yet too many are (functionally?) illiterate. This planet is objectively 'round', yet more and more socially-mediated Earthlings subjectively (make)believe "Earth is flat". :mask:
NB: By objectivity I understand demonstrably subject-invariant (as well as language/pov/gauge‐invariant). — 180 Proof
This planet is objectively 'round — 180 Proof
Arithmetic is objective, yet many are (functionally?) innumerate. Grammar is objective, yet too many are (functionally?) illiterate. — 180 Proof
You shouldn't ask for all that if you are not interested.Questions? Comments? Discussion? — Marvin Katz
I believe that when one posts a topic, it is becoming to at least acknowledge replies addressed to him, even with just a "Thanks" or "OK". — Alkis Piskas
I'm on board with this! If moral psychology is recognized as testable, verifiable findings on morality, I am a subscriber. I already reject relativism -- this is a sorry-ass approach to morality. But pluralism can be incorporated into your paradigm. I think it is already.I do believe it can be objective, in both an Epistemic and everyday, ordinary sense of the word, for the reason that acts of kindness, v. .olunteer service, donations, assumptions of responsibility, manifestations of human decency take place daily in this world. That is evidence; that is data to be ordered and explained by a logical framework, a system, that would constitute the seeds of a genuine scientific theory.
In fact I would go further and claim that if one considers Psychology to be a science, then that branch of Psych that deals with matters of ethical concern, namely Moral Psychology, which employs experiments to establish correlations, assigns degrees of reliability to its findings, indexes and dates its conclusions, admits that those are all tentative and subject to further investigation and update, etc.,ethics is already, in a sense, science!![/u — Marvin Katz
To me, this would imply morality is subjective. If we take objective to mean it does not depend on the mind for existence, then if it depends on who you ask (and there is no outside standard to measure such statements by) then it is indeed subjective, despite individuals claiming it is objective.Morality is objective. But it depends on who you ask what that objective morality is
But when you ask the people involved, and they say their morality is not how they want it, but an objective morality, then it is an objective morality. — Hillary
You can always ask them to change to other objective morals. — Hillary
totally agree. But people wanting their morality to be objective (or claiming it is objective) does not necessarily make it true. To me, this is a huge problem with any naturalistic, secular ethics. — Paulm12
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.