I used the term "subjective" earlier in that particular context. Like I said:So what is there that is the opposite of "subjective", if we take this as a definition? What could be objective? Because there is nothing we could list here that is not by the very fact that we list it being talked about by people. And that would make everything subjective.
Can you give a better explanation of the distinction between subjective and objective? — Banno
Nothing you said actually explains how you can discern a moral fact from a taste. — Bob Ross
Again, I'm not pretending to present you with a handbook to what you ought to do. Others canpretend to that. What we have done over the course of this thread is examine in some detail the grammar around moral language. We have found that there are moral truths, and some examples have been given by myself and others.but I am failing to see how you would know this in your view. — Bob Ross
There is more than one way to use the word. I'm not too fussed which we use, provided that we keep track. The common feature is that "fact" is truth functionally equivalent to "true sentence", and this is how I mostly use the word. As has ben explained previously, problems occur when folk say "facts are only about physical things" but conclude "therefore there are no moral facts", as if this were an argument and not a tautology. The error comes to fruition when this is combined with the claim that "only facts are true" to conclude "there are no moral truths".Within your view, please define 'fact'. For me, it definitely is a 'statement which refers to a stance-independently existing thing'. What world-to-word fit-style definition do you have for fact? — Bob Ross
So we have some agreement.I'm not a fan of the terms "subjective" and "objective". — baker
That's one, negative, way to view what is going on. Another more positive way is to see those claims as tentative, looking for common ground, for stuff on which we can agree.Objectivists and moral realists talk as if it's not they, persons, who talk, but that when they open their mouths, The Absolute, Objective Truth comes out. — baker
It's subjective in the sense that it's people who are talking about its existence.
— baker
I think it goes further. It's subjective in the sense that it is an artificial label upon something that has no conformity to the label other than in the mind of a subject who has accepted the command to apply the label to that plot of land. — AmadeusD
Only on the assumption that everyone is equal.Questions of morality are about what everyone should choose. — Banno
I think perhaps, I would say, the correct sentence structure (in this particular context) for a realist then, would be "I think xyz about, what I think, is London".
But i do think the force of habit is strong enough to explain why realists talk in those absolutes anyway. — AmadeusD
I think with most Neoplatonism, the divine intellect (of which the human intellect is supposed to be a reflection) is associated with goodness. Evil is just separation or distance from the Nous, sinking into matter. Goodness and truth are essentially the same thing, with evil being a kind of illusion. So you're right that in Neoplatonism one intuits the Good by virtue of the intellect.
But morality is often defined as some sort of code of behavior. It's rules. The Christian take on Neoplatonism isn't about rules. It's about love. "Love and do what you will" as Augustine said.
Well, that one's easy. Bob prefers Vanilla - that's a question of taste, and might lead to Bob only eating Vanilla ice cream. "Bob prefers Vanilla" and "Bob only eats Vanilla ice cream" are a statement of taste.
But if Bob and his army were to insist that everyone ought eat only vanilla, and that chocolate was evil and the work of the devil, that would be about morals.
Again, I'm not pretending to present you with a handbook to what you ought to do
What we have done over the course of this thread is examine in some detail the grammar around moral language
Do you think that, though folk can doubt the chair in which they sit, that there is some ethical doctrin that will convince them all?
The common feature is that "fact" is truth functionally equivalent to "true sentence", and this is how I mostly use the word
As has ben explained previously, problems occur when folk say "facts are only about physical things" but conclude "therefore there are no moral facts", as if this were an argument and not a tautology.
This question begging is the generic form of the error in your OP and a few subsequent arguments.
The only potential way out of it is to deny word-to-world direction of fit, but I as of yet to hear a fully fleshed out concept of a fact with world-to-word direction of fit. — Bob Ross
Let's do that again.But what distinguishes Bob’s taste that everyone ought to eat only vanilla from the moral fact that everyone ought to eat only vanilla? — Bob Ross
This amounts to: what should you believe? You should work that out for yourself. Indeed, in questions of ethics, you have no choice but to work it out for yourself.“How do you know that any given moral judgment is factual (as opposed to being a taste: non-factual)?” — Bob Ross
No, it doesn't.Saying that a moral fact is a true proposition doesn’t inform me how you come to know that it is true. — Bob Ross
Well, no. I'm just pointing out that one can't make someone believe something. there are folk here who claim to doubt the chair they sit on and the people they chat to... Mad, but that's just how it is. So I'm not going to try to convince you that kicking puppies for fun is wrong. I'll just call the RSPCA.This just seems like a non-sequitur — Bob Ross
That just confuses direction of fit. Oh, well. I tried.Moral facts are about how the world is such that the world should be. — Bob Ross
That is, here is a truth without a direction of fit at all, and since we have to accommodate truth to at least allow for logical truth we must accept that sometimes there are true sentences which do not set out how the world is, that are true regardless of the states of affairs. — Moliere
Indeed, in questions of ethics, you have no choice but to work it out for yourself. — Banno
Mad, but that's just how it is. So I'm not going to try to convince you that kicking puppies for fun is wrong. I'll just call the RSPCA. — Banno
A true sentence is a statement that corresponds to reality: that’s a word-to-world direction of fit, not world-to-word — Bob Ross
One truth that is no fact are the logical truths, I think. There's no fact that makes "A = A" true. It's not a state of affairs
Consider "If you ought bring an umbrella you ought to sing a song; You ought to bring an umbrella, and therefore..." : if we render this into a sentential logic then "ought" disappears and you have modus ponens with sentences which at least appear to have a world-to-word direction of fit
Let's do that again.
It's a question of taste if it only applies to you - Bob likes vanilla.
It's a question of morality if it applies to everyone - Everyone ought like vanilla.
This amounts to: what should you believe? You should work that out for yourself. Indeed, in questions of ethics, you have no choice but to work it out for yourself.
What would it mean for something to have a world-to-word direction of fit and be about a state-of-affairs. It seems to me that you are only a moral realist because you are a moral cognitivist.Moral facts are about how the world is such that the world should be. — Bob Ross
That just confuses direction of fit. Oh, well. I tried.
100% agree, but Banno thinks that moral facts do have a world-to-word direction of fit, and I am having a hard time getting them to explain (or perhaps I am just not grasping their explanation of) what that would even mean. — Bob Ross
P1: If we do not know of any moral facts, then we have no reason to believe them.
P2: We do not know of any moral facts.
C: Therefore, we have no reason to believe them. — Bob Ross
I think there are plenty of forms of moral realism that do just fine without P2
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.