The problem with this is that different cultures with different languages describe different things as being good (using their words for "good"), and so if we accept Bob Ross' reasoning then the word for "good" in one language doesn't mean the same thing as the word for "good" in another language. — Michael
Bob Ross is saying that we determine the meaning of the word "good" by looking at what sort of things we describe as being good. — Michael
The point here is that if two people disagree with respect to a predication, "X is good," then they are either disagreeing about what good is or else they are disagreeing about what X is. Your Arabic case is just another example of this — Leontiskos
There is no necessary contradiction if "good" does not mean the same thing as "أخلاقي". — Leontiskos
But does it mean the same thing? — Michael
If it does mean the same thing then Bob Ross' explanation for how we determine the meaning of the word "good" doesn't work, or at least is insufficient. — Michael
If it doesn't mean the same thing then it doesn't make sense to say that Arabic speakers have different moral values, because they don't really have any moral values, given that they don't have a word for or concept of "moral" (much like we don't have a word for or concept of "أخلاقي"). Comparing our moral values to their أخلاقي values is comparing apples to oranges. It certainly wouldn't make sense to say that our moral values are "correct" and that their أخلاقي values are "incorrect", given that what they mean by "أخلاقي" isn't what we mean by "moral". — Michael
Why? Your argument is like saying that if I haven't studied C++ then I can't know what "if" means in Java. When Bob uses the word "good" he is not making a supra-English utterance, at least not in the way you seem to suppose. — Leontiskos
I am not going down that rabbit hole, but note that this is not a matter of words, it is a matter of concepts (as you seem to recognize). — Leontiskos
Because this is a contradiction:
1. The meaning of a word is determined by the things it is used to describe
2. The words "moral" and "أخلاقي" mean the same thing
3. The things the word "moral" is used to describe are not the things the word "أخلاقي" is used to describe
One of these must be false. I think (3) being true is uncontroversial, and so we must determine which of (1) and (2) is false. — Michael
What's the difference? Do you have a concept of أخلاقي? Perhaps only if "أخلاقي" and "moral" mean the same thing. If they don't mean the same thing, and if there's no other English word that means the same thing as "أخلاقي", then you probably don't have a concept of أخلاقي. — Michael
And conversely, if there's no Arabic word that means the same thing as "moral" then Arabic speakers probably don't have a concept of moral.
So if Arabic speakers do have a concept of moral then surely there must be an Arabic word that means the same thing as "moral". — Michael
This is, in fact, the case. Identity cannot be partial, by definition. — AmadeusD
we do not mean the exact same, identical thing — Leontiskos
endlessly misunderstanding each other. — Leontiskos
If identity cannot be partial, then you must have no persistent identity. — Leontiskos
It is different to say, "Good is different from أخلاقي," and to say, "Arabians have no conception of good." That is the first problem. — Leontiskos
These are both false. Do you have a concept of a Ford sedan? On your theory, you could only have a concept of a Ford sedan if you have a word for a Ford sedan. This is plainly false. We don't have a word for a Ford sedan. — Leontiskos
If an Arabian has a concept of flourishing then they very likely have a concept of Bob Ross' "good." It doesn't matter at all whether that concept is represented by the word أخلاقي. — Leontiskos
(1) is also partially true and partially false — Leontiskos
If an Arabian has a concept of flourishing then they very likely have a concept of Bob Ross' "good." It doesn't matter at all whether that concept is represented by the word أخلاقي. — Leontiskos
If their concept of "flourishing" is different to their concept of "أخلاقي", and if "good" means "flourishing", then "أخلاقي" and "good" don't mean the same thing. — Michael
We have the phrase "Ford sedan". I didn't mean to suggest that it requires a single word. — Michael
Which is precisely why I said that determining the meaning of the word "good" isn't as simple as just looking at which things we describe as being good. (1) is an oversimplification. Bob Ross' account of the meaning of "good" is insufficient. — Michael
Thus to properly interact with an individual's predication or definition must involve bringing to bear either communal meaning or else your own counter-individual meaning (it's either "we don't use the words that way"/"that is untrue for us" or "I don't use the words that way"/"that is untrue for me" because...).
As I see it, your meta-error is that you attempt to disagree, yet without managing to properly interact in the way just set out. You are effectively doing something akin to saying, "But what if the token g-o-o-d doesn't mean 'promotes flourishing'?"
(Philosophers like Aristotle and Wittgenstein are right to pay attention to common use. It's just that common use isn't the be-all end-all for philosophical discussion.) — Leontiskos
You seem to be saying the very strange thing, "Well I agree that we use the word 'good' to mean that which conduces to flourishing — Leontiskos
I don't agree with that.
There's a difference between using a word to mean something and using a word to describe something. The latter does not entail the former, which is where Bob Ross' argument faulters. — Michael
You seem to be saying the very strange thing, "Well I agree that we use the word 'good' to describe that which conduces to flourishing, but I don't see why the word 'good' means that which conduces to flourishing." This would not be a legitimate objection. — Leontiskos
It's not a strange thing. Some people use the word "good" to describe chastity. It doesn't follow that "good" means "chaste". — Michael
Bob Ross is saying that we determine the meaning of the word "good" by looking at what sort of things we describe as being good. — Michael
And how do you propose that we determine the meaning of the word "good"? — Leontiskos
Well in that case you are claiming that 'good' involves flourishing, but that flourishing does not exhaust goodness. — Leontiskos
Nowhere in saying "some people use the word 'good' to describe chastity" am I saying anything about flourishing. — Michael
No worries! I am nothing if not pedantically elaborate. I know it can be a good thing, but not necessarily. I promise my intent is as good as I can make it currently.I appreciate your elaborate response! — Bob Ross
Quote entire response/post and copy the opening tag. Then when you read until you need to answer, close the quote with the ending tag and answer. Paste the opening tag from the copy buffer and on you go until you finish.Unfortunately, it is so long that I am having a hard time knowing where to start (and end), — Bob Ross
No worries! That is my general state of affairs. Sometimes I am life the Mask from the movie, 'Somebody stop me!'so let me just respond to the key points (that I was able to decipher from your post). You let me know if there is anything in particular you would like to discuss (that I may have perhaps overlooked). — Bob Ross
Interesting. Well, that's just crazy. And it is of course born of subjectivist delusion, but I do not want to just throw a no without reason.Firstly, you seem to be still thinking that The Good requires “a second-order inclusion of meaning” (presumably a standard) which I am overlooking. I say to this, that it does not have any such thing. — Bob Ross
Hilarious. Myself and at least one other person here have pointed out that you are sweeping the second order issue under the rug. You just tied like 6 goals into that definition. Nope. It has to be more primal. And even the triangle one breaks down at a high enough filter level. The critic at higher detail says "This triangle is here! That one is there! You should say 'trianglehere' and 'trianglethere' and give rise to the German language. You are wrong! Blah blah blah."Secondly, you ask what ‘flourishing’ is? I would say that it is the ‘optimal or sufficient actualization of goals’. — Bob Ross
this statement taken at the meta level is telling and horrifying. Wear you hair shirt on your own time. This is said in humor.I use it very similarly to ‘happiness’, except that I think that ‘happiness’ has a certain connotation of ‘feeling pleasant’ that I wish to avoid. — Bob Ross
Does it not also include growth? What about accuracy? Is beauty a part of your flourish. It's so unclear really. And then you are forced as well to explicitly state an infinitude of cases because you must pin down the particulars. There is no over-arching category that applies. You are ... lost amid the infinite seas of chaos/desire. Subjectivity is disintegration, a lack of wisdom, finally.Flourishing is sufficient realization over time relative to a goal (or goals). — Bob Ross
What? Eh ...Thirdly, you seem to also worry, subsequently, that flourishing may be subjective, which I deny. — Bob Ross
I mean you as a subjectivist just said, '... it is not the highest good.' What? Seriously? YOU can't say that. There is no good to you. If everything is possibly good finally, then nothing is good. Good vanishes. And you certainly cannot by your own stance forbid anyone else's radical nonsense as not good. You have no basis.To take your example, it is entirely possible that a society could be flourishing relative to their own goal of sacrificing babies (to whatever extent they want)—just like how a psychopath serial killer can be happy by torturing other people—but this is not the highest Good. — Bob Ross
No. A much better definition for the lowest good is 'nothing'. I'm not going to bother defending that because my ego is something. And that's better than nothing. Oh wait, I just defended it!The lowest Good, afterall, is, by my own concession, egoism — Bob Ross
Nope.and some intermediate level is a society which has set out goals which make them fulfilled (pyschologically) by sacrificing some babies, — Bob Ross
Yes perfection, one and only one thing, objective. You are arguing my point for me.but the highest Good is the ultimate sight for the eyes of the moral, virtuous man. — Bob Ross
Yes, but, those levels only serve to inform us where the top is. Perfection, unique, one way.You seem to have forgotten that The Good, under this view, has levels. — Bob Ross
It great that you can selfishness, self-indulgence, and pretend it is wisdom. It is also terrifying and morally corrupt. It is pandering to chaos/desire.Flourishing, as I have defined it, is relative to goals/purposes; and from this one can abstract the highest form of The Good, which is everything flourishing [relative to their own goals]. — Bob Ross
i agree but you are arguing the objectivist point of view and just do not realize it. Ok call an apple and orange and we will all just walk around carefully remembering that to support your 'special' subjective reality. Nope. I don't have time. I don't have patience. And I am not just attacking you here, I am humoring the scenario as I show my point of view.Therefore, what that society is doing, in your example, is factually wrong (in light of the highest Good). — Bob Ross
Due to experience, everything, even existence itself, is subjective. The only thing that is not subjective is morality. The objective nature of morality ... provides for ... the fulcrum of choice, free will. This is why we ... cannot ... be objective. We can intend toward perfect objectivity, perfection, the GOOD, only. What we achieve ... will be ... subjective, not objective. Just ask any two people!This form of the Good, as the form or relation of flourishing, is not subjective: — Bob Ross
Lol, so again, you are back to declaring my argument, objective morality. I can't tell. Maybe you are a moral realist.what it means for a particular person to flourish is relative to their own goals, but what it means to flourish (in general) is not; — Bob Ross
No no, you are confusing being, current state, with meaning, which is timeless.and flourishing of all, as the highest Good, does not waver with opinion. So you are partially correct in inferring that what it means to flourish is going to have that subjective element of being relative to a goal, but that itself, in form, is objective. I do not get to choose what it means to flourish, but what it means for me to flourish is. — Bob Ross
I named it and invented it. I can call pants pants if I want.Fourthly, you briefly asserted, without any real elaboration on any positive argument for it, a ‘brevity principle’: “As far as humanity can tell using all its resources to date that are widely known enough to be discussed, morality has to have been objective since at least the expected dawn of time.” I honestly did not understand why this would be the case nor why it is called the brevity principle. — Bob Ross
You ARE a moral realist and you just don't realize it.Fifthly, I think you are misunderstanding, or perhaps we just disagree, on the implications of moral subjectivism; and, more importantly, the nature of desire. Just to briefly quote you:
What subjectvists do not understand is this short and simple: If morality were subjective all stability as 'good' is not something you can put forth or depend on. You have embraced pure chaos.
This is not true at all if moral subjectivism is true, nor is it true of the nature of desire. Desire—i.e., will—is subjective, but it is by-at-large very persistent, as opposed to whimsical: people are psychological motivated by the deepest depths of their psyche, which their ‘ego’ has no direct access to, and this evolves very slowly. People depend on their desires all the time and with quite impressive precision and for large lengths of time. The only kind of chaos that might occur due to moral subjectivism is people’s fundamental desires may not agree with other people’s. — Bob Ross
indeed. Amplitude of moral agency is not relevant to outcomes.Sixthly and finally, you claimed that objective morality provides free will equally to subjects; which is not true at all. Firstly, it is clear that all animals of the animal kingdom (including humans) have varying degrees of free will, — Bob Ross
(This is a) Wildly conceited and egoic point of view. We did this? Really? The same people that invented twinkies and cigarettes? I see (backs away slowly).Secondly, there is no such law of the universe that dictates that we have free will: it is a biproduct of our ability to cognize. — Bob Ross
It does. You are precisely right. I could not have said it better myself. You are strong in moral realism, just not in correct labelling.Thirdly, if morality is objective, then it says nothing about what free will we may or may not have: it says what we should be doing or/and what is good to do. — Bob Ross
As in objective moral truth, the GOOD, is a law of the universe, a mind-independent state for real. — Chet Hawkins
and I do, so we can — Chet Hawkins
I suspect objective morality only. It is a theory for me. I cannot prove anything. No one can really. My arguments are to support my suspicion.As in objective moral truth, the GOOD, is a law of the universe, a mind-independent state for real.
— Chet Hawkins
Yeah, but you've totally avoided ever (I mean, over multiple threads now) letting us know what your formulation for objective morality is. — AmadeusD
This is precisely incorrect.What's it grounded in? How is it measured (Happiness, already having been rejected by you as a measure)? — AmadeusD
In general I respond. I am an anger type person. Combat is acceptable.and I do, so we can
— Chet Hawkins
Ah. Feel free to not respond to me if I seem too combative :P I'm unsure we can get anywhere. — AmadeusD
Might be way late on this, but as noted in the other thread, practice! Hoping it makes per....sort of good. LOL.
We know what a triangle is because its conditions are contained in its concept.
We can't do that with 'good'. There is no a priori conception. It must be derived from particulars.. Imo
The Good is not normative. — Bob Ross
Agreed. That which may or may not be good, as in instances of, is.
The metaphysical argument being, one cannot know (appreciate, consider, allow….whatever) a thing as good, without the quality itself being resident in consciousness somewhere, somehow, over and above mere experience. Same with beauty, justice, and so on.
On the other hand, your triangle example doesn’t work the same as the ideal of The Good, in that it is impossible to think a triangle in general, for each though of one is immediately a particular instance of the conception. The Good, however, as an ideal, can never be constructed in accordance with a conception, hence remains a different kind of judgement.
So a fairly basic way to overcome the egoist's objection is to recognize that there are common goods, the benefit of which is in our private interest. Think of the mother who nourishes her child and sees the good of her child as her own good; or the father who finds his own good in the good of his family, or the soldier who makes sacrifices for the good of his nation, which is his own good. A bright dividing line between "my good" and "others' good" does not exist in reality. People regularly (and without intellectual recognition) come to recognize others' good as their own good
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.