|
still no.
agreeing, dismissing, accepting, rejecting. none of these have to do with something being fact. they have to do with people arguing about the facts. i can call something objective even if no one in the world agrees with me. if i'm right i'm right. if i'm wrong i'm wrong. the 6 billion other opinions on the matter don't mean a thing. neither does mine.
you're talking about disseminating knowledge. but you skipped the part about how we got the knowledge in the first place.
oh wait i forgot it's because science proved all people are equal. right they are all equal and all individual and all unique and special. i forgot about that mythical dogma that science proved for us.
and i have no idea what race has to do with any of this. race is an outdated term anyway. at least "species" carries some taxonomical weight.
|
sigh at this thread, second rate philosophy videos, and i cant even believe people are so confused about the difference between the subjective and objective.
|
On May 05 2010 17:33 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 17:27 daz wrote:On May 05 2010 17:20 tinman wrote: i hate on qualia because he is like king bitch from hell.
i told aelfric that qualia's video sucked because he offered it as some sort of solution to our conversation.
hope i made that clear. you sure your time isn't better served elsewhere like reversing the "overall problems" that theism has inflicted on "society"? i mean they are in need of enlightened thinkers out there and they are in short supply in these desperately misinformed times. What a great reason to hate someone. What you really made clear is how big of a douchebag you are. And man trust me if I could be reversing those problems I would be. i'm telling you, man. we need forward thinking young idealists like yourself out there saving the world from those damned theists.
I'm not an idealist but the rest we can both agree on.
|
On May 05 2010 17:55 tinman wrote: still no.
agreeing, dismissing, accepting, rejecting. none of these have to do with something being fact. they have to do with people arguing about the facts. i can call something objective even if no one in the world agrees with me. if i'm right i'm right. if i'm wrong i'm wrong. the 6 billion other opinions on the matter don't mean a thing. neither does mine.
you're talking about disseminating knowledge. but you skipped the part about how we got the knowledge in the first place.
oh wait i forgot it's because science proved all people are equal. right they are all equal and all individual and all unique and special. i forgot about that mythical dogma that science proved for us.
and i have no idea what race has to do with any of this. race is an outdated term anyway. at least "species" carries some taxonomical weight.
Of course you can call everything objective, if you like. You can call wood creative, if you like. The problem is that people will probably not understand you, so I would not recommend doing so, unless you don't want to be understood. You are turning in circles when you say that no opinion matters and you are actually demonstrably wrong. Opinion is all we have and it actually does matter a lot. If you can convince a lot of people to agreeing with you, you can make a big difference. This is demonstrably the case.
I didn't skip the part about gaining knowledge. Gaining knowledge and disseminating knowledge essentially requires the same basic tools. You make observations in reality. Test them. And then demonstrate to others that your observations hold true. The last part is crucial to reach objectivity, since it brings it away from the subject (you) to the collective. We call something "objectively the case" only if it can be demonstrated to others. If it cannot be demonstrated it is subjective. What we perceive as being "objectively the case" can change and should change whenever our knowledge changes and our knowledge about something changes, whenever we can demonstrate that something in reality does not match with what we thought we knew. Do you see the connection?
You also still don't get the part about equality. What I meant with "people are born equal" is, that a priori (without knowing anything subjective about a person), every person is the same. Any difference in institutionalized treatment needs to be justified by an observable difference in reality. Almost all of these differences are demonstrably individual. That's all I wanted to say and you seem to agree.
Race is a somewhat outdated concept, since there is hardly any definition agreed upon. Your taxonomical example exactly proves my point though. We are all equal in the sense that we all belong to the same species. That's exactly from what we deduce equality of rights. We are all different in the sense that we are individually different. From that we deduce differences in rights.
|
opinion may matter to you. obviously being understood and appreciated and listened-to does. but opinion is not "all we have." there is, in fact, no "we." your idea of a "we," your idea of "our knowledge," your idea of a "difference" to be made are all fictions, quaint little fictions. your "institutions" and the imperative you feel that they "deduce" the right "rights." those too.
personally i have no idea where you are getting any of this. you don't live in an institution do you? i suppose that could explain these rather vivid hallucinations you suffer about the nature, validity, and future of moral inquiry.
|
On May 05 2010 18:38 tinman wrote: opinion may matter to you. obviously being understood and appreciated and listened-to does. but opinion is not "all we have." there is, in fact, no "we." your idea of a "we," your idea of "our knowledge," your idea of a "difference" to be made are all fictions, quaint little fictions. your "institutions" and the imperative you feel that they "deduce" the right "rights." those too.
personally i have no idea where you are getting any of this. you don't live in an institution do you? i suppose that could explain these rather vivid hallucinations you suffer about the nature, validity, and future of moral inquiry.
Well, all you expressed is just opinion. So if you do have more than opinions, then tell me something that is not an opinion. Oh, but that's impossible!? What a pity ...
Opinions can reflect reality accurately or inaccurately, they can be right or wrong. But you will only find out by testing them and if you want an "objective view" the only possibility you have is to consult others. That's a simple fact.
I can clearly see that you have no idea where I am getting this from and that's a pity for you. Fortunately the majority of people intuitively understand that what I say is true. That Is also why the first thing people say whenever they perceive something incredible is: "Did you just see that?". Not all hope is lost for you, however, since there are many good books which explain things more slowly and deeply than I ever could. I suggest you just read one of them! See you around!
|
I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
|
On May 02 2010 09:32 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2010 09:27 Pyrthas wrote:On May 02 2010 09:13 rei wrote:On May 02 2010 08:57 Lixler wrote:On May 02 2010 08:53 zulu_nation8 wrote: This is a dangerous road to scientism What's wrong with that? It will alienate you from ppl who refuse to think critically intellectually. They will in term see you as an arrogant asshole.  Well, the next trick is to not be an asshole, and learn how interact socially with other people. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Exactly, one must learn the skills to enlighten people without offending them, because everyone have the need to fit in socially
Yes, this is the truth. I think a lot of people lacks this skill/doesnt bother doing it.
|
On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact.
All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not.
Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion.
Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
|
On May 05 2010 16:35 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 04:48 Gnosis wrote:So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding  I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually. That's exactly right! Actually we need to start from a basis of subjectivism - always - since our perception is necessarily subjective. I cannot say something is "moral period", just like I cannot say something is "big period". Things are not big per se, they become big because we relate them to a common framework and decide on scales to measure them. We reach objectivism by agreement, but this agreement is not arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that every value system is as good as any other, just because people agreed on it. That's where observations about reality come in. Morality is the study of actions and their consequences with the aim of finding out whether they match with a set of values. If I have different value systems, I can call different actions moral or immoral. Values however, contain or imply claims about reality. These claims can be studied and rejected/accepted just like any other claim.
Okay, I get it (makes a lot of sense, as long as we can avoid equivocating between values and reality). Another question then. In the billions of years of history that no (recognizable?) life in the universe existed, were moral claims still valid? Or did these claims only become valid and are dependent upon the advent of life, and if so, how are moral claims intrinsic to the universe, and independent of our perception of them, one way or another?
One of the most important values of modern societies is equality of rights. Why is that so? It certainly wasn't so in the past, and there were and still are whole societies founded on an inequality of rights and priviliges for certain classes, races or religions. Equality of rights as a value is deduced from the claim that people are born equal (in all respects that matter). This is a claim about reality and can be falsified (I recommend "The Mismeasure of Man" by S.J. Gould to everybody interested to see how biased science tried to justify suppression of race and gender by sacrificing critical thinking in the past). It turns out we cannot reject this claim, so all over a sudden this value seems to reflect a part of reality. Anybody who wants to defend a chosen "race", "sex" or "religion" needs to bring forth evidence and if he can't then this claim is dismissed. Religious systems, and especially Christianity, has a track record of arguing for racial, sexual and religious discrimination and whenever they reject the notion of evidence, they are immune to real-world criticism.
That's too bad about Christians, should have read and followed their scriptures more closely As for the moral claim that everyone is born equal, how do you morally justify this statement? I'm having difficulty seeing how the statement can be made, if we have nothing but the "cold facts" of reality (ultimately no purpose, meaning, etc. aside from what we give it). How do we know we're not just agreeing to believe in a "Noble lie"?
The problem with your objective morality from god is that you can never argue against members of a different religion. You can only say that they are praying to the wrong god or figured out what god said incorrectly. You would need to say: Well, if your god is real then your actions would be moral, since he said so. Instead I can say: Well, your actions might be moral according to your values, but your values don't reflect reality and they are detrimental to the development of your society here on earth. And this is irrespective of your god being real or not and I can demonstrate it.
Not at all Moral objectivism allows progress, subjectivism doesn't. I can say exactly what you can say. Keep in mind that I would believe that God would have made morality an intrinsic part of the universe, so I'm quite able to say, "your morality doesn't reflect reality..." etc. Which means that regardless of one's views of morality, commonalities may (and indeed are) found among many people. And frankly, behaving morally is a lot more important to me than having the right belief about them.
|
On May 05 2010 20:18 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 16:35 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 04:48 Gnosis wrote:So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding  I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually. That's exactly right! Actually we need to start from a basis of subjectivism - always - since our perception is necessarily subjective. I cannot say something is "moral period", just like I cannot say something is "big period". Things are not big per se, they become big because we relate them to a common framework and decide on scales to measure them. We reach objectivism by agreement, but this agreement is not arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that every value system is as good as any other, just because people agreed on it. That's where observations about reality come in. Morality is the study of actions and their consequences with the aim of finding out whether they match with a set of values. If I have different value systems, I can call different actions moral or immoral. Values however, contain or imply claims about reality. These claims can be studied and rejected/accepted just like any other claim. Show nested quote + Okay, I get it (makes a lot of sense, as long as we can avoid equivocating between values and reality). Another question then. In the billions of years of history that no (recognizable?) life in the universe existed, were moral claims still valid? Or did these claims only become valid and are dependent upon the advent of life, and if so, how are moral claims intrinsic to the universe, and independent of our perception of them, one way or another?
Well, this this touches a classical dilemma. Does the tree make any sound, if there is nobody there to hear it? All concepts can be valid or not. And if they are valid then they are valid irrespective of whether somebody has thought them up or not. It is an intrinsical property. So, I believe that there is an infinite amount of valid concepts and claims about reality that noone has ever thought up. I agree that I cannot demonstrate this and fortunately it is not important whether this is true or not for the application of a concept which is identified as valid
One of the most important values of modern societies is equality of rights. Why is that so? It certainly wasn't so in the past, and there were and still are whole societies founded on an inequality of rights and priviliges for certain classes, races or religions. Equality of rights as a value is deduced from the claim that people are born equal (in all respects that matter). This is a claim about reality and can be falsified (I recommend "The Mismeasure of Man" by S.J. Gould to everybody interested to see how biased science tried to justify suppression of race and gender by sacrificing critical thinking in the past). It turns out we cannot reject this claim, so all over a sudden this value seems to reflect a part of reality. Anybody who wants to defend a chosen "race", "sex" or "religion" needs to bring forth evidence and if he can't then this claim is dismissed. Religious systems, and especially Christianity, has a track record of arguing for racial, sexual and religious discrimination and whenever they reject the notion of evidence, they are immune to real-world criticism.
That's too bad about Christians, should have read and followed their scriptures more closely  As for the moral claim that everyone is born equal, how do you morally justify this statement? I'm having difficulty seeing how the statement can be made, if we have nothing but the "cold facts" of reality (ultimately no purpose, meaning, etc. aside from what we give it). How do we know we're not just agreeing to believe in a "Noble lie"?
I don't understand what you mean by "morally justifying" a statement. It implies a claim about reality and this claim is valid as far as we can know so far. There is no reason why a christian bank robber should be treated differently than a muslim bank robber or that a male could become president, but a female not. So we should organize the rules of our societey accordingly. This way of argument actually works for all levels and even the most basic needs of people. I believe that if we had conclusive evidence that women are under no circumstances able to rule a country, we would be justified to introduce a law that inhibits women from ruling countries. Why would we not? And how could we determine that we do not believe a lie?? Well, the best method to distinguish fact from fiction is to OBSERVE REALITY and DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE TRUE (sorry, for the caps, but that's exactly how we started). That is why evidence is also necessary in moral debates, whenever a value implies a claim about the real world
The problem with your objective morality from god is that you can never argue against members of a different religion. You can only say that they are praying to the wrong god or figured out what god said incorrectly. You would need to say: Well, if your god is real then your actions would be moral, since he said so. Instead I can say: Well, your actions might be moral according to your values, but your values don't reflect reality and they are detrimental to the development of your society here on earth. And this is irrespective of your god being real or not and I can demonstrate it.
Not at all  Moral objectivism allows progress, subjectivism doesn't. I can say exactly what you can say.
I am all for objective morality, but I want objectiveness to be used the same way as it is used in any other state of affairs! Why is it that objectivity in the matter of "size of things" is reached by agreeing on a meaning and an operable way to measure it, but in the matter of "moral" it has to come from a god? What you seem to mean is absolute morality or an objectivity which is not contingent on our understanding of the world, but external to us. This is an intellectual dead end. How do you convince a muslim that it is wrong to force women to wear burqas using absolute morality from god? It is their god which they are claiming to follow! Don't you see a problem there?
Edit: Screwed up layout.
|
On May 05 2010 20:13 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact. All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not. Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion. Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking.
There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
|
On May 05 2010 20:18 Gnosis wrote:Not at all  Moral objectivism allows progress, subjectivism doesn't. I can say exactly what you can say. Keep in mind that I would believe that God would have made morality an intrinsic part of the universe, so I'm quite able to say, "your morality doesn't reflect reality..." etc. Which means that regardless of one's views of morality, commonalities may (and indeed are) found among many people. And frankly, behaving morally is a lot more important to me than having the right belief about them.
I don't mean to hate, but if objective morality is really important to you, you should think about the following: (1) Your morality depends on the existence of a god, in the sense that should your god not exist you would not consider his moral laws objective or even valid. (2) This god could so far not be demonstrated other than by personal revelation and we found no impartial method that allows a detection. (3) It follows from (2) that the notion of a god is subjective in nature, since it cannot be seperated from the observer. In other words, there is no experiment which has a predicted outcome, where the prediction is derived from the existence of your god.
It follows from (1) and (3) that the basis of your morality is deeply subjective and therefore your morality itself is subjective in nature, as you cannot demonstrate it's validity to anybody else, who does not belief in your god in the first place. That is also why belief in a god is such a convenient way to justify varying, but absolute(!) morals in different cultures.
It seems to me that if you really have a problem with subjective morality than you would need to think of a different foundation to build on. Maybe you could try mine :-P
|
On May 05 2010 21:32 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 20:13 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact. All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not. Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion. Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking. There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective.
Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
|
On May 05 2010 20:46 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 20:18 Gnosis wrote:On May 05 2010 16:35 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 04:48 Gnosis wrote:So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding  I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually. That's exactly right! Actually we need to start from a basis of subjectivism - always - since our perception is necessarily subjective. I cannot say something is "moral period", just like I cannot say something is "big period". Things are not big per se, they become big because we relate them to a common framework and decide on scales to measure them. We reach objectivism by agreement, but this agreement is not arbitrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that every value system is as good as any other, just because people agreed on it. That's where observations about reality come in. Morality is the study of actions and their consequences with the aim of finding out whether they match with a set of values. If I have different value systems, I can call different actions moral or immoral. Values however, contain or imply claims about reality. These claims can be studied and rejected/accepted just like any other claim. Okay, I get it (makes a lot of sense, as long as we can avoid equivocating between values and reality). Another question then. In the billions of years of history that no (recognizable?) life in the universe existed, were moral claims still valid? Or did these claims only become valid and are dependent upon the advent of life, and if so, how are moral claims intrinsic to the universe, and independent of our perception of them, one way or another?
Well, this this touches a classical dilemma. Does the tree make any sound, if there is nobody there to hear it? All concepts can be valid or not. And if they are valid then they are valid irrespective of whether somebody has thought them up or not. It is an intrinsical property. So, I believe that there is an infinite amount of valid concepts and claims about reality that noone has ever thought up. I agree that I cannot demonstrate this and fortunately it is not important whether this is true or not for the application of a concept which is identified as valid
I never did give that "classical dilemma" much serious thought (or weight, for that matter). Next question, then. If morality is an intrinsic property of the universe, how is it possible, then, that moral claims exist at all apart from moral agents? How are moral imperatives an integral part of the universe at a time when such actions were effectively impossible to perform?
I don't understand what you mean by "morally justifying" a statement. It implies a claim about reality and this claim is valid as far as we can know so far. There is no reason why a christian bank robber should be treated differently than a muslim bank robber or that a male could become president, but a female not. So we should organize the rules of our societey accordingly. This way of argument actually works for all levels and even the most basic needs of people. I believe that if we had conclusive evidence that women are under no circumstances able to rule a country, we would be justified to introduce a law that inhibits women from ruling countries. Why would we not? And how could we determine that we do not believe a lie?? Well, the best method to distinguish fact from fiction is to OBSERVE REALITY and DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE TRUE (sorry, for the caps, but that's exactly how we started). That is why evidence is also necessary in moral debates, whenever a value implies a claim about the real world
What I'm asking is what foundation do you have for thinking that all people are born equal. I know you're telling me that we need to "OBSERVE REALITY" and "DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE TRUE," but you have a problem with that answer, and it's that you also believe that moral imperatives are a property of the universe, existing independent of moral agents (as far as I understood what you said above). So irrespective of any appeal to human behavior, how do you justify your view? Now, I certainly agree with you, I think all people are born equal (or created equal), I just don't know how you're arriving at your view.
Even still, I might be able to give such-and-such reasons for why an act should be considered moral or immoral, but the real question is this: once I've arrived at my view, exactly what is my view corresponding to in reality? If it's not corresponding to anything in reality (by that I mean some property of the universe), then it's a fiction.
I am all for objective morality, but I want objectiveness to be used the same way as it is used in any other state of affairs! Why is it that objectivity in the matter of "size of things" is reached by agreeing on a meaning and an operable way to measure it, but in the matter of "moral" it has to come from a god? What you seem to mean is absolute morality or an objectivity which is not contingent on our understanding of the world, but external to us. This is an intellectual dead end. How do you convince a muslim that it is wrong to force women to wear burqas using absolute morality from god? It is their god which they are claiming to follow! Don't you see a problem there?
Edit: Screwed up layout.
If I understood you properly, it's because there is no "best size of things," just as there is no "best possible Island" (Gaunilo's objection to Anselm). There may be a "best size" for certain tasks, but I'm not familiar with a rule (or a law) that holds that 'X' is the best size for everything. The reason morality has to come from god (or at least it's asserted) is because it's seen as a difficulty how it could come from anywhere else, for the problems (or problem) listed above. Besides, if we come to a conclusion through agreement, then you aren't really all for objective morality (you're all for subjective morality).
As for how I would convince a Muslim that burqas are wrong, well, in and of themselves, are they? What moral law dictates that a woman should not wear a burqas, even if she wants to? How would you convince a Muslim that women could lead countries? Or that everyone is born equal? Or that Muslims who convert to Christianity should not be executed? As I said in my response above, I'm quite able to appeal to reality and argue that the values of the religion conflict with the "created order" (for lack of a better term), or the order of the universe. I really don't understand how you believe that's a dead end. Like the laws of nature, morality can be discovered.
On May 05 2010 21:53 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 21:32 Squeegy wrote:On May 05 2010 20:13 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote: I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact. All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not. Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion. Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking. There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective. Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
You've lost me on this. Isn't it true that the two facts you're dealing with are (1) unicorns don't exist and (2) you're hallucinating, and are seeing unicorns? I don't see these two propositions as exclusive of each other, or contradictory. Seeing a unicorn while hallucinating only means that you're hallucinating, and it remains true that unicorns don't exist. Seems like an equivocation of the word "fact," and a confusion - even if a lot of philosophers agree - on what comprises reality.
|
On May 05 2010 21:38 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 20:18 Gnosis wrote:Not at all  Moral objectivism allows progress, subjectivism doesn't. I can say exactly what you can say. Keep in mind that I would believe that God would have made morality an intrinsic part of the universe, so I'm quite able to say, "your morality doesn't reflect reality..." etc. Which means that regardless of one's views of morality, commonalities may (and indeed are) found among many people. And frankly, behaving morally is a lot more important to me than having the right belief about them. I don't mean to hate, but if objective morality is really important to you, you should think about the following: (1) Your morality depends on the existence of a god, in the sense that should your god not exist you would not consider his moral laws objective or even valid. (2) This god could so far not be demonstrated other than by personal revelation and we found no impartial method that allows a detection. (3) It follows from (2) that the notion of a god is subjective in nature, since it cannot be seperated from the observer. In other words, there is no experiment which has a predicted outcome, where the prediction is derived from the existence of your god. It follows from (1) and (3) that the basis of your morality is deeply subjective and therefore your morality itself is subjective in nature, as you cannot demonstrate it's validity to anybody else, who does not belief in your god in the first place. That is also why belief in a god is such a convenient way to justify varying, but absolute(!) morals in different cultures. It seems to me that if you really have a problem with subjective morality than you would need to think of a different foundation to build on. Maybe you could try mine :-P
(1) That is correct, before I was a theist I was a nihilist. No god, no morality aside from what we make. (2) Red herring to the question of moral imperatives, at least for now. (3) Thus, irrelevant.
I think you're confused between a perception of a certain set of morals, and the existence of a certain set of morals. Consider that I could be a (1) theist, (2) couldn't demonstrate the existence of any god and (3) believed in absolute, objective morality. It does not follow from these three propositions that I therefore believe in a subjective morality, or that my morality is subjective in nature. It's quite possible that I believe in the moral set which is actually the case in reality, no matter how much I can't justify my position. Just as I could not demonstrate the validity of my moral code to others, it could not be demonstrated to me that my moral code is not objective, absolute, and corresponding to reality.
I already tried building a moral code on your beliefs, but it's impossible. I couldn't find any justification in the universe, and no amount of people agreeing with me changed that.
|
On May 05 2010 21:55 Gnosis wrote: As for how I would convince a Muslim that burqas are wrong, well, in and of themselves, are they? What moral law dictates that a woman should not wear a burqas, even if she wants to? How would you convince a Muslim that women could lead countries? Or that everyone is born equal? Or that Muslims who convert to Christianity should not be executed? As I said in my response above, I'm quite able to appeal to reality and argue that the values of the religion conflict with the "created order" (for lack of a better term), or the order of the universe. I really don't understand how you believe that's a dead end. Like the laws of nature, morality can be discovered.
We can pinpoint it here. I can say Islamic states who force women to wear burqas are morally wrong because: (1) Individual freedom is a value deduced from the observable fact that individual freedom of choice tends to lead to happiness as people have observable wants and needs, of which only they know in detail. (2) Happiness is good, since it is the observable preference of most beings to chose happiness over sadness. (3) Since people are fundamentally the same their happiness fundamentally counts the same, so restricting ones freedom needs to be justified with reaching more fulfillment of another observable value.
We can easily deduce from that, that we need to justify if we restrict freedom. So anybody who claims women have to wear burqas is required to give a testable explanation. "God says it" does not fly. If they claim that it undermines the stability of a society, they would need to provide a mean to test it. Until then let women freely decide what they want to wear.
And yes I know that my argument is way to short and can be tackled, but it is the fact that I have actually a mean to argue and be convincing, without appealing to a higher power that cannot be demonstrated.
|
On May 05 2010 22:15 MiraMax wrote: We can pinpoint it here. I can say Islamic states who force women to wear burqas are morally wrong because:
(1) Individual freedom is a value deduced from the observable fact that individual freedom of choice tends to lead to happiness as people have observable wants and needs, of which only they know in detail. (2) Happiness is good, since it is the observable preference of most beings to chose happiness over sadness. (3) Since people are fundamentally the same their happiness fundamentally counts the same, so restricting ones freedom needs to be justified with reaching more fulfillment of another observable value.
We can easily deduce from that, that we need to justify if we restrict freedom. So anybody who claims women have to wear burqas is required to give a testable explanation. "God says it" does not fly.
If they claim that it undermines the stability of a society, they would need to provide a mean to test it. Until then let women freely decide what they want to wear.
And yes I know that my argument is way to short and can be tackled, but it is the fact that I have actually a mean to argue and be convincing, without appealing to a higher power that cannot be demonstrated.
But that's the thing, as I understand what you're saying, you haven't demonstrated anything. Just because happiness is the "observable preference of most beings" doesn't mean it's actually good, as objectively distinct from bad, as things which are intrinsic to the universe, distinct from our perceptions. You fall into the error of subjectivism that you attempted to point out above: a moral code as inseparable from our perceptions (in fact your moral code is predicated and founded upon our perceptions!). Why is "individual freedom" good? Why is "happiness" good? Why should I maximize both? What is "good," and who decides? Otherwise all you're arguing for is a unique moral code, which is in some ways inverse to the Islamic world. What makes you right, and them wrong? What makes you seeing these things as good, mean that they are meaningfully good?
|
On May 05 2010 21:55 Gnosis wrote: You've lost me on this. Isn't it true that the two facts you're dealing with are (1) unicorns don't exist and (2) you're hallucinating, and are seeing unicorns? I don't see these two propositions as exclusive of each other, or contradictory. Seeing a unicorn while hallucinating only means that you're hallucinating, and it remains true that unicorns don't exist. Seems like an equivocation of the word "fact," and a confusion - even if a lot of philosophers agree - on what comprises reality.
There is no contradiction. Both are valid facts. "Objective" and "subjective" are words that relate to perception. All we see and reason with is perception, but something does not become factual just because it is objective!? And something is not not-factional because it is subjective. We suffer from the epistemic problem that we will never really know what is factual, even though we believe there are facts. Objective facts can be demonstrated, subjective facts not. This does't make subjective facts less factional, they just need to be believed.
I am really dazzled that so few people seem to know what subjective and objective means in a philosophical context.
|
On May 05 2010 22:26 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 21:55 Gnosis wrote: You've lost me on this. Isn't it true that the two facts you're dealing with are (1) unicorns don't exist and (2) you're hallucinating, and are seeing unicorns? I don't see these two propositions as exclusive of each other, or contradictory. Seeing a unicorn while hallucinating only means that you're hallucinating, and it remains true that unicorns don't exist. Seems like an equivocation of the word "fact," and a confusion - even if a lot of philosophers agree - on what comprises reality.
There is no contradiction. Both are valid facts. "Objective" and "subjective" are words that relate to perception. All we see and reason with is perception, but something does not become factual just because it is objective!? And something is not not-factional because it is subjective. We suffer from the epistemic problem that we will never really know what is factual, even though we believe there are facts. Objective facts can be demonstrated, subjective facts not. This does't make subjective facts less factional, they just need to be believed. I am really dazzled that so few people seem to know what subjective and objective means in a philosophical context.
Well, I understand what you're saying this way. There is the fact that (1) unicorns don't exist, there is also the fact that (2) while hallucinating, I'm seeing a unicorn. One fact corresponds with reality (1), the other doesn't (2). I'm going to hazard a guess and say that when people in this thread refer to "objective" and "fact," they are referring to things which we perceive, but which correspond to some thing in reality (the "Ding an sich" is what I believe Kant called it). In other words, they adhere to a correspondence theory of truth. Seeing a unicorn corresponds to my hallucinating, but not to the unicorn existing as some ontologically distinct being in reality.
As for your epistemic problem, wouldn't it be true, then, that you know factually that we will never really know what is factual? (In other words, you know at least one state of affairs in the universe?) Or does this observation too fall to your criticism, and thus we can't know if it's true or not that we'll never really know what is factual (you'll have to excuse me, I'm on some medication which has a habit of making me a bit cheeky).
And I think I have to disagree, just because I believe in something doesn't make it a fact. I would be wrong in believing that unicorn's exist because I'm seeing one while hallucinating. I would be right in believing that I'm seeing a unicorn because I'm hallucinating.
I wouldn't be so "dazzled" that people don't know what subjective and objective mean in a philosophical context. Most people aren't taught philosophy (me included), so we make do with what we can, throwing out the commonsensical for the observations of an educated man behind a desk...
|
|
|
|