I’ve read hundreds of forum posts and watched tens of videos on the subject. It really isn’t through lack of trying. It just doesn’t make sense to me, and every discussion I’ve had on it has gone in circles. I’m not trying to criticise anyone, or say I’m right and they are wrong, it’s just the results as they stand. I’ve wanted very much to understand it. But I really do not get what it is even claiming, let alone any way in which it could be demonstrated to be true.

Again, I think that you can.  I think that we can at least make some sense of the distinctions between moral systems, and recognize that even though we may think that one or more of those positions is susbstantially inaccurate..it isn't because the positions are fundamentally flawed and couldn't be true due to some underlying defect of inference. We can disagree with each other, those positions, and even have internal tension between the positions..without imagining that all of the ones we've ruled out or don't quite get are trivialities or fallacies.

Every answer to every question on that chart, for example..leads to a position with consistent semantics, valid means of inference, and robust academic support.

(additionally, I think that understanding what stop one gets off at will help to illuminate those objections between positions which are valid, rather than incosistent or incogent objections - you can't respond to a non-cognitivist the same way that you respond to an error theorist (as a realist) - because they aren't advocating for the same positions...the thing they think the realists got wrong is not the same thing, and non cognitivists think that error theorists are wrong for the same reason that realists are. That's bound to clear away some of the dross - and..if youi do respond the same way then at least half of the people you're talking to are left unsatisfied, thinking you haven't answered the question..and it only gets weirder when an error theorist fields non-cog objections not realizing that they are expressing an incoherent objection with respect to their own position. No answer, then, can satisfy, and they don't even know why - because they are in a state of unrecognized internal conflict. -They- don't know what they mean, or think...so what are the odds of them coming to an understanding of someone else's position?)

(October 25, 2018 at 7:16 pm)Khemikal Wrote: ...
Try this, give me any personally held moral judgement you like.  
...

It's a pity that we do not know the author's intent and have to go for a pick'n'mix from a dictionary.

If we go for moral+judgement as category+noun 'a sensation of right/wrong pertaining to a decision' we might be talking about the 'conscience' threshold e.g. confidence vs. feelings of guilt / shame, i.e. cognitive ease vs. cognitive dissonance. In other words: harmony vs. discord. The ease/harmony would be a range between a baseline and a threshold both of which are likely to be variables due to continual updates from sense-data.

It probably is something worth considering that 'beliefs' could be described as 'the overriding concept that maintains conditions that arise from events'.

If we go for moral+judgement as noun+verb 'deciding on the value of a lesson (story or experience)' then our answers could be 'useful', 'not useful' and/or 'might be useful later'. This would be 'information as input' and does not require any pre-defined, pre-considered or even unconsidered beliefs other than in the sense of 'novelty-detection'.

It's a blisteringly simple question.  Do you think that when you say "x is wrong" you are expressing a state of belief wherein you take the proposition "x is wrong" to be true?  

(note, it's not asking you whether or not it -is- true, only whether you are expressing a state of belief.... or something else)

Objectively speaking, I find this thread very subjective.

(October 26, 2018 at 3:38 pm)Dr H Wrote: Objectively speaking, I find this thread very subjective.

Objection noted.

---

(October 26, 2018 at 1:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote: It's a blisteringly simple question.  Do you think that when you say "x is wrong" you are expressing a state of belief wherein you take the proposition "x is wrong" to be true?  
...

Ah, OK. Thanks for simplifying. Now the answer is blisteringly obvious...

Yes and no.



I'm glad we've finally got that sorted out.

(October 26, 2018 at 1:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote: It's a blisteringly simple question.  Do you think that when you say "x is wrong" you are expressing a state of belief wherein you take the proposition "x is wrong" to be true?  

(note, it's not asking you whether or not it -is- true, only whether you are expressing a state of belief.... or something else)

It's blisteringly simple.  Are mores ideas, or are they properties of things?

We're not quite that far up the tree...but, a realist can answer yes to either.

---

(October 26, 2018 at 6:26 pm)DLJ Wrote:

(October 26, 2018 at 3:38 pm)Dr H Wrote: Objectively speaking, I find this thread very subjective.

Objection noted.

---

(October 26, 2018 at 1:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote: It's a blisteringly simple question.  Do you think that when you say "x is wrong" you are expressing a state of belief wherein you take the proposition "x is wrong" to be true?  
...

Ah, OK.  Thanks for simplifying.  Now the answer is blisteringly obvious...

Yes and no.



I'm glad we've finally got that sorted out.

We did, -any- yes works to move into cognitivism. So, what do you think, we agree that moral statements express beliefs..we're both cognitivists....but do you think that those beliefs are sometimes true, or do you think that (for whatever reason or no reason) they are always wrong.

(I don't think we've run across a non-cog yet, isn't that something?)

I’ll put it another way. I understand what realism is trying to do, but I think it fails completely. It just asserts what is good/moral/desirable/whatever based on things the reader is supposed to consider reasonable. That’s fine, within the content of the system itself. It then asks, "Can I make factual scientific statements about goodness?"

Yes, you can, within the system you’ve set up. That’s trivially true. Have you said anything at all regarding morality in general? No you haven’t, unless you want to start (a) equivocating or (b) excluding anyone who disagrees with your definition of what is good/moral.

So the question of whether realism "is true" is where the deepity comes in. It’s a loaded question. I’m really just summarising and formalising the criticisms I’ve made all along. The whole thing is sleight of hand, to be appearing to say more than it actually is. That’s my opinion. It’s not even addressing morality/ethics in general, so there’s nothing there to be "true".

---

PS: I’ll give an example. I think the existence of humans in general is a bad thing. That’s not a hypothetical, I actually do. So I could make an argument that wiping them out completely while leaving all other life on earth intact would be a good thing.

People are free to disagree with my evaluation of humans, but it requires the admission that morality/ethics is way more complicated to refute my argument.

I think the whole thing conflates morality and ethics, in much the same regard. It treats the individual as being the same as some sort of average of the whole. Morality is about personal decision making, whereas ethics is about an agreed standard. Which is it talking about? If it’s the former, then general factual statements become meaningless. At best you can notice trends in human behaviour. If it’s the latter, then it’s trivially true for any particular ethical system.

The underlying problem is that it tries to force desirable outcomes to be "well defined", when they are not, often by analogies to things which are much more narrowly defined. The things it tries to draw a parallel with have definitions which are agreed upon, and are useful exactly because they are agreed upon. What is "good" in general does not, historically speaking, so it relies on popular opinions at any given time.

It’s in this definition stage where the problems occur. You need to first establish scientifically what is and isn’t "good", and you can’t do that without already having a criteria in place. It’s the whole disagreement about what goes in what category that morality and ethics are all about. Realism tries to dodge this, and it fails, in my opinion. You can’t show things are agreed upon by assuming they are agreed upon.

This is so frustrating!!!

Quote:PS: I’ll give an example. I think the existence of humans in general is a bad thing. That’s not a hypothetical, I actually do. So I could make an argument that wiping them out completely while leaving all other life on earth intact would be a good thing.

People are free to disagree with my evaluation of humans, but it requires the admission that morality/ethics is way more complicated to refute my argument.

The fact is, depending upon which ethical theory you presuppose, the argument could be made that humankind ought to be removed in the fashion you describe. Many hedonists (for example) think that since animals feel pain and suffering, they deserve the same moral consideration as human beings. If you were a hedonistic utilitarian (one who wants to maximize pleasure and happiness whilst minimizing pain and suffering) you could easily make the argument that human beings' presence on the planet creates more suffering than pleasure-- humans make animals suffer, and they suffer themselves, tremendously. No humans=less suffering.

A moral objectivist would have no trouble having this argument. You might be correct, after all. Though there are other solutions besides eradicating humankind. These also deserve consideration. But hey, your way works too. And it very well might be the best way to reduce suffering in the world. That's a matter to debate.

Morality is complicated. The chart I posted is pretty simple, but morality itself is way, way, way complicated.

Quote:What is "good" in general does not, historically speaking, so it relies on popular opinions at any given time.

The word "good" can be used to describe objective AND subjective phenomena. Language has got you hung up. You can say, that piece of cheesecake is "good"-- that refers to your subjective experience. You derived pleasure from it. When you say "Michael Jordan is a 'good' basketball player" you are referring to something objective. He isn't good at basketball in your opinion because there are objective criteria for measuring his goodness. These are complicated too. What about somebody who scores less points than Jordan, but gets more rebounds? Is he better? Or worse? It's complicated. But these are nonetheless objective criteria which we are using to measure basketball skill.

Quote:You can’t show things are agreed upon by assuming they are agreed upon.

Here is another thing you are getting hung up on. Nobody has to agree on shit. We could ALL be wrong in our moral assertions and that wouldn't change the fact that they refer to something objective. If everyone on the planet Earth became a flat earther, that wouldn't make the earth flat. The question is what's true? not what do we agree upon?

You might want to look into hedonism or utilitarianism, Rob... if you haven't already. I think you are one... but because logic... not because opinions... and not because fictional assumptions. It's frustrating because I suspect you are an objectivist, but you find appeal in several arguments from moral skepticism. The arguments ARE rather appealing. And they might even be correct. At this point, I can't fault you for not trying. You read both of the essays I posted. Maybe you just are a moral skeptic. I give up.

I also think the is/ought problem needs its own thread. There's something there, but it's not as significant as you (and many others) take it to be.

Anyway, sorry to intrude in the thread after I said I was sidelining myself. I'll see myself out now.