(April 9, 2019 at 8:18 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 8:14 am)robvalue Wrote: No, I believe there are statements that can be objectively true about reality, according to the definitions of terms used. But no one has the authority to decide/declare which are true with respect to reality, because that would require some sort of omnipotence/omniscience/perfection. Of course, anyone can say anything they like, so to speak, but that doesn’t make what they are saying true or even convincing.

There are also statements which can’t be objectively true or false, because the terms they use are either too vaguely defined, or rely on personal opinion.

So is 1+1 =2 objectively true? Or subjective?

It is internally consistent according to the system that describes it. In a different system, 1 + 1 = 10 And that is also true and internally consistent with that system. You should know. 1 + 1 = 10 is the system you are posting with right now.

(April 9, 2019 at 8:18 am)Acrobat Wrote: Is the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun, objectively true, or subjective opinion?

Both.
If we take the principle (subjectively) of "do no harm" as a moral foundation, the according to that subjective principle, we can say that torturing babies is objectively immoral under that system.

(April 9, 2019 at 8:18 am)Acrobat Wrote: If it's a subjective opinion, should i take it when you say it's wrong to torture innocent babies just for fun, you're just stating a personal taste or opinion, like telling me dominos pizza tastes bad?

Nope. It depends what the moral foundation you use actually is. Once that is identified, objective assessments can be made as to whether any act meets that standard or fails it. Thus to continue the previous example, if the moral foundation is to "do no harm" then objectively, torturing babies is is immoral in that system. Expressing a pizza preference does no harm and is thus perfectly and objectively moral from that foundation.

This is not rocket magic.

At work.

How would we infer the existence of the sun back in the Plescisceine, or last Thursday, for that matter.

So... either long existing, natural, processes lay down the organic material that became coal/oil/other fossil fuels. Hence solar irradiation.

OR some other, trickster, power created everything last Thursday and, well, we're fekked to know the difference.

Which is a slight digress from latent objective evidences pertaining to other objective things being around in the Plestoscene (Plescisceine ?)

(April 9, 2019 at 4:30 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 8:18 am)Acrobat Wrote: Is the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun, objectively true, or subjective opinion?

Both.
If we take the principle (subjectively) of "do no harm" as a moral foundation, the according to that subjective principle, we can say that torturing babies is objectively immoral under that system.

See...implicit reference to realism.  "Harm".  Torturing babies is only immoral in that system if torturing babies is harmful. There's something about torturing babies that "makes it bad". That's the moral aim of a harm based system, even if that moral aim doesn't provide uniform compulsion.

(April 9, 2019 at 4:30 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: It is internally consistent according to the system that describes it. In a different system, 1 + 1 = 10 And that is also true and internally consistent with that system. You should know. 1 + 1 = 10 is the system you are posting with right now.

You seem to be appealing to a different set of bases, which is akin to using a different language, to express the same thing. Instead of saying one, you’re saying dos, or to use your example, instead of saying two, you’re saying one-zero.

1+1=2 with base 10, can be expressed as 1+1=10 with base 2. Both of which indicate that if I have one apple and obtain an additional apple, I’ll have two apples, and not ten apples.

Quote:Both.
If we take the principle (subjectively) of "do no harm" as a moral foundation, the according to that subjective principle, we can say that torturing babies is objectively immoral under that system.


Nope. It depends what the moral foundation you use actually is. Once that is identified, objective assessments can be made as to whether any act meets that standard or fails it. Thus to continue the previous example, if the moral foundation is to "do no harm" then objectively, torturing babies is is immoral in that system. Expressing a pizza preference does no harm and is thus perfectly and objectively moral from that foundation.

This is not rocket magic.

The Michelin guides analysis of food and restaurant experiences use a variety of objective criteria, to define what constitutes as great. This doesn’t mean that the restaurants that it defines as great are objectively great.

The things you find subjectively good like pizza, don’t magically become objectively good by outlining a measurable criteria for what it takes for you to consider it good.

What you and others are doing is equivocating between measurable observations, and subjective judgements.

Spotify predicts the type of music I like based on algorithm, that takes into account the various types of music I listen to, and finds suggestion based on objective features of the songs I like. This doesn’t mean the songs I like are any less subjectively good, or that my subjective preferences are transformed into objective truths.

It can’t be objectively true that torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong, if it’s only true for those who subscribe to a particular moral perspective.

---

(April 9, 2019 at 4:41 pm):Gae Bolga Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 4:30 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Both.
If we take the principle (subjectively) of "do no harm" as a moral foundation, the according to that subjective principle, we can say that torturing babies is objectively immoral under that system.

See...implicit reference to realism.  "Harm".  Torturing babies is only immoral in that system if torturing babies is harmful.  There's something about torturing babies that "makes it bad".  That's the moral aim of a harm based system, even if that moral aim doesn't provide uniform compulsion.

And what makes harm immoral?

Likely, some implicit or explicit realist claim..nothing to do with gods.  See how easy that is?

At work.


Uhm... but, at their base, aren't even 'Measurable observations' actually subjective?

An inch length is, effectivly, just some mutually agreed upon 'Thing'.

Meters are the same.

Astronomical units are... simply our agreed upon 'Earth orbital radius from parent star.' ?

Every one uses the agreed upon 'Standard'. But, at a base level, said standard us still arbitrary and kind of subjective.

Hope I'm making sense.

(April 9, 2019 at 11:08 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Likely, some implicit or explicit realist claim..nothing to do with gods.  See how easy that is?

Like what? Some subjective agreed upon goal, such as we shouldn’t do things that are harmful?

---

(April 10, 2019 at 1:30 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.


Uhm... but, at their base, aren't even 'Measurable observations' actually subjective?

An inch length is, effectivly, just some mutually agreed upon 'Thing'.

Meters are the same.

Astronomical units are... simply our agreed upon 'Earth  orbital radius from parent star.' ?

Every one uses the agreed upon 'Standard'. But, at a base level, said standard us still arbitrary and kind of subjective.

Hope I'm making sense.

No, it’s just the language we use describe objective features of our world, to quantify things like length and height. My wife is 5 feet is as objectively true as the existence of two apples on my desk. 5 feet here indicates my wife’s objective height

(April 10, 2019 at 1:30 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.


Uhm... but, at their base, aren't even 'Measurable observations' actually subjective?

An inch length is, effectivly, just some mutually agreed upon 'Thing'.

Meters are the same.

Astronomical units are... simply our agreed upon 'Earth  orbital radius from parent star.' ?

Every one uses the agreed upon 'Standard'. But, at a base level, said standard us still arbitrary and kind of subjective.

Hope I'm making sense.

Often people use the word "objective" to mean "eternal and universal." But that gets us into trouble.

You're right that meters and astronomical units are not eternal and universal. The cloud beings who live in a distant galaxy have never heard of them and couldn't understand them. Nor would ancient peoples who used cubits instead. But a thing need not be universally intelligible to be objective among people. 

Once people have agreed on what a meter is, we can all talk objectively about the same thing.

I often like to compare the objective or subjective morality to the objective or subjective value of money.

Is money objectively or subjectively valuable?

(April 10, 2019 at 4:13 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 11:08 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Likely, some implicit or explicit realist claim..nothing to do with gods.  See how easy that is?

Like what? Some subjective agreed upon goal, such as we shouldn’t do things that are harmful?

IDK, we'll have to wait and see. Though it's probably a bit like asking what makes you so dense, don't you think? If harm is what makes things bad, harmful things are bad things regardless of whether or not we agree not to do them. We've been over this more than once.