(June 16, 2019 at 1:14 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and that's the only sort of objectivity or mind independence that matters in the difference between realism and subjectivism.

The reason that we don't call it "opinion- independence" is that both realists and subjectivists also claim that our moral propositions -are- our opinions.  It is our opinion, at least, that statement x is true.  That x purports to report a fact, rather than being something like "bleh" or "ugh" - the difference between cognitivist assertions like subjectivism and realism and non cognitivist assertions like emotivism.

I have opinions, you have opinions, we all have opinions.  All of our collective opinions are in our heads.  When some opinion of ours purports to report a fact, and does report a fact, it's said to be a realist proposition.  When an opinion purports to report a fact but doesn't, it's an error.  When an opinion purports to report a fact and does report a fact but, instead, refers to some fact of the opinion holder rather than the object (purportedly) being referred to  - it's said to be subjective.

This is all well and good and not disputed. So the question is ... why did you make an argument for hedonists being able to rebut the argument, in the OP, by pointing to external ("mind-independent") causes, then? It's like you're trying to have it both ways . . .

I keep pointing this out ... you keep dodging it.

Yet another silly thing you do during a disagreement: respond with stuff the other person agrees on but respond as if they disagree with it. And nobody would be silly enough to disagree with it. Sure. But you do that when that's not even the issue being disagreed with.

If you're asking why I pointed out how pleasure and pain were mind independent in the relevant and less trivial sense, it's due to the fact that the strength of your argument would rely on that premise being true in that same relevant and less trivial sense.

Otherwise, you're not actually arguing anything contrary to what realism dictates. You don't seem to be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your beef is more against the standard and (otherwise) understood use of that same term in ethical theory. You think it generates confusion. Maybe it does, but in whom?

(June 16, 2019 at 7:17 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: If you're asking why I pointed out how pleasure and pain were mind independent in the relevant and less trivial sense, it's due to the fact that the strength of your argument would rely on that premise being true in that same relevant and less trivial sense.

And it doesn't work because, as pointed out, pleasure and pain are the foundation of moral values to the hedonist rather than their external causes.

Quote:Otherwise, you're not actually arguing anything contrary to what realism dictates.  You don't seem to be.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but your beef is more against the standard and (otherwise) understood use of that same term in ethical theory.  You think it generates confusion.  Maybe it does, but in whom?

It generates confusion in people who insist that somebody isn't an objectivist when they deem the foundation of moral values to be within our brains.

I also don't think it's as simple as you make out when many philosophers deem Divine Command Theory to be a subjectivist theory, for example, despite the fact that such a God would be omniscient, merely because it claims that God's mind is the foundation of moral values. Some philosophers deem it to be a subjectivist theory for precisely that reason and others don't because if Divine Command Theory is true then it's true independent of God's mere opinion ... because if it's true God has knowledge.

"Mind-independent" is an ambiguous term and although plenty of philosophers are intelligent ... plenty aren't and are grossly overrated. I think it causes far more confusion than you think. And I think that this is the case with many unhelpful terms that need to be refined. I think refining unhelpful terms is part of good philosophy.

I mean, take somebody like Daniel Dennett, for instance. He's a world-renowned philosopher but he frequently equivocates and makes bad analogies. Although, he may do that on purpose. But if terms are clearer then it also makes it more difficult for people to purposefully mislead, as well.

OFC many philosophers deem divine command theory subjectivist, it is.  Knowledge and truth aren't the difference between realism and subjectivism.  Both of these directly contradictory positions have precisely the same commitments made for knowledge and truth. They are both cognitivist positions on moral propositions.

A moral proposition's truth reducing solely to some true comment on our subjective state is the definition of mind dependence. I'm telling you not to do something. That's why you shouldn't do it. -God.

(June 17, 2019 at 9:32 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: OFC many philosophers deem divine command theory subjectivist, it is. 

You're still equivocating, then.

Quote: Knowledge and truth aren't the difference between realism and subjectivism.  Both of these directly contradictory positions have precisely the same commitments made for knowledge and truth.  They are both cognitivist positions on moral propositions.

Both of those directly contradictory positions? So you think realism is also directly contradictory? That doesn't make sense, because if you're a moral realist then you surely don't think the view that you hold is contradictory.

Or do you mean that moral realism and moral subjectivism contradict each other?

Quote:A moral proposition's truth reducing solely to some true comment on our subjective state is the definition of mind dependence.  I'm telling you not to do something.  That's why you shouldn't do it.  -God.

Now you're jumping back to using the definition of mind-independence I have a problem with, the one in the OP, again. Do you really not see the term as problematic? Can you not see that you so easily jump back and forth from independent of opinion and independent of mind?

If God is both omniscient and capable of lying then so what that his subjective state determines its truth. just because his state is ontologically subjective does not mean that it is also epistemically subjective. It's clear that his state is not epistemically subjective because he's omniscient. However he comes to know what he states, if he really is omniscient, and really is stating the truth, then it's impossible for his statement to be false ... you can't get any more epistemically objective than something that can't possibly be wrong.

If we stick to the term independent of opinion then this confusion never occurs ... as it's easy to see that when somebody is omniscient their knowledge isn't "mere opinion".

(June 19, 2019 at 5:07 am)SenseMaker007 Wrote:

(June 17, 2019 at 9:32 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: OFC many philosophers deem divine command theory subjectivist, it is. 

You're still equivocating, then.

Could you be more specific?  

Quote:

Quote: Knowledge and truth aren't the difference between realism and subjectivism.  Both of these directly contradictory positions have precisely the same commitments made for knowledge and truth.  They are both cognitivist positions on moral propositions.

Both of those directly contradictory positions? So you think realism is also directly contradictory? That doesn't make sense, because if you're a moral realist then you surely don't think the view that you hold is contradictory.

Or do you mean that moral realism and moral subjectivism contradict each other?

Directly, yes. Realism states that moral propositions do purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts accurate, they are true. Subjectivism states that moral propositions purport to report facts, but do not accurately report on the purported fact in question, rather, they accurately report on some other fact, a fact of the subject, rather than the object. The difference between something being bad because it actually causes pain, and something being bad because a person simply believes that it does, regardless of whether or not it doesn't.

In a sense, many subjectivists are failed realists. Descriptively, they're attempting to engage in moral realism but failing due to complications of inherent or inescapable subjectivity. You could put it the other way as well. That all moral realists are, likely, subjectivist failures about at least one thing. There's at least one moral proposition whose truth depends on a subjective fact rather than an objective one.

Quote:

Quote:A moral proposition's truth reducing solely to some true comment on our subjective state is the definition of mind dependence.  I'm telling you not to do something.  That's why you shouldn't do it.  -God.

Now you're jumping back to using the definition of mind-independence I have a problem with, the one in the OP, again. Do you really not see the term as problematic? Can you not see that you so easily jump back and forth from independent of opinion and independent of mind?

I think that you're confused...but, if it's confusing in some general sense that's unfortunate, I guess. I didn't make up the terms anymore than I invented the term "tom" in reference to a cat which would confuse the majority of non english speakers in the world.  All I can do is tell you what they're referring to and why they use that term instead of some other. We could handle this issue by calling it fleeflarp instead of mind dependence or independence...does that make it more or less confusing (or, hilariously, about the same)? My money;s on the parenthetical.

Quote:If God is both omniscient and capable of lying then so what that his subjective state determines its truth. just because his state is ontologically subjective does not mean that it is also epistemically subjective. It's clear that his state is not epistemically subjective because he's omniscient. However he comes to know what he states, if he really is omniscient, and really is stating the truth, then it's impossible for his statement to be false ... you can't get any more epistemically objective than something that can't possibly be wrong.

If we stick to the term independent of opinion then this confusion never occurs ... as it's easy to see that when somebody is omniscient their knowledge isn't "mere opinion".

As already explained, divine command is not predicate on what god knows, but on what god commands.  Divine command is not the contention that it is good to do what god says -because god knows stuff-...rather, and rather simply, that things are good or bad with respect to whatever god has commanded.  If he tells you not to murder on tuesday, murder is wrong on tuesday.  If he tells you to murder on wednesday, murder is good on wednesday.  

Subjectivist moral propositions are also epistemically true propositions - about the subject. That's mind dependence. In divine command, things are good or bad with respect to a fact of what the subject commands (in this case god, but other theories could use any authority figure or center of authority - ala cultural relativism..which, if we're leaving the idiotic proposition of an existent god behind, is what divine command actually is, even if it purports to be otherwise on account of how divine command theorists generally insist that there really is a god who commands things), not with any respect to a fact of the object (the act). There's nothing about murder that's good or bad, in divine command.

I could suggest that at least some of your confusion comes down to what sounds alot like arguing with wingnuts. Wingnuts will, or example, insist on divine command, but insist that gods knowing everything makes him "right" without realizing that they're invoking a different moral system entirely. A realist system with god as the wise middle man who knows shit we don't. God tells you not to do something because he knows something about -the object- of which you are unaware. The fundamental difference between realism and subjectivism is the content that each refers to, not the level of knowledge or truth value of a given statement.

Neither realist or subjectivist propositions are opinion independent - both are, at least, our opinions. The difference between them is what the opinion is referring to. Is it bad because I truly think so, or because there's truly something about the thing. Is it bad because god truly said so, or because there's truly something about the thing? Hopefully that helps you clear things up with the next wingnut that frustrates you by being confused about everything from the terms "mind dependence" to "objective" to "tom" - whenever it suits their argument, ofc.

The reason that divine command wingnuts insist that their god is "right" and "objective" and "knows stuff" is that they've spent so long needlessly shitting on subjectivism, and now they can't countenance the fact that they desperately want to insist on a subjectivist morality. They've been telling us that subjectivism is bad, one of the Prime Evils of the world...for centuries, lol.