RE: The Moral Realism Master Thread.
December 9, 2017 at 4:01 pm
(This post was last modified: December 9, 2017 at 4:02 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
I think truth is completely objective 
I follow the correspondence theory of truth. And I don't think its supposed circularity is any more problematic than the fact we can't define causation non-circularly but the concept of causation is certainly coherent. The point is that causation kind of starts as an axiom, and I think the same thing about the correspondence theory of truth. And when it comes to other theories of truth I think the question is still open as to whether that theory of truth is actually true in the correspondence sense. And if not, then I don't see how it's valid, but if it is then it seems valid. So I think that the correspondence theory trumps all other theories of truth. Is it true that the universe existed before we could conceptualize 'truth'? Yes. Because truth doesn't depend on conceptualization it depends on whether what we say corresponds to reality. And the point is even if we weren't there to ask the question, there is still a definite answer to the question. "Would the universe still truly be here if we weren't here to ask this question?" Yes because that question is identical to "Would the universe still be here if we weren't here to ask this question?". The words "truth" and "true" are used to mean opposed to false, or opposed to the opposite of affirming the sentence. But in and of itself the words "true" and "truth" don't have any meaning. If I say "I have a face with two eyeballs" that's identical to me saying "It is true that I have a face with two eyeballs" or "it is the truth that I have a face with two eyeballs." This is also why the so-called Liar's Paradox is not a paradox. Because to say that "This sentence is false" is the same as saying "This sentence is not true" which is identical to saying "this sentence is not" which is an incomplete sentence and so there's no paradox. Because in and of itself "true" has no meaning. What about the sentence is not true? Nothing is really being said about the sentence. If instead it was "It is not true that this sentence is made of letters." and you recognize that the word "true" has no meaning in itself so that's identical to the sentence saying "This sentence is not made of letters" you'll notice the paradox disappears. The reason why the so-called Liar's Paradox is not a paradox is because saying "This sentence is false" isn't actually saying anything at all about the sentence. All sentences implicitly assert their own truth. Saying anything is the same as saying it is true that anything. "This sentence is false" is the same as "It is true that this sentence is false" Or "This sentence is true and false" which is a contradiction, so there's no paradox. Or looked at another way, the sentence is incomplete.
I think moral claims are true or false in the correspondence sense. We define morality first and then we see if something in reality corresponds to that definition. We don't have to be right or wrong about the definition itself. Definitions never work like that. We didn't have to define science the way it is, science just works well, that's the point. Scientists can't prove that the words they use are the correct way to define them. In fact scientists will even redefine and re-model things to suit their empirical research, and this is not a problem. The conceptualiation of 'health' can be changed and disagreed about and this doesn't mean that some things aren't more healthy than others. I think it's the same about morality. Sure, no one has to agree with my definition that something is immoral if it causes someone suffering overall in the long run . . . but I don't care if someone doesn't accept my definition. I don't have to prove that my definition is 'the right one' whatever that would even mean. Nor does answers in principle mean answers in practice, and nor does objective mean universal. Morality is objective, AFAIC, because after it's defined there are correct and incorrect answers to moral questions at least in principle based on that definition. And I don't think the notion that it's moral to help and immoral to hurt is any less intuitively a sound premise to start with than the one about health: that something is healthy if it is good for us and unhealthy if it is bad for us.
I follow the correspondence theory of truth. And I don't think its supposed circularity is any more problematic than the fact we can't define causation non-circularly but the concept of causation is certainly coherent. The point is that causation kind of starts as an axiom, and I think the same thing about the correspondence theory of truth. And when it comes to other theories of truth I think the question is still open as to whether that theory of truth is actually true in the correspondence sense. And if not, then I don't see how it's valid, but if it is then it seems valid. So I think that the correspondence theory trumps all other theories of truth. Is it true that the universe existed before we could conceptualize 'truth'? Yes. Because truth doesn't depend on conceptualization it depends on whether what we say corresponds to reality. And the point is even if we weren't there to ask the question, there is still a definite answer to the question. "Would the universe still truly be here if we weren't here to ask this question?" Yes because that question is identical to "Would the universe still be here if we weren't here to ask this question?". The words "truth" and "true" are used to mean opposed to false, or opposed to the opposite of affirming the sentence. But in and of itself the words "true" and "truth" don't have any meaning. If I say "I have a face with two eyeballs" that's identical to me saying "It is true that I have a face with two eyeballs" or "it is the truth that I have a face with two eyeballs." This is also why the so-called Liar's Paradox is not a paradox. Because to say that "This sentence is false" is the same as saying "This sentence is not true" which is identical to saying "this sentence is not" which is an incomplete sentence and so there's no paradox. Because in and of itself "true" has no meaning. What about the sentence is not true? Nothing is really being said about the sentence. If instead it was "It is not true that this sentence is made of letters." and you recognize that the word "true" has no meaning in itself so that's identical to the sentence saying "This sentence is not made of letters" you'll notice the paradox disappears. The reason why the so-called Liar's Paradox is not a paradox is because saying "This sentence is false" isn't actually saying anything at all about the sentence. All sentences implicitly assert their own truth. Saying anything is the same as saying it is true that anything. "This sentence is false" is the same as "It is true that this sentence is false" Or "This sentence is true and false" which is a contradiction, so there's no paradox. Or looked at another way, the sentence is incomplete.
I think moral claims are true or false in the correspondence sense. We define morality first and then we see if something in reality corresponds to that definition. We don't have to be right or wrong about the definition itself. Definitions never work like that. We didn't have to define science the way it is, science just works well, that's the point. Scientists can't prove that the words they use are the correct way to define them. In fact scientists will even redefine and re-model things to suit their empirical research, and this is not a problem. The conceptualiation of 'health' can be changed and disagreed about and this doesn't mean that some things aren't more healthy than others. I think it's the same about morality. Sure, no one has to agree with my definition that something is immoral if it causes someone suffering overall in the long run . . . but I don't care if someone doesn't accept my definition. I don't have to prove that my definition is 'the right one' whatever that would even mean. Nor does answers in principle mean answers in practice, and nor does objective mean universal. Morality is objective, AFAIC, because after it's defined there are correct and incorrect answers to moral questions at least in principle based on that definition. And I don't think the notion that it's moral to help and immoral to hurt is any less intuitively a sound premise to start with than the one about health: that something is healthy if it is good for us and unhealthy if it is bad for us.
