Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[DLJ]

As far as things in the parallel thread about mathematics
...

:goes off to read the other thread:  :comes back:

...
Polymath's clarifications
...

Smart cookie that Polymath fellah.    And Mathilda's music notation analogy works for me too.

...
A) Ethics is an objective venture.
...

Correct.  

It depends upon one's choice of definition of 'objective', but 'venture' it certainly is.

...
Despite the broadly held perception that it does, ethics has nothing to do with subjectivity, cultural or otherwise.
...

Incorrect.

From Wikipedia:

Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:

1. Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.
2. Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).
3. Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.

In ethics, "consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth" are assumed even though they are arguably emergent/virtual/illusory/relational/axiomatic.

I should not speak for Rob but I suspect that he would agree with me that 1. and 2. are part of the ethics-equation but 'multi-subject' would be perhaps a more relevant term.

The word 'only' in part 3., makes it irrelevant to ethics.  If that is the position for which you think Rob and I have been arguing ... that would be a misreading.

...
Polymath attributes the success of mathematics to the fact that the underlying axioms of a given system are "accurate." I too, would postulate the same of ethics.
...

Indeed, correction noted... 'useful' not 'accurate'.

I would postulate too that this applies to ethics.  Agreed.

...
There is still no room for the view that ethics is subjective in all of this.
...

If you are using 'subjective' in the sense of part 3., above, then yes, I agree, ethics is not subjective.

...
B) Ethics is not based upon personal tastes or emotional misgivings of any kind. It is based on axiomatic truths which (even if you don't want to use the terms true or false) are either accurate or inaccurate. No room for emotion when discussing the precision of an axiom.
...

With the correction to 'useful or not useful' I would largely agree but I would draw a distinction between individual ethics and organisational ethics. The former is emergent via cognition from immune > endocrine > limbic system architecture into the governance realm.

...
So far, I think I have shown that ethics is NOT subjective (as moral relativists would claim).
...

No, you haven't.  Best to abandon the whole objective/subjective thing altogether.

Everything is relative, man.      

...
And nor is it based on emotions.
...

Correct.  Its basis is deeper than that.  Probably quantum... probably.

...
If you agree with me thus far, there goes three brands of moral skepticism: cultural relativism, individual relativism, and expressivistic nihilism.
...

Why the switch to 'moral'?  

Equating ethics to morals is like equating governance with event management... different ends of the spectrum.

...
The only claim from the direction of moral skeptics that still stands is error theory, a kind of moral nihilism. Error theory says that there are no such thing as morals; we just made them up. I think that error theorists present the most significant challenge to ethical objectivism, and it's the only brand of moral skepticism that I take seriously.
...

Nihilism works for me.  Absurdism would be a better fit.  

Because, Brooklyn is not expanding...




I have a moral-system (whether I like it or not) because of evolution.  Thanks Darwin!!  

However, what I may consider to be a moral event may not be what someone else considers to be a moral event.  

...
@DLJ and Rob
If you want to say that all moral theory is wrong because it is founded on "made up" axioms, fine. But (if I have accomplished anything in this thread) I'd like it to be that I convinced you that ethics has nothing to do with subjectivity. You don't have to be moral objectivists. But at least you can say that you aren't because you think all moral theory is WRONG (rather than the mistaken notion that it is subjective).
...

Sorry.  No sale.  Ethics does have a subjective (individual) element.  Many subjects (individuals) making a collective/consensus to create 'culture'.

I don't know much (if anything) about moral theory, unencumbered as I am with a formal education.

I am writing my own version of the Evolution of Morality based on what I do know and I'll probably be discussing it with Rob in the near future.    

...
edit: Also, I might have mischaracterized Polymath who I thought said axioms were accurate at one point. But, rereading over what he wrote, he said "useful"... at least at one point. It is a distinction that could be elaborated upon, but I figured I'd edit this in to my post for due diligence.

Correction noted.