Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 14, 2024, 3:25 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Moral Oughts
#81
RE: Moral Oughts
(August 3, 2019 at 7:21 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity isn’t complicated.  It’s not even an issue of debate.
...

It isn't?  I suspect that therein lies the reason why Philosophers haven't sorted this out yet.

(August 3, 2019 at 7:21 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: ...
if your intended use is as a reference to facts of the object, that’s the sort of objectivity being referred to in moral theories.

Does this mean that 'objectivity' is one of those terms that means one thing to moral theorists and another thing to lay-persons?  Like "intentionality" which to a Philosopher means 'what-it's-like-to-be-ness' and to the rest of us means 'relating to intentions'.

If so, for future reference, should we read 'objectivity' as related to (dynamic or static) attributes of an entity/thing/act and not as related to bias, partiality and prejudice?

Or is it combination of criteria e.g.:
Static attributes (e.g. serial number)
Dynamic attributes (e.g. location, owner)
Independently measurable / quantifiable / verifiable attributes
... with consensus reached by independent auditors / observers?

Or is it just a way of excluding relative attributes e.g. beauty.
The PURPOSE of life is to replicate our DNA ................. (from Darwin)
The MEANING of life is the experience of living ... (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind ..... (from observation)
Reply
#82
RE: Moral Oughts
(August 3, 2019 at 9:47 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Realism doesn’t negate any materialistic account of the world.  It doesn’t even need one.

Materialistic accounts are just immensely useful for describing phenomena.

The whiff comes from listening to religious people butcher realism.  It’s frustrating.  We end up acting as-if we were realists anyway.

I was referring to what Wittgenstien was highlighting, regarding moral absolutes.

I agree moral realism defined by you doesn't negate any materialistic account of the world. 

Since according to your definition, this is just another way of saying, "description of harm done or harm avoided doesn't negate any materialistic account of the world". I agree.
Reply
#83
RE: Moral Oughts
Moral realism defined by - no one- negates a materialistic account.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#84
RE: Moral Oughts
(August 4, 2019 at 8:03 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Moral realism defined by - no one- negates a materialistic account.

Except those who view oughts as objective facts, or those who subscribe to something like Plato’s conception of the Good.
Reply
#85
RE: Moral Oughts
Objective facts don’t negate a materialistic account. Even a platonic account of morality doesn’t negate a materialistic account of the world.

A person can hold both. They’re generally dualists. They think that some things are best explained by x, and others by y. Morality, perhaps, by ideals....the world by material.
- with some defining criteria separating the two.

You’re clearly abusive the term objective by reducing it to refer solely to your own beliefs, which you’ve failed to establish as objective in the first place.

You just believe they are. That’s s fact about you. Not a fact about morality, or even your own morality. Your own beliefs about my morality are a proper fact about you, even...since you won’t unclog your ears when you ask questions.


If you could figure ought how to establish that your beliefs refer to some fact about morality, or even your own morality, then you could learn to identify the objective and subjective components of a given moral theory.

TLDR version. Your silly god doesn’t own facts.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#86
RE: Moral Oughts
(August 4, 2019 at 10:24 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Objective facts don’t negate a materialistic account. Even a platonic account of morality doesn’t negate a materialistic account of the world.

A person can hold both. They’re generally dualists. They think that some things are best explained by x, and others by y. Morality, perhaps, by ideals....the world by material.

The good, these sort of absolute moral oughts Wittgenstein highlights, are immaterial truths.

Plato’s conception of the Good isn’t a material fact of the world, it isn’t composed of matter.

Some forms of moral realism postulate immaterial moral truths, whether you disagree with such views or not.
Reply
#87
RE: Moral Oughts
Are they? Why can’t they be natural truths, as asserted by natural realists?

Why aren’t all immaterial theories absolutist?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#88
RE: Moral Oughts
Continuing, cognitivism is the notion that moral statements are fact-like. That they represent ( or allegedly represent) objectively true things. Realism and subjectivism ( and the natural and non natural varieties of either) are all equally cognitivist positions.

The difference between subjectivism and realism is not that one possesses objectively true statements and the other doesn’t...but what those objectively true statements refer to.

That I think so and so pizza, for example, is the best kind of pizza is an objectively true fact about my subjective state. Whether it’s a natural or non natural fact depends on how I view the nature of my subjective states.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#89
RE: Moral Oughts
(August 3, 2019 at 12:15 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Lol.  Of course oughts follow from moral facts, and at least one evaluative premise.

Unclog your ears.

You can’t go from is to ought without one.  

Stealing is wrong
Therefore you shouldn’t steal

....doesn’t actually follow.

As for instrumental goods and intrinsic goods, moral statements play heavily with those two concepts.

We often consider our “is”-es to be representative of intrinsic goods.  Our evaluative premises dip heavily into instrumental goods.  Good for confirming to our moral schema.  Good for generating positive consequence.  Good for our mental state.

Moore has a wonderful comment on how we experience morality as a brute fact.

All you have to do to teach a person what “bad” is, is make them stand there watching four adults kick a toddler.

All of their evaluative premises will flow from having seen this and contemplating their relationship to it.  Subjective premises, objective ones, considerations of instrumental and intrinsic goods.

In his view, all were rational but non empirical products.  Insomuch as he considered the experience of that event and the subsequent thought processes beyond empirical verification.

Hence his non natural realism. This sort of realism reverses the distribution above.  More intrinsic goods, fewer instrumental.  Seeing Bad in things, rather than seeing Things that are bad.

I desire to eat a warm pizza.

There's a warm pizza on the table. 

I ought to eat the warm pizza. 


Does the ought stem from the pizza being on the table, or from my desire to eat it? 

You've indicated before that when you saying stealing is wrong, what you mean is descriptive, similar to saying stealing is harmful.

I desire to steal your wallet that you dropped because I want to use the money in it to buy an xbox, i acknowledge that stealing is harmful.

No ought not steal is derived from stealing being harmful. An ought would have to be based on something, such as I ought not do things that are harmful, which isn't derived from that fact that something is harmful, but some overarching goal or aim.
Reply
#90
RE: Moral Oughts
It follows from neither. You need some premise along the lines of how it’s best or preferable to do what you desire, and the premise “there is a warm pizza on the table” has no inferential value for the conclusion.

Just as “ought not do things that are harmful” won’t get you a “ you shouldn’t do x” unless it’s paired with some premise about how x -is- harmful.

I ought not do harmful things

Therefore I ought not hit you in the mouth.

What’s missing? Or, more accurately, what’s being silently assumed so that -something- makes the conclusion follow from the premise?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Maximizing Moral Virtue h311inac311 191 20254 December 17, 2022 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Objectivist
  As a nonreligious person, where do you get your moral guidance? Gentle_Idiot 79 9345 November 26, 2022 at 10:27 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war? Macoleco 184 13575 August 19, 2022 at 7:03 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  On theism, why do humans have moral duties even if there are objective moral values? Pnerd 37 4619 May 24, 2022 at 11:49 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Can we trust our Moral Intuitions? vulcanlogician 72 7284 November 7, 2021 at 1:25 pm
Last Post: Alan V
  Any Moral Relativists in the House? vulcanlogician 72 7320 June 21, 2021 at 9:09 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  [Serious] Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds Neo-Scholastic 93 8283 May 23, 2021 at 1:43 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  A Moral Reality Acrobat 29 4395 September 12, 2019 at 8:09 pm
Last Post: brewer
  In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order Acrobat 84 9696 August 30, 2019 at 3:02 pm
Last Post: LastPoet
  Is Moral Nihilism a Morality? vulcanlogician 140 15492 July 17, 2019 at 11:50 am
Last Post: DLJ



Users browsing this thread: 9 Guest(s)