Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

I guess Popeye might agree that there is something 'out there' which is forever concealed by consciousness. NB I am not advocating mystical approaches to what may be 'out there'.

What could be good grounds for thinking that it's concealed by consciousness, though?

Because all meanings are properties of conscious subjects therefore no meanings pertain to subjects that are not conscious.

All A is B

C is not-B

C is not A

I presume that "meanings are properties of conscious subjects," implies " also "and only conscious subjects".

Weird that recently a bunch of posts from different people seem to be suggesting that the world is comprised solely of meaning(s). Meanings are properties of conscious subjects, sure. But the vast, vast majority of stuff in the world is not meaning(s).

It's like saying "A good reason for thinking that the world is concealed by consciousness is that ice cream flavor preference is a property of a conscious subject." That makes no sense, right? Unless someone is thinking that the world is solely comprised of preferences for ice cream flavors.

Regarding sundials "The shadow of the Sun not the shadow of the bronze" .Ian Hamilton Finlay

[Sy Borg]

GE, Then why is the thread still running?

You are not the first to ask this question and perhaps won't be the last :)

The answer to the thread's titular question is "obviousness". Obviousness makes morality objective. Most "moral issues" attract plenty of debate. Rape, torture and killing of innocent humans are broadly agreed upon as immoral, though. Then again, many endangered species might see the hobbling and killing of humans as blessed relief, just as we might think about packs of dangerous feral animals.

[Terrapin Station]

GE, Then why is the thread still running?

You are not the first to ask this question and perhaps won't be the last

The answer to the thread's titular question is "obviousness". Obviousness makes morality objective. Most "moral issues" attract plenty of debate. Rape, torture and killing of innocent humans are broadly agreed upon as immoral, though. Then again, many endangered species might see the hobbling and killing of humans as blessed relief, just as we might think about packs of dangerous feral animals.

"Objective" doesn't amount to "agreement" (or (near)-unanimity or anything like that), though. Every single person for all time could feel the same way about some moral stance. That wouldn't make that stance objective.

[Peter Holmes]

GE, Then why is the thread still running?

You are not the first to ask this question and perhaps won't be the last

The answer to the thread's titular question is "obviousness". Obviousness makes morality objective.

Nope. Obviousness makes nothing objective. Objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So it has nothing to do with obviousness. And anyway, facts are quite often anything but obvious.

Most "moral issues" attract plenty of debate. Rape, torture and killing of innocent humans are broadly agreed upon as immoral, though.

But what we call truth, facts and objectivity have nothing to do with consensus - or even unanimity. That's their whole point. And since there are only moral opinions, and no moral facts, it's not the case that some moral opinions are 'matters of fact'.

Then again, many endangered species might see the hobbling and killing of humans as blessed relief, just as we might think about packs of dangerous feral animals.

And this undermines the idea that obviousness is the condition for objectivity.

[Terrapin Station]

Re unanimity, imagine that every single person, out of trillions of people, for millions of years, has agreed with "M is morally obligatory; and it couldn't be more obvious to me that M is morally obligatory."

Suddenly, 50 million years down the line, along comes a single, very unusual person, S, who thinks, "I don't agree with that. M is morally wrong."

Is S incorrect? Is S getting something wrong re objective facts or "objective truth"?

If you argue "yes," you can only be forwarding an argumentum ad populum--you can only be suggesting the idea that S is supposed to agree that M is morally obligatory simply because everyone always has, for millions of years. In other words, you're arguing that S needs to conform to the norm simply because it's a norm. But argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Nothing is correct simply because everyone (or most people, or a majority) agrees on it.

[Sy Borg]

The answer to the thread's titular question is "obviousness". Obviousness makes morality objective.

Nope. Obviousness makes nothing objective. Objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So it has nothing to do with obviousness. And anyway, facts are quite often anything but obvious.

Obviousness is as close as we can come to objectivity in this sphere.

Most "moral issues" attract plenty of debate. Rape, torture and killing of innocent humans are broadly agreed upon as immoral, though.

But what we call truth, facts and objectivity have nothing to do with consensus - or even unanimity. That's their whole point. And since there are only moral opinions, and no moral facts, it's not the case that some moral opinions are 'matters of fact'.

If consensus is not enough, then what is? Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers. I know where you are coming from but, if the bar is raised too high, then nothing whatsoever can be considered to be objective.

Then again, many endangered species might see the hobbling and killing of humans as blessed relief, just as we might think about packs of dangerous feral animals.

And this undermines the idea that obviousness is the condition for objectivity.

Yes indeed. I do not consider "moral objectivity" to be a useful idea because it can only be applied to the very most obvious cases. One needs no moral framework to be appalled at witnessing, say, the torture of a small child - the kinds of issues that would bring intense physiological responses to any non-psychopathic person. And, even then, the notion requires anthropocentrism.

However, if we put aside epistemological issues and anthropocentrism, then "obviousness" is closer to the answer the OP's question than anything else :)

[Terrapin Station]

If consensus is not enough, then what is? Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers. I know where you are coming from but, if the bar is raised too high, then nothing whatsoever can be considered to be objective.

No, lol. Science doesn't work via argumentum ad populums.

Science is objective (or more literally, it's based on or about objective things) because it's NOT based on beliefs, and certainly not consensus beliefs. In the sciences we look at what's really going on in the world, contra what anyone believes is going on. Thus via scientific research we can discover that everyone was wrong about something they believed.

How is this not common knowledge? Just what are we teaching in schools now?

[Sy Borg]

If consensus is not enough, then what is? Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers. I know where you are coming from but, if the bar is raised too high, then nothing whatsoever can be considered to be objective.

No, lol. Science doesn't work via argumentum ad populums.

Science is objective (or more literally, it's based on or about objective things) because it's NOT based on beliefs, and certainly not consensus beliefs. In the sciences we look at what's really going on in the world, contra what anyone believes is going on. Thus via scientific research we can discover that everyone was wrong about something they believed.

How is this not common knowledge? Just what are we teaching in schools now?

Based on the above failure to comprehend a simple concept, you appear to be the one who needs schooling.

Did you know that opinions and beliefs are not the same?

OPINION
1. a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
2. a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.

BELIEF

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

Science stems from observations and experiments around which opinions form. When enough experts are of the opinion that that findings are sufficiently reliable, hypotheses and theories follow.

Science is not TRUTH set in stone, as you suggest, but a moving feast. Models change when opinions change, which happens when new evidence or interpretations are convince enough experts.

Beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. Yours was a frivolous critique, seemingly made in bad faith, and I hope it has been slapped down sufficiently for you to resume conversing like a civilised human being rather than indulging in weak straw man attacks.

[Terrapin Station]

Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers.

Again, no. What you wrote here is wrong. Science is NOT a matter of consensus! Do you understand why that's wrong?

[GE Morton]

Obviousness is as close as we can come to objectivity in this sphere.

I suspect there is some confusion or disagreement as to what "objective" and "subjective" mean (in this context). Those two adjectives denote properties of propositions, as do the adjectives "true" and "false." A proposition is subjective if its truth conditions are private, confirmable only by one person (usually the utterer). A proposition is objective if its truth conditions are public, confirmable or disconfirmable by anyone suitably situated. "Paris is a lovely city" is subjective; it asserts an aesthetic response of the speaker to the city. "Paris is the capital of France" is objective; it asserts that Paris is where the Assembly sits and where most government departments have their principle offices, which facts are confirmable by anyone who cares to investigate.

How many people know or agree that Paris is the capital of France has nothing to do with the objectivity of that proposition.

If consensus is not enough, then what is? Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers.

Answered above --- what is "enough" is that the propositions expressing that knowledge are publicly confirmable. That there may be a consensus among scientists with respect to the truth of a particular proposition has nothing do with whether it is objective (and of course, there have been consensuses among scientists on many issues which were later seen to be false). Scientific theories, BTW, are neither true nor false, neither objective nor subjective. They are only "good" or "bad." But that's another issue.

Yes indeed. I do not consider "moral objectivity" to be a useful idea because it can only be applied to the very most obvious cases. One needs no moral framework to be appalled at witnessing, say, the torture of a small child - the kinds of issues that would bring intense physiological responses to any non-psychopathic person.

That someone is appalled by an act, nor any other psychological response to it, no matter how intense, has nothing to do with whether the act is moral. Emotional responses, being idiosyncratic and subjective, are not evidence of the truth of a moral proposition. Moral propositions, like all others, are objective IFF their truth conditions are publicly confirmable.

[Sy Borg]

Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers.

Again, no. What you wrote here is wrong. Science is NOT a matter of consensus! Do you understand why that's wrong?

More lessons required, it seems. Two mistakes by you in one morning through not comprehending what is written.

Consensus amongst informed observers. If you don't have significant agreement amongst those who actually know what's going on, you don't have a theory.

The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialised in a given field.

[Sy Borg]

Obviousness is as close as we can come to objectivity in this sphere.

I suspect there is some confusion or disagreement as to what "objective" and "subjective" mean (in this context). Those two adjectives denote properties of propositions, as do the adjectives "true" and "false." A proposition is subjective if its truth conditions are private, confirmable only by one person (usually the utterer). A proposition is objective if its truth conditions are public, confirmable or disconfirmable by anyone suitably situated. "Paris is a lovely city" is subjective; it asserts an aesthetic response of the speaker to the city. "Paris is the capital of France" is objective; it asserts that Paris is where the Assembly sits and where most government departments have their principle offices, which facts are confirmable by anyone who cares to investigate.

How many people know or agree that Paris is the capital of France has nothing to do with the objectivity of that proposition.

If consensus is not enough, then what is? Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers.

Answered above --- what is "enough" is that the propositions expressing that knowledge are publicly confirmable. That there may be a consensus among scientists with respect to the truth of a particular proposition has nothing do with whether it is objective (and of course, there have been consensuses among scientists on many issues which were later seen to be false). Scientific theories, BTW, are neither true nor false, neither objective nor subjective. They are only "good" or "bad." But that's another issue.

Yes indeed. I do not consider "moral objectivity" to be a useful idea because it can only be applied to the very most obvious cases. One needs no moral framework to be appalled at witnessing, say, the torture of a small child - the kinds of issues that would bring intense physiological responses to any non-psychopathic person.

That someone is appalled by an act, nor any other psychological response to it, no matter how intense, has nothing to do with whether the act is moral. Emotional responses, being idiosyncratic and subjective, are not evidence of the truth of a moral proposition. Moral propositions, like all others, are objective IFF their truth conditions are publicly confirmable.

If almost universal physiological responses to certain behaviours does not qualify as "objective morality" then nothing does. At least a physiological response is clearly measurable.

I was just trying to "come to you" so some agreement might be reached after all this time, but you resist that too.

Thus I have no choice but to revert to my primary point all through this thread as opposed to recent secondary musings. That is, the notion of objective morality is simply invalid, for many of the reasons mentioned by me and many others over the last 100 pages or so of digital philosophical bumf.

[Peter Holmes]

Obviousness is as close as we can come to objectivity in this sphere.

I suspect there is some confusion or disagreement as to what "objective" and "subjective" mean (in this context). Those two adjectives denote properties of propositions, as do the adjectives "true" and "false." A proposition is subjective if its truth conditions are private, confirmable only by one person (usually the utterer). A proposition is objective if its truth conditions are public, confirmable or disconfirmable by anyone suitably situated. "Paris is a lovely city" is subjective; it asserts an aesthetic response of the speaker to the city. "Paris is the capital of France" is objective; it asserts that Paris is where the Assembly sits and where most government departments have their principle offices, which facts are confirmable by anyone who cares to investigate.

How many people know or agree that Paris is the capital of France has nothing to do with the objectivity of that proposition.

If consensus is not enough, then what is? Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers.

Answered above --- what is "enough" is that the propositions expressing that knowledge are publicly confirmable. That there may be a consensus among scientists with respect to the truth of a particular proposition has nothing do with whether it is objective (and of course, there have been consensuses among scientists on many issues which were later seen to be false). Scientific theories, BTW, are neither true nor false, neither objective nor subjective. They are only "good" or "bad." But that's another issue.

Yes indeed. I do not consider "moral objectivity" to be a useful idea because it can only be applied to the very most obvious cases. One needs no moral framework to be appalled at witnessing, say, the torture of a small child - the kinds of issues that would bring intense physiological responses to any non-psychopathic person.

That someone is appalled by an act, nor any other psychological response to it, no matter how intense, has nothing to do with whether the act is moral. Emotional responses, being idiosyncratic and subjective, are not evidence of the truth of a moral proposition. Moral propositions, like all others, are objective IFF their truth conditions are publicly confirmable.

If almost universal physiological responses to certain behaviours does not qualify as "objective morality" then nothing does. At least a physiological response is clearly measurable.

I was just trying to "come to you" so some agreement might be reached after all this time, but you resist that too.

Thus I have no choice but to revert to my primary point all through this thread as opposed to recent secondary musings. That is, the notion of objective morality is simply invalid, for many of the reasons mentioned by me and many others over the last 100 pages or so of digital philosophical bumf.

1 I agree with GEM that facts, such as almost universal human physiological responses, can never entail moral conclusions. The is/ought barrier is insuperable.

2 I agree with GEM that consensus theories of what we call truth are obviously incorrect.

3 I disagree with GEM's account of objectivity and subjectivity as referring to propositions - though I fear I accepted it some time ago in this discussion - and that therefore objectivity is 'public confirmability' of propositions.

First. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So the existence and nature of what we call facts is the issue - not the public confirmability of propositions. And moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts.

Second. What we call a fact is either a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality whose truth-value ('true') is independent from opinion. (This is my take on standard dictionary definitions of 'fact'.) And the second meaning of 'fact' depends on the first . To claim that there are moral facts is to claim that there are moral features of reality, such as moral rightness and wrongness.

Third. It follows that the existence and confirmation of facts-as-features-of-reality has nothing to do with propositions - or, more precisely, factual assertions - because, outside language, reality is not linguistic. Features of reality just are or were the case - or not. There either are or are not moral features of reality.

Fourth. It also follows that, since what we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering a fact-as-feature-of-reality, public confirmability is an epistemological side-issue. 'Independence from opinion' means what it says on the tin.

4 If there are no moral features of reality, a moral assertion is never publicly verifiable anyway.

[Belindi]

How many people know or agree that Paris is the capital of France has nothing to do with the objectivity of that proposition.

"Jeremy knows Paris is not the capital of France " is true A performative statement.

"You all agree America will be great again" is true and performative.

Perfomatives have not anything to do with whether or not they are objective or subjective

"I repeat: I did not have sex with that woman." is true and can't be anything but true.So whether or not it is objectively true is irrelevant.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Greta wrote: ↑Yesterday, 7:52 pm
Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers.
(TS replied)Again, no. What you wrote here is wrong. Science is NOT a matter of consensus! Do you understand why that's wrong?

Greta is correct if power is the basic motive. Consensus is based on power. There is no such thing as a collective where all individuals are equal.Mind you, scientists can marshal a powerful army of noble precedents.

[Terrapin Station]

Science - our official bodies of knowledge that are considered to be objective (putting aside epistemological concerns) - is simply a matter of consensus amongst informed observers.

Again, no. What you wrote here is wrong. Science is NOT a matter of consensus! Do you understand why that's wrong?

More lessons required, it seems. Two mistakes by you in one morning through not comprehending what is written.

Consensus amongst informed observers. If you don't have significant agreement amongst those who actually know what's going on, you don't have a theory.

The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialised in a given field.

It's not a matter of consensus period. It doesn't matter how we qualify that. Who taught you, or based on what did you conclude that science works via knowledge by consensus?