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

[GE Morton]

Re this by the way: "Anyone can use any word any way he wishes. But if he is not using it as it is understood in his speech community he will not be understood and will not be a relevant participant in any discussions of matters denoted with that word."

Give a few examples (that is, references) of the philosophical community using "subjective" and "objective" as terms that refer to properties of propositions.

The term "objective" is used by most philosophers per the dictionary definition I gave earlier:
------------
Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
objective art
an objective history of the war
an objective judgment
bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.
2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
objective reality
-----------

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

An expression of a fact or condition is a proposition. That proposition is objective if that fact or condition is "perceptible by all observers."

[GE Morton]

Let's consider an "objectively" moral goal like keeping people alive.

"Objective" applies to propositions. Declarations of goals are not propositions (propositions are verbal constructions that assert states of affairs). Attributions of goals to agents --- "Alfie's goal is to keep people alive" is a proposition, and it objective.

Is that necessarily moral? What of military conflict? What if resources are short and one has to choose who lives and dies? What of euthanasia, where death is more merciful than prolonged suffering? What of incorrigible killers and rapists who do nothing but harm others, even in prison?

"Keep people alive" is a moral goal, because it deals with how people treat one another. But it is not a moral principle binding in all circumstances.

[Terrapin Station]

Re this by the way: "Anyone can use any word any way he wishes. But if he is not using it as it is understood in his speech community he will not be understood and will not be a relevant participant in any discussions of matters denoted with that word."

Give a few examples (that is, references) of the philosophical community using "subjective" and "objective" as terms that refer to properties of propositions.

The term "objective" is used by most philosophers per the dictionary definition I gave earlier:
------------
Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
objective art
an objective history of the war
an objective judgment
bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.
2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
objective reality
-----------

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

An expression of a fact or condition is a proposition. That proposition is objective if that fact or condition is "perceptible by all observers."

So no, you can't reference anyone saying that the terms refer to properties of propositions.

[Sy Borg]

Let's consider an "objectively" moral goal like keeping people alive.

"Objective"

Define "objective" as you understand it.

applies

What do you mean by "applies"? Are you referring to determinative or concordant application?

to propositions.

Define "propositions" in context of the thread. How does that differ from a subjective assertion?

Declarations of goals are not propositions (propositions are verbal constructions that assert states of affairs).

You were the one to raise declarations of goals. Why did you do that? Looks like a red herring.

Attributions of goals to agents --- "Alfie's goal is to keep people alive" is a proposition, and it objective.

Which people? Why? How can such a goal be attributed to an agent when said agent might change his or her mind tomorrow?

Is that necessarily moral? What of military conflict? What if resources are short and one has to choose who lives and dies? What of euthanasia, where death is more merciful than prolonged suffering? What of incorrigible killers and rapists who do nothing but harm others, even in prison?

"Keep people alive" is a moral goal

But not objective. It's only keeping certain people alive, so the decision of whom to save is subjective.

because

What do you mean by "because" in context? To what extent is it causative and to what extent is it correlative?

it

To what are you referring?

deals

This is not about mercantile endauvours, but moral philosophy.

with how people treat one another.

Which people? Define "people"? Does that include other species or only humans? If so, how is that objective? It's pure anthropocentrism which is, of course, subjective.

But

But but but - enough. Put up or give up.

it is

What is? Please be precise.

not a moral principle

What moral principle? Define moral principle.

binding in all circumstances.

Good luck with finding anything that's not physics, chemistry or biology that is "binding in all circumstances".

[This is what would happen if GE Morton had a debate with himself].

[LuckyR]

Hhmmm... that sounds like a pretty good definition of ethics (not morality).

Ought I to be addressing the OP's question as if it were "What could make ethics objective?"

That is an interesting question that I have gone around and around before. Are ethics objective? Well since ethics are a conglomeration of a group's individual moral subjective opinions, ethics would seem to also be subjective. However, since the majority opinion that makes an ethical standard can be tabulated statistically, that sounds very objective.

[Belindi]

Lucky_R wrote:

----since the majority opinion that makes an ethical standard can be tabulated statistically, that sounds very objective.

Statistics are objective no doubt however their interpretation is subjective.

[Peter Holmes]

Not so. 'This action leads to this outcome' in no way implies that anyone wants this outcome.

You're right that "This action leads to this outcome" does not imply that anyone wants that outcome. But we are not speaking of generic outcomes, or events. We're speaking of goals. I'd assumed the outcomes to which you were referring were goals; otherwise the proposition would have been irrelevant to the thread.

P1 This action leads to this outcome.
P2 We want this outcome.
C Therefore, we ought to/should/must perform this action.

This conclusion does not follow from the premises. All that follows is that we can or could perform this action. Your argument is invalid.

The 'if we want ...' is critical. And the claim that 'goal Y' implies 'wanting goal Y' is false.

Really? What do you think a goal is, other than something someone desires and seeks? Saying that Alfie's goal is Y, but he doesn't want Y, is self-contradictory.

Perhaps you're unaware of your mistake - or perhaps this is just dishonesty.

Of course, 'Alfie's goal is Y, but he doesn't want Y' is (at least close to) a contradiction. But that misrepresents your claim, which is: 'If action X leads to goal Y, and Alfie wants goal Y, then Alfie should/must do X'. And that means something completely different, because Alfie's not doing X would not in any way mean his goal is no longer Y.

So what? It's wanting Y that matters. That action X leads to outcome Y may well be true, so that the assertion that it does is objective. But that isn't what my OP was about. I'm asking what could make 'slavery is morally wrong' objective. Nothing you've said addresses that question.

Peter, I've already agreed that not everyone will embrace the goal I proposed. I've argued that those who don't are amoral, and have no desire or interest in a morality. But that fact doesn't render the theorems of a moral theory --- moral principles and rules --- subjective. They are objective
if whether they advance the declared goal is empirically determinable. To say that slavery is wrong is to say that it frustrates that goal. Whether it does or not is objective. That not everyone embraces that goal is immaterial.

The software seems to have lost it - so here are comments on later parts of your post.

1 You claim your proposed moral goal is the only actually moral goal, and that those who disagree are amoral and have no interest in morality. What complete, arrogant twaddle. Mind you, it does explain your irrational determination to maintain the objectivity of morality; lose that article of faith, and your pretensions collapse.

2 You've forgotten your claim that only assertions are objective or subjective. Moral theorums, principles, goals and rules aren't and can't be either - and they don't and can't have truth-value, as you know. And they don't magically become objective just because they advance a subjectively chosen goal. Your argument collapses at this point.

3 Saying 'slavery is morally wrong' is a cognitive proposition merely begs the question, as you must know. So I call this out as patent dishonesty.

I'm tired of this. Until you can show the feature of reality whose existence would make the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' true, and whose non-existence would make it false, the argument for moral objectivism is dead in the water.

[CIN]

Until you can show the feature of reality whose existence would make the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' true, and whose non-existence would make it false, the argument for moral objectivism is dead in the water.

This would be true if 'slavery is morally wrong' was the only statement that could be suggested as an objective moral truth, but of course there are countless other candidates. You can't show moral objectivism to be wrong by knocking down individual candidate statements: there will always be more of them.

[GE Morton]

Well since ethics are a conglomeration of a group's individual moral subjective opinions . . .

That is largely true of vernacular ethics. It is not true of a rationally defensible ethics.

[Peter Holmes]

Until you can show the feature of reality whose existence would make the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' true, and whose non-existence would make it false, the argument for moral objectivism is dead in the water.

This would be true if 'slavery is morally wrong' was the only statement that could be suggested as an objective moral truth, but of course there are countless other candidates. You can't show moral objectivism to be wrong by knocking down individual candidate statements: there will always be more of them.

By all means - suggest any moral assertion you like, then demonstrate the independent existence of the moral rightness or wrongness that it asserts. And when you find you can't, perhaps you'll change your mind.

[GE Morton]

P1 This action leads to this outcome.
P2 We want this outcome.
C Therefore, we ought to/should/must perform this action.

This conclusion does not follow from the premises. All that follows is that we can or could perform this action. Your argument is invalid.

You're right; it doesn't, because the relationship ("leads to") between "this action" and "this outcome" is too vague.

You're not paying due heed to the instrumental meaning of "should" and "ought." "One should do X" means, "X is necessary to attain Y," or "X is the best available means of attaining Y" --- with "best" meaning the most effective, economical, or efficient. The "should" is an advisory based on some such claim, which claim is either true or false. An action that "leads to" an outcome is not necessarily necessary for or the best means of attaining the outcome.

BTW, "that we can or could" perform the action doesn't follow either.

Really? What do you think a goal is, other than something someone desires and seeks? Saying that Alfie's goal is Y, but he doesn't want Y, is self-contradictory.

Perhaps you're unaware of your mistake - or perhaps this is just dishonesty.

Of course, 'Alfie's goal is Y, but he doesn't want Y' is (at least close to) a contradiction.

Well, that is not what you said earlier: "And the claim that 'goal Y' implies 'wanting goal Y' is false."

But that misrepresents your claim, which is: 'If action X leads to goal Y, and Alfie wants goal Y, then Alfie should/must do X'. And that means something completely different, because Alfie's not doing X would not in any way mean his goal is no longer Y.

That is not what I said. I did not say "leads to." I said that if X is necessary for Y, or the best means of attaining Y, then Alfie should do X. I also pointed out that there can be circumstantial factors which falsify that conclusion, such that doing X will frustrate a higher-ranking goal Z. The conclusion follows ceteris paribus: if Alfie does not do X, then he has either abandoned the goal Y or is pursuing Y via less-than-optimum means.

1 You claim your proposed moral goal is the only actually moral goal, and that those who disagree are amoral and have no interest in morality.

There are no "actual" moral goals. Anyone can claim any goal to be a "moral" goal. But if such a goal is not substantially equivalent to the one I suggested it would not be the goal of "morality" as that term has been understood in the West throughout history.

2 You've forgotten your claim that only assertions are objective or subjective. Moral theorums, principles, goals and rules aren't and can't be either - and they don't and can't have truth-value, as you know. And they don't magically become objective just because they advance a subjectively chosen goal. Your argument collapses at this point.

Oh, no; I never made any such claim. I said that theories and goals are not propositions and do not have truth values, but theorems, principles, and rules are propositions and certainly do have truth values. The proposition, "If one seeks Y one ought to do X" is true if X is necessary for or the optimum means of attaining Y. That it is or is not is the truth condition for that proposition, and that question can (usually) be answered empirically.

3 Saying 'slavery is morally wrong' is a cognitive proposition merely begs the question, as you must know. So I call this out as patent dishonesty.

What question does it beg? If you have a moral goal that involves maximizing the welfare of all people, then "Slavery is morally wrong" is quite cognitive; it has a truth value --- slavery is wrong because it obviously conflicts with that goal.

Until you can show the feature of reality whose existence would make the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' true, and whose non-existence would make it false, the argument for moral objectivism is dead in the water.

Goals are features of "reality." (If your impulse is to deny this, better think it through first).

[Sculptor1]

Lucky_R wrote:

----since the majority opinion that makes an ethical standard can be tabulated statistically, that sounds very objective.

Statistics are objective no doubt however their interpretation is subjective.

Not even sure you can say stats are objective, since which stats to gather and which to ignore are based on preconceived assumptions and categories.

[CIN]

This would be true if 'slavery is morally wrong' was the only statement that could be suggested as an objective moral truth, but of course there are countless other candidates. You can't show moral objectivism to be wrong by knocking down individual candidate statements: there will always be more of them.

By all means - suggest any moral assertion you like, then demonstrate the independent existence of the moral rightness or wrongness that it asserts. And when you find you can't, perhaps you'll change your mind.

Change my mind about the fact that your inference was invalid? I don't think so.

[Belindi]

Lucky_R wrote:



Statistics are objective no doubt however their interpretation is subjective.

Not even sure you can say stats are objective, since which stats to gather and which to ignore are based on preconceived assumptions and categories.

Yes, but the preconceived assumptions and categories are not the stats themselves. The stats are just numbers.

[LuckyR]

Lucky_R wrote:

----since the majority opinion that makes an ethical standard can be tabulated statistically, that sounds very objective.

Statistics are objective no doubt however their interpretation is subjective.

Sounds good on paper, but in the Real World if 95% of a locality agrees that murder is wrong and they codify this opinion in the law, it is a statistical fact (and thus quite objective) that murder is "wrong" within the boundaries of that locality, even though it started with a group of subjective opinions.