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

[GE Morton]

To get the thread back on track -
Morality is a thing that cannot be called "objective" in and of itself.

"Things" (in general) are not objective or subjective. Those adjectives apply to propositions.

[GE Morton]

Tomato is variously defined by botanists and cooks , so the definition of it is contingent on who defines it.

Definitions are not denotations. Definitions typically say more about the uses of the word, and list some of the properties of the things denoted by it, in order to identify that set of things. That set of things is the denotative meaning of that word.

Pointing at something is not defining it.

Yes, it is. You can either convey the denotative meaning of a word by pointing to examples of the things it denotes, or verbally describing those things precisely enough to allow others to pick them out.

Most people I know would tell the difference between an apple a pear and a banana, but people did not always use the same categories. Even now there are discussions whether or not to call a tomato a fruit or a vegetable.

That is irrelevant. The question is whether someone knows what the term "tomato" denotes, and can pick out the right fruit when asked to point to the tomato. Whether it is a fruit or vegetable is immaterial. (It is biologically a fruit, but is used in cooking as a vegetable).

A small child might sort things into groups based on whether or not he likes them, or whether or not they resemble doggies.

Also not relevant. If the child can pick out a dog from an array of animals he knows the denotative meaning of "dog." If he can't then he's not yet verbally competent.

"The meaning of a word is what we declare to be the meaning of a word" is that it ?"

No one "declares" what a word shall denote, except the coiner in the case of a new word. We learn the denotative meanings of most words by observing which things are denoted by them when others use them.

Yes. I never claimed it was eternal. The denotative meaning of a word is the set of things it is used to denote, within a given speech community at a given time.

I agree. Do you also agree the denotative meaning of a moral tenet is the set of things it is used to denote, within a given speech community at a given time ?

Moral tenets do not denote anything. Single words and descriptive phrases do. Moral tenets express moral principles, which are constraints on human actions professed or followed by someone. Unlike the denotative meanings of words, they can vary within a speech community and even for a person over time.

[GE Morton]

What exactly any term, gesture, etc. is picking out, denotatively, depends on how individuals are thinking about the reference in question, and that can't be shared.

Nope. What the pointer is thinking is irrelevant. All that matters is what is pointed at. If there is any ambiguity about that the pointer can step over to the object, place his hand on it, and say "rock." Step to a different rock and say, "rock." That will allow us to form an association between that word and objects of that sort. Observing those behaviors is all we need to learn the denotative meaning of that word, at least for him. If other speakers point to the same things when using that word we can conclude that those things are the denotative meaning of that word in that speech community. We need know nothing about what is in anyone's head. We don't even need to know, or even assume, that they have brains.

Methinks you may have taken Quine's "gavagai" problem too uncritically.

There's no way to know that any two people are thinking the reference of any term etc. the same way, because you can't observe their thinking, and the terms themselves don't reference anything.

Well, then, I guess verbal communication is impossible. That is the implication of what you just said.

You're right, of course, that we can't observe their thinking. We don't have to. We only have to observe which things they act upon following some verbal cue or request or command.

The meaning IS the details of the mental process.

Well then, again, communication is impossible. Since we can have no details of anyone else's mental processes we can't know what meanings they attach to the words they utter.

Sounds, marks, gestures, etc. do not have intentionality, they can't by themselves make any associations.

Quite true. WE make the associations between words and things, by observing what things others associate with a word, by observing their behavior. Intentions, BTW, are attributes we infer and impute to others, also based on their observable behavior.

[GE Morton]

People who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - always think their own moral opinions are facts. Unsurprisingly. And they think this justifies their imposition of their moral opinions of everyone else. Religious leaders and drones have been doing it for millennia - and still are, sadly, in many parts of the world, including the USA.

That is certainly true; I agree with you. But that is not an argument against moral objectivity. It is an argument against false or unfounded claims of moral objectivity.

[Sculptor1]

Morality is a set of abstract viewpoints and normative claims.
When it comes to making statements about them, or setting rules about them we can only be relatively objective. That is to say that we can attempt to make claims and assert viewpoints that seek to abslove ourselves of personal opinions or bias, by attempting to make generalisation.
In practice this is near to impossible, and the result is usuall a laughable claim about being objective which you do not have to look very far to find others also pretending to be objective with contrary views.
As we have seen time and again, those few who have made this attempt have offered us a horrifying outlook on the world which is so obviously personally biased to their own lived experience as to be risible in the extreme.

I agree with much of this. Though it isn't an argument against the objectivity of morality - which is sound for other reasons - it does highlight a consequence of belief that morality is objective.

People who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - always think their own moral opinions are facts. Unsurprisingly. And they think this justifies their imposition of their moral opinions of everyone else. Religious leaders and drones have been doing it for millennia - and still are, sadly, in many parts of the world, including the USA.

Indeed.
I'd say especially in the USA.
I think the reasons are that the USA as top dog thinks itself in a postition of (god given) power nad has been put in that postition to spread the word, much like the British Empire until 1945 put itself as the moral judge of the world. Waabism in Islam is pretty disgusting, but has less impact that American exceptionalism and global political interference.
The other reason it seems particularly true of the US is that it is way behind the moral norm in the West compared to many more enlightened countries that have embraced secularism in government. On the face of it the UK still clings to outdated morality, but it never had anything like McCarthism, race wars and lynchings, and school shootings.
The lack of secularism in the US is paradoxical. Despite chruch and state being "separated" it would be political suicide for a POTAS to declare himself an atheist. By contrast where church is bound to the state in the UK, the opposite is true. Tony Blair has been the only PM in a 100 years to make something of god, and he has confessed to being embarassed by it. Antidisestablishmentarianism is the norm, but god never gets a mention in parliament thankfully.

[Sculptor1]

To get the thread back on track -
Morality is a thing that cannot be called "objective" in and of itself.

"Things" (in general) are not objective or subjective. Those adjectives apply to propositions.

Well that is a start!! FFS.
Would you also agree that an objective statement can never be so absolutely?

[Terrapin Station]

Nope. What the pointer is thinking is irrelevant. All that matters is what is pointed at.

The pointer/the pointing can't reference anything on its own. It's just an arm/hand in a particular position or whatever it is.

[Sculptor1]

People who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - always think their own moral opinions are facts. Unsurprisingly. And they think this justifies their imposition of their moral opinions of everyone else. Religious leaders and drones have been doing it for millennia - and still are, sadly, in many parts of the world, including the USA.

That is certainly true; I agree with you. But that is not an argument against moral objectivity. It is an argument against false or unfounded claims of moral objectivity.

As all such claims must be.

[GE Morton]

Would you also agree that an objective statement can never be so absolutely?

I don't know what "absolutely" means in this context. A proposition is true if its truth conditions are confirmable in the current context. It is objective if those truth conditions are publicly confirmable or disconfirmable.

[GE Morton]

That is certainly true; I agree with you. But that is not an argument against moral objectivity. It is an argument against false or unfounded claims of moral objectivity.

As all such claims must be.

That is a dogmatic statement, itself unfounded.

[GE Morton]

Nope. What the pointer is thinking is irrelevant. All that matters is what is pointed at.

The pointer/the pointing can't reference anything on its own. It's just an arm/hand in a particular position or whatever it is.

Yes, a pointing hand, a drawn arrow, even a cat watching a bird references something, all "on its own." Those acts all call our attention to something. We need know nothing about what is going on the the pointer's or the cat's head.

[Terrapin Station]

The pointer/the pointing can't reference anything on its own. It's just an arm/hand in a particular position or whatever it is.

Yes, a pointing hand, a drawn arrow, even a cat watching a bird references something, all "on its own." Those acts all call our attention to something. We need know nothing about what is going on the the pointer's or the cat's head.

"Those acts call our attention" is not a matter of pointing etc. referencing something on its own. What you're talking about there is someone thinking about the pointing, interpreting it. They're thinking about it in an intentional, associative way. But we can't actually observe anyone else's thinking.

[GE Morton]

"Those acts call our attention" is not a matter of pointing etc. referencing something on its own. What you're talking about there is someone thinking about the pointing, interpreting it. They're thinking about it in an intentional, associative way. But we can't actually observe anyone else's thinking.

We don't know or care what they're thinking about, or what their intentions are. But we can observe what they do. That is all we need to form an association between a word, "rock," and a rocks.

[Terrapin Station]

"Those acts call our attention" is not a matter of pointing etc. referencing something on its own. What you're talking about there is someone thinking about the pointing, interpreting it. They're thinking about it in an intentional, associative way. But we can't actually observe anyone else's thinking.

We don't know or care what they're thinking about, or what their intentions are. But we can observe what they do. That is all we need to form an association between a word, "rock," and a rocks.

"Our attention" is a matter of thinking about something, and insofar as reference goes, it's a matter of thinking about it in an intentional (an "aboutness") way. The word "rock" on its own, as text, or a sound, etc. does nothing.

And you can't observe anyone else's thinking.

[Sculptor1]

Would you also agree that an objective statement can never be so absolutely?

I don't know what "absolutely" means in this context. A proposition is true if its truth conditions are confirmable in the current context. It is objective if those truth conditions are publicly confirmable or disconfirmable.

You are conflating true and objective; this is the cause of much anguish and is most usually exactly why people argue.