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

[creation]

There are obvious moral points of views that everyone does agree on right now in the days of when this is written.

What would you take to be an example of one of those moral points of view that everyone agrees on at present?

To me, 'morality' is just in reference to what is right and what is wrong in Life just in regards to human beings behavior.

Whereas, what is actually True and False is decided upon 'that' what everyone agrees with, what is actually Right and Wrong is decided upon 'that' what everyone agrees with and with what is necessary for living.

So, an example of what is right in Life that everyone agrees on at present is: If human beings do not need meat to eat, then everyone agrees that human beings do not need to eat meat to live. Therefore, if human beings do not need to eat meat to live, then human beings killing animals just for meat to eat is obviously the wrong thing to do in Life. Or, in other words 'immoral'.

Everyone agrees with this at present. Although a lot, if not most, adult human beings will 'try to' disagree with this, and some will fight vigorously that it is right to kill and eat animals when they do not need to.

This will be proven by the reaction this gets.

Also, obviously some people will say they "disagree" with this, but this is only because they are not being Truly OPEN and Honest.

You can twist and distort anything anyway you like. But if you are too afraid to define the word 'objective' to you, or just do not want to define what the word 'objective' means to you, then are you willing to define what the word 'normative' means here to you?

I'm trying to ask you questions about your view, as your view.

I've defined subjective/objective many times here already. I can give my definition again, but that's going to be irrelevant to your view.

But it is relevant to the way I express my view to 'you'.

If you consider your view of these words are going to be irrelevant to my view, then you cannot successfully disagree with my view nor could you successfully claim that I am claiming one thing or another. This is because my view and the definitions I use are irrelevant to your view. You also have no way of knowing what my view actually entails.

I already gave my view about what could make morality objective, and that is; agreement and acceptance by ALL.

By the way, you say you can give your definition "again", but you have not given it to me a first time. Also, instead of just saying; "I can give you my definition", it would be much better for everyone here if you just did give your definition.

[creation]

So, it appears that, to you, it is perfectly alright for your dog to show its hatred of other human beings and animals, but it is never alright for another human being nor animal to show its hatred for or towards your dog, correct?

Yes, I think that about sums it up. Though I would not allow my dog to bark at a vulnerable person.
For example I've had to teach her to trust black people.

Lol besides the fact that you could not even successfully define the term 'black people' into an agreed upon and accepted term, are you really under the assumption that dogs know these sort of things?

All this shows, to me, is your own racists views.

Was your dog born not trusting people that you have segregated into specific groups, or did your dog just gradually become that way, to which you may or not have felt ashamed of, and so then had to teach your dog other ways?

This either sounds like your dog has the human being ability to segregate human beings into separate categories and also has the human being ability to make generalizations about human beings, or, your dog is the one that cannot be trusted and maybe should be put down and gotten rid of completely? Or, have you been absolutely 100% successful in teaching your dog how to supposedly "trust" those people, which you have labelled into separate groups?

By the way, what is a 'vulnerable person'?

If you have to not allow your dog to bark at vulnerable people, then that means it does bark at vulnerable people when you are not around, and considering the fact that you do not have control over your dog all the time, then it might be better if that troublesome mutt was put down and killed now. That way vulnerable people will not feel intimated nor scared. Because someone might come along who also has the belief that they have the right to protect their own dog or themselves, to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if they were in danger and in doing so with this belief attack and harm you dog, which, according your to so called "logic" would be perfectly acceptable. Or, do you not believe that was is acceptable to you is not acceptable to others, if it is against you and/or your dog?

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not addressing 50 different issues in one post:

Er, no. "Meaning" is not a verb.

Philosophy isn't linguistics or philology. It's not an analysis of language usage, and it's definitely not simply observation and reporting of normal language usage, or "dictionaryism," which seems to be a large percentage of the extent of your "philosophizing."

Meaning is the associative act per functional ontological analysis. The results of functional ontological analysis can be quite different from how people think about things, even though the launching pad is how words are defined and used in various contexts.

Per functional ontological analysis, by the way, we could say that everything is a "verb," as everything is really dynamic. The idea of static objects or identities is a fiction, an abstraction (that in itself is actually dynamic).

[Terrapin Station]

(A) what is actually Right and Wrong is decided upon 'that' what everyone agrees with and with what is necessary for living.

(B) If human beings do not need meat to eat, then everyone agrees that human beings do not need to eat meat to live.

(C) Therefore, if human beings do not need to eat meat to live, then human beings killing animals just for meat to eat is obviously the wrong thing to do in Life. Or, in other words 'immoral'.

Plenty of people disagree with some or all of (A), (B) and (C), and I'm one of them (who disagrees with all three).

[Terrapin Station]

Forgot to add that if you're attempting to claim that I "really agree with those three statements even though I say I do not," then that would take a lot of work to try to support.

[Terrapin Station]

If you consider your view of these words are going to be irrelevant to my view, then you cannot successfully disagree with my view nor could you successfully claim that I am claiming one thing or another. This is because my view and the definitions I use are irrelevant to your view. You also have no way of knowing what my view actually entails.

Hence the utility of asking you questions.

That doesn't work well when you're so reluctant to answer.

Yes, I know what you consider objective. Again, my question was what work, if any, you take objectivity to do on your view of what it is. Do you think it has any normative ("should") implications?

Re my definitions, subjective refers to mental phenomena. Objective refers to the complement (everything other than mental phenomena).

[Sculptor1]

Yes, I think that about sums it up. Though I would not allow my dog to bark at a vulnerable person.
For example I've had to teach her to trust black people.

Lol besides the fact that you could not even successfully define the term 'black people' into an agreed upon and accepted term, are you really under the assumption that dogs know these sort of things?

I think you are unhinged.
My dog is way ahead of you. She can immediately recognise a black person, and her reaction to them was to be scared. It's simple enough - they have a different skin colour. She does not seem to know the difference between Asians or Africans, but was wary of the fact that they looked different.
Maybe she was not so easily able to read their expressions.
All I know is that she is smarter than you. And having managed to learn that my black neighbour is not a threat - put her in a league beyond your confused and garbled stutterings.

All this shows, to me, is your own racists views.

This shows to me that you are a moron.

Was your dog born not trusting people that you have segregated into specific groups, or did your dog just gradually become that way, to which you may or not have felt ashamed of, and so then had to teach your dog other ways?

We do not have many black people around. I think she just found them strange. OR as a rescue dog may have had a bad experience before we had her.
She also has a massive fear of children shorter than about four feet high. Again - do not know why.
What idiotic conclusions about me are you going to make of that? ROLF

This either sounds like your dog has the human being ability to segregate human beings into separate categories and also has the human being ability to make generalizations about human beings, or, your dog is the one that cannot be trusted and maybe should be put down and gotten rid of completely? Or, have you been absolutely 100% successful in teaching your dog how to supposedly "trust" those people, which you have labelled into separate groups?

Like I said, she can see a different skin colour. Its not rocket science.

By the way, what is a 'vulnerable person'?

Anyone that I judge to be upset by her attentions, be that tail waging interest or fearful barking.

If you have to not allow your dog to bark at vulnerable people, then that means it does bark at vulnerable people when you are not around,

I've no idea what this means, since she does not roam the streets without me. How the **** do you treat dogs in your neighbourhood?

... and considering the fact that you do not have control over your dog all the time,

I have control of my dog at all times.

... then it might be better if that troublesome mutt was put down and killed now.

Not even the most vile and viscous dog hater would say that after meeting her. You ****. She can convince anyone that dogs are brilliant and better than most humans in five minutes. She loves people. But can get scared of some of them.

That way vulnerable people will not feel intimated nor scared.
[/quote]
Welcome to the fantasy world "creation". ROTFLMFHO

..of Because someone might come along who also has the belief that they have the right to protect their own dog or themselves, to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if they were in danger and in doing so with this belief attack and harm you dog, which, according your to so called "logic" would be perfectly acceptable. Or, do you not believe that was is acceptable to you is not acceptable to others, if it is against you and/or your dog?

You are descending into gibberish.
Do you want to try to ask that question again?
This is so entertaining. Please continue.

[GE Morton]

So, an example of what is right in Life that everyone agrees on at present is: If human beings do not need meat to eat, then everyone agrees that human beings do not need to eat meat to live. Therefore, if human beings do not need to eat meat to live, then human beings killing animals just for meat to eat is obviously the wrong thing to do in Life. Or, in other words 'immoral'.

Sorry, but that is an elementary mistake. You're trying to derive an "ought" from an "is." That humans do not need meat to live (the "is" statement) has no bearing on whether it is (morally) right or wrong to eat meat (the "ought" statement). I.e., normative conclusions cannot be drawn from factual premises. That is called the "naturalistic fallacy."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

[GE Morton]

Philosophy isn't linguistics or philology. It's not an analysis of language usage . . .

Yes it is, by and large. It is analysis of concepts, which are linguistic constructs.

Meaning is the associative act per functional ontological analysis. The results of functional ontological analysis can be quite different from how people think about things, even though the launching pad is how words are defined and used in various contexts.

Per functional ontological analysis, by the way, we could say that everything is a "verb," as everything is really dynamic. The idea of static objects or identities is a fiction, an abstraction (that in itself is actually dynamic).

Oh, yes, we could say that, but probably won't, because such an analysis would have no explanatory value. Your "functional ontological analysis" leads to a an obvious reductio ad absurdum. That means you need to go back to the drawing board and re-think that analysis.

[GE Morton]

I take a morality to be a set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, with those principles and rules having a certain aim, or goal.

Do you agree with that (very general) definition? Please answer "yes" or "no."

No, because the function of 'moral' in 'moral agents' is unclear. Does it mean 'morally responsible humans'? And does that exclude very young children, the mentally incapable, and so on? And are interactions between humans and other animals excluded from moral discourse? And are these facts, or matters of opinion?

The term "moral agent" is fairly standard in the literature. Here is one definition.

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-agent

My own preferred definition is somewhat more precise: a "moral agent" is a sentient creature who:

a) has interests and some capacity for pursuing them, and
b) is capable of recognizing other qualifying creatures as moral agents who likewise have interests, which may differ from his own, and
c) is capable of understanding and formulating moral principles and rules and acknowledges the need for them in a moral field.

A Moral Subject is a sentient creature for whom a), but not b) nor c) is true.
A Moral Imbecile is a sentient creature for whom a) and b), but not c), are true.

But if you're having problems with "moral agent" you can just substitute "persons" in that statement.

And do traffic rules govern behaviour between traffic agents, and football rules behaviour between football agents? If not, why do moral rules govern behaviour between moral agents?

No. We have different terms for the classes of agents subject to those rule sets: "drivers" and "football players."

Not just any set of rules governing interactions between moral agents counts as a "morality," however. Traffic rules, football rules, square dance rules, and many other kinds of rules govern interactions between moral agents, but they're not considered moral rules. Do you agree?

Ah, so your expression 'moral agents' has a significance beyond moral discourse. You need to explain that significance. If football had no rules, or no one followed them, there could be no game. Morality and 'moral agency' seem to be irrelevant in this case. Having and following the rules of football has no moral significance, though it has 'football significance'.

No, it has no significance beyond moral discourse. But automobile drivers and football players are moral agents, even though that fact is irrelevant with respect to those rule sets. That is the point: to spell out just which rule set constitutes "morality," given that agents may also be subject to other rule sets.

So what qualifies a set of rules/principles as "moral" has something to do with the aim, purpose, of those rules/principles. Do you agree?

No more than trivially. The goal of traffic rules is to govern traffic behaviour - to make driving possible. The goal of football rules is to govern football behaviour - to make football possible. And, by analogy, the goal of moral rules is to govern moral behaviour (?) - to make morality possible (?). But what is moral behaviour in this context? Is it something like traffic behaviour and football behaviour? And is making morality possible something like making driving and football possible? Is morality an activity like driving and football? (This is a category error. The analogy collapses. It's a definitional wrong-turn.)

What is made possible by moral rules is social cooperation. Without them societies dissolve into Hobbes's bellum omnium contra omnes. Surely there is no question that some moral rules are neccesary for a functional society; moral anarchy is prima facie non-viable. The only serious questions are, "What are the optimum moral rules? How do we decide what rules are optimum?"

I've suggested that the aim, purpose, of moral rules/principles is to maximize welfare for all agents in a moral field (a social setting) --- to reduce injuries and losses due to destructive interactions between agents, and to advocate and encourage interactions that improve the welfare of one or more agents. Do you agree that must at least be part of the aim of any set or rules/principles for it to qualify as a "morality"?

No. You define morality as 'a set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, with those principles and rules having a certain aim, or goal'. So by your own definition, any number of different moral principles, goals and rules can qualify as 'morality'.

Yes, they can.

As I and others have been pointing out to you all along, you're merely assuming your preferred principles, goals and rules are 'right' or 'correct' - that only they qualify as 'morality'. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Well, that is a strange comment, since I haven't offered any principles or rules. We're still squabbling over what is the goal, the aim, of those rules. We need to know that before we can consider possible rules. I suggested that aim is, "To maximize welfare for all agents in a moral field (a social setting) --- to reduce injuries and losses due to destructive interactions between agents, and to advocate and encourage interactions that improve the welfare of one or more agents."

So I'll ask again: Do you agree that must at least be part of the aim of any set or rules/principles for it to qualify as a "morality"?

Yes, or no?

[creation]

(A) what is actually Right and Wrong is decided upon 'that' what everyone agrees with and with what is necessary for living.

(B) If human beings do not need meat to eat, then everyone agrees that human beings do not need to eat meat to live.

(C) Therefore, if human beings do not need to eat meat to live, then human beings killing animals just for meat to eat is obviously the wrong thing to do in Life. Or, in other words 'immoral'.

Plenty of people disagree with some or all of (A), (B) and (C), and I'm one of them (who disagrees with all three).

This is why I specifically knowingly wrote:
Everyone agrees with this at present. Although a lot, if not most, adult human beings will 'try to' disagree with this, and some will fight vigorously that it is right to kill and eat animals when they do not need to.

This will be proven by the reaction this gets.

Also, obviously some people will say they "disagree" with this, but this is only because they are not being Truly OPEN and Honest.

So, there was no need for you to just repeat what I wrote.

Now, if you disagree with (A), (B), and (C), then why?

[creation]

Forgot to add that if you're attempting to claim that I "really agree with those three statements even though I say I do not," then that would take a lot of work to try to support.

Not really. See, if you are to be Truly OPEN and Honest with ALL of my clarifying questions, then we will find out and see what you REALLY agree with, and disagree with.

However, if you continue to be CLOSED and dishonest as you have been, then you are right. It would take more work with you to expose and reveal thee Truth here.

[Sculptor1]

The term "moral agent" is fairly standard in the literature. Here is one definition.

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-agent

A Moral Subject is a sentient creature for whom a), but not b) nor c) is true.
A Moral Imbecile is a sentient creature for whom a) and b), but not c), are true.

But if you're having problems with "moral agent" you can just substitute "persons" in that statement.

Tut tut tut. This is such a childish misdirection. Your link says "A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong ..."
So it is not a question of substituting anything. It talks about " a person", not a "creature" and not an imbecile.
Why link a definition that you abuse?

[Peter Holmes]

GE Morton

You define morality as a set of principles and rules governing interactions between people in a social setting, with those principles and rules having a certain aim, or goal.

And the goal you suggest is: to maximize welfare for all people in a social setting, to reduce injuries and losses due to destructive interactions between people, and to advocate and encourage interactions that improve the welfare of one or more people.

But you agree that any number of different principles, goals and rules can qualify as morality. So the goal you suggest is your preference - a matter of opinion. The assertion of a goal is subjective.

You say that rules make social cooperation possible. But the assertion that we should want social co=operation is subjective.

You say that some rules are neccesary for a functional society. But the assertion that we should want a functional society is subjective.

You say that we need the best possible rules, consistent with subjectively chosen principles, to achieve a subjectively chosen goal.

It may be a fact that a society must have rules, aimed at social co-operation, in order to function. But the assertion that a society should function, and therefore should have rules aimed at social co-operation, is subjective. And stipulating optimisation makes no difference.

An 'is' can never entail an 'ought'. Whatever facts we deploy to justify an opinion, it remains an opinion.

[creation]

If you consider your view of these words are going to be irrelevant to my view, then you cannot successfully disagree with my view nor could you successfully claim that I am claiming one thing or another. This is because my view and the definitions I use are irrelevant to your view. You also have no way of knowing what my view actually entails.

Hence the utility of asking you questions.

That doesn't work well when you're so reluctant to answer.

If anyone cares to go back through our writings, then who has been the one who is reluctant to answer questions can be clearly seen.

Yes, I know what you consider objective.

Do you?

What do you say you know I consider objective?

Again, my question was what work, if any, you take objectivity to do on your view of what it is. Do you think it has any normative ("should") implications?

I had NO idea what you were asking me. That is why I asked you a question in just about the same way so that if you answered it, then I would have at least some understanding of what you were asking me. Then I would better know how to answer your question.

I asked you: What work does "subjectivity" do if what we mean by "subjective" is "individually one agrees"? When, and if, you answer this, then this would help me to know how to answer your original question.

See, I still do not know how to answer your first question here: What work, if any, you take objectivity to do on your view of what it is?

As for your second question here, Do you think it has any normative ("should") implications? I can very easily answer, 'No'.

To me, there is nothing in Life that anyone "should" do. I am not that self-righteous enough to expect others "should" be doing some thing the way I see they "should" be doing it. From my perspective, there is no "should". By the way, I am not sure how "normative" relates to this.

But anyway, as to the first question what do you think or believe is my view on 'objectivity'?

Also, to me, human beings go to "work" in order to get money. Words like 'objectivity' do not "work". Words just help explain things.

To me, human beings can either look at things objectively or subjectively. Therefore, things like 'moral issues' can be looked at subjectively or objectively. To me, what makes morality objective is from looking at a moral questions objectively. That is by just looking from the perspective of every one. To look subjectively is to just look from one's own perspective or a select few's perspective.

Each person chooses how they look at and see things.

Re my definitions, subjective refers to mental phenomena. Objective refers to the complement (everything other than mental phenomena).

And, because your definitions are so strikingly different than mine, as I was saying, for me to provide 'you' with an answer that might be better understood by you, then it helps me greatly to know what your definitions are first. So, to me this was and is still very relevant.

I now know the very reason why what I am saying is not making any sense to you is because your definitions are so different.

When we are looking at any thing 'objectively' then we can discover and see thee actual Truth of things. If you call this being the "work" of 'objectivity' then this is the work 'objectivity' does.