What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Why not? A proposition is objective if it represents a state of things independent of speaker's particular desires, point of view, etc.

" The Moon revolves around the Earth" is usually considered as objective.

" How strange the moon seems!!" is a subjective sentence because evaluative and referred to a personal point of view ("strange", "seems").

No, any sign or string of signs are a third part.

The brain/life form/AI, which uses the sign
The sigh itself
What the sign is about, what it refers to.

Now what the proposition is about can be objective, but the proposition itself is subjective.

 

[phiwum]

A proposition can't itself be objective as far as I know.

Then the question of whether moral norms are objective is nonsensical and we're rather wasting our time.

But what is it that you think the term "objective" applies to?

 

[phiwum]

Both.
The objectivity of a proposition resides in the method to validate it.

Not sure what you mean by this colorful language, but if you mean that a proposition is objective if there is an appropriate method to decide it, then I roughly agree.

Now, let's talk about what makes a method appropriate. I think that it has to do with the fact that a person rationally evaluating the outcome of the method necessarily comes to one conclusion.

(NOTE: If my interpretation of your remark is correct, then we must agree that mathematical theorems are objective.)

 

[phiwum]

No, any sign or string of signs are a third part.

The brain/life form/AI, which uses the sign
The sigh itself
What the sign is about, what it refers to.

Now what the proposition is about can be objective, but the proposition itself is subjective.

When we speak about propositions, we use the convention that we speak not about the signs, but the meaning. Thus, "The car is red," and "The color red is all over the surface of the car," express (I think) the same proposition.

It's a fairly loose notion, but it works well enough to allow us to ignore extraneous crap like what language the proposition is expressed in. In terms of human interactions, these things matter, but when discussing what is or is not, details of expression should be ignored as far as possible.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Not sure what you mean by this colorful language, but if you mean that a proposition is objective if there is an appropriate method to decide it, then I roughly agree.

Now, let's talk about what makes a method appropriate. I think that it has to do with the fact that a person rationally evaluating the outcome of the method necessarily comes to one conclusion.

(NOTE: If my interpretation of your remark is correct, then we must agree that mathematical theorems are objective.)

And what if a person irrationally comes to a conclusion as per morality/ethics and not as per math? How is the one objective as per rational and the other subjective as per irrational?

 

[Dancing David]

I think maybe the issue is the word morals... if we use mores then it is obvious that they are defined by a social set of conventions.

Now personally I believe that game theory can lead to an egalitarian set of values independent of mores

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I think maybe the issue is the word morals... if we use mores then it is obvious that they are defined by a social set of conventions.

Now personally I believe that game theory can lead to an egalitarian set of values independent of mores

Only if human evolution has one and only one possible outcome for evolution within the human species.

 

[David Mo]

Not sure what you mean by this colorful language, but if you mean that a proposition is objective if there is an appropriate method to decide it, then I roughly agree.

Now, let's talk about what makes a method appropriate. I think that it has to do with the fact that a person rationally evaluating the outcome of the method necessarily comes to one conclusion.

(NOTE: If my interpretation of your remark is correct, then we must agree that mathematical theorems are objective.)

I agree except the last sentence. Too empiricist (Poincaré). But this is not our problem now.

And what if a person irrationally comes to a conclusion as per morality/ethics and not as per math? How is the one objective as per rational and the other subjective as per irrational?

The term ‘proposition’ has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other “propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.[1]), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of sentences.
Matthew McGraw, “Propositions”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/​

I was using “proposition” in the last sense: the meaning of sentences. Perhaps I have used the word as synonym of “sentence”. It would be a way of talk too imprecise.

There is still much to be specified, because some authors restrict the propositions to declarative sentences. I have not entered in this subject for the moment.

I reassert my previous definition: A proposition is objective if it represents a state of things independent of speaker's particular desires, point of view, etc.

I don’t think that pure irrationality is a way/method valid to access to objective propositions. Irrational sentences are usually pseudosentences. Do you find any exception?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

The term ‘proposition’ has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other “propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.[1]), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of sentences.
Matthew McGraw, “Propositions”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/​

I was using “proposition” in the last sense: the meaning of sentences. Perhaps I have used the word as synonym of “sentence”. It would be a way of talk too imprecise.

There is still much to be specified, because some authors restrict the propositions to declarative sentences. I have not entered in this subject for the moment.

I reassert my previous definition: A proposition is objective if it represents a state of things independent of speaker's particular desires, point of view, etc.
I don’t think that pure irrationality is a way/method valid to access to objective propositions. Irrational sentences are usually pseudosentences. Do you find any exception?

I agree with the highlighted part, but I suspect that is not what phiwum isaiming for. Rather it seems to be the word (pure) rational somehow turns particular desires, point of view, etc into an objective proposition.

 

[Pup]

This may be way too simplistic, so go ahead and laugh if it is, but...

I don't see how any moral statement can be objectively true without a human-chosen goal that will always be subjective. For example, believing that truth is better than falsehood increases understanding, helps trust, lessens the distraction of uncertainty, and all kinds of things. But what if none of those things matter?

One could say a rational person would think those things matter, but that requires assuming a rational person thinks that success and survival are better than failure. But why should a rational person assume that?

It just seems that everything goes back to arbitrarily deciding that success is better than failure, or living is better than dying, based purely on self-interest and not some external truth, unless the success of humans is as much a law of nature as gravity.

 

[I Am The Scum]

This may be way too simplistic, so go ahead and laugh if it is, but...

I don't see how any moral statement can be objectively true without a human-chosen goal that will always be subjective. For example, believing that truth is better than falsehood increases understanding, helps trust, lessens the distraction of uncertainty, and all kinds of things. But what if none of those things matter?

One could say a rational person would think those things matter, but that requires assuming a rational person thinks that success and survival are better than failure. But why should a rational person assume that?

It just seems that everything goes back to arbitrarily deciding that success is better than failure, or living is better than dying, based purely on self-interest and not some external truth, unless the success of humans is as much a law of nature as gravity.

You're not wrong, but the point is that we don't inherently have to tie these things to human desires in order for us to make sense of them. We can, and that helps us understand things a great deal, but it isn't necessary.

Let's take three propositions:

1. It is irrational to prefer false beliefs over true beliefs.
2. It is unhealthy to value disease over wellness.
3. It is immoral to choose suffering over cooperation.

1 and 2 be identified as objectively true, even though it's easy to imagine someone with goals contrary to those values. "Oh yeah, well I don't care about being rational," or, "Maybe I like having syphilis, now what?" don't really constitute valid rebuttals.

In the same sense, it is possible (though not necessary), that #3 could also be objectively true. In other words, there is nothing inherently wrong/incoherent with that sentence.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

nm

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You're not wrong, but the point is that we don't inherently have to tie these things to human desires in order for us to make sense of them. We can, and that helps us understand things a great deal, but it isn't necessary.

Let's take three propositions:

1. It is irrational to prefer false beliefs over true beliefs.
2. It is unhealthy to value disease over wellness.
3. It is immoral to choose suffering over cooperation.

1 and 2 be identified as objectively true, even though it's easy to imagine someone with goals contrary to those values. "Oh yeah, well I don't care about being rational," or, "Maybe I like having syphilis, now what?" don't really constitute valid rebuttals.

In the same sense, it is possible (though not necessary), that #3 could also be objectively true. In other words, there is nothing inherently wrong/incoherent with that sentence.

What do you mean be objectively true?

 

[Dancing David]

Only if human evolution has one and only one possible outcome for evolution within the human species.

I am not sure of your response, evolution has nothing to do with it

 

[Dancing David]

What do you mean be objectively true?

I would say more 'by definition'

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I am not sure of your response, evolution has nothing to do with it

In short - e.g. sexual competition within a species is not given to go one way. Or another angle - more egalitarian is one way the human species could evolve, but you have to give more evidence, if it is the only way.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I would say more 'by definition'

Okay, but that is not objectively true.

 

[Pup]

You're not wrong, but the point is that we don't inherently have to tie these things to human desires in order for us to make sense of them. We can, and that helps us understand things a great deal, but it isn't necessary.

Let's take three propositions:

1. It is irrational to prefer false beliefs over true beliefs.
2. It is unhealthy to value disease over wellness.
3. It is immoral to choose suffering over cooperation.

1 and 2 be identified as objectively true, even though it's easy to imagine someone with goals contrary to those values. "Oh yeah, well I don't care about being rational," or, "Maybe I like having syphilis, now what?" don't really constitute valid rebuttals.

In the same sense, it is possible (though not necessary), that #3 could also be objectively true. In other words, there is nothing inherently wrong/incoherent with that sentence.

One still has to tie it to a goal, whether a human goal or not. Concerning #3, one could say it's objectively true that choosing suffering causes more suffering than choosing cooperation, but why is causing more suffering immoral? One could go the tautology route and say that "causing suffering" is one of the definitions of immorality so doing it is immoral, but that's just word games.

 

[phiwum]

And what if a person irrationally comes to a conclusion as per morality/ethics and not as per math? How is the one objective as per rational and the other subjective as per irrational?

I apologize, Tommy, but I'm not quite understanding your question.

 

[phiwum]

I agree except the last sentence. Too empiricist (Poincaré). But this is not our problem now.

Actually, if you don't mind, I'd like to settle this problem. I think it is more relevant than you believe.

Do you agree that the following statement is true?

(1) The axioms of Euclidean geometry entail the Pythagorean theorem.

Do you furthermore agree that there is a clear method to determine that it is true? Namely, one can carefully examine any of the valid arguments that the conclusion follows from the axioms and confirm the validity of the arguments?

If so, why should you doubt that the above statement is objective?

I reassert my previous definition: A proposition is objective if it represents a state of things independent of speaker's particular desires, point of view, etc.

Wonderful.

Now, let's talk about what that means. To me, it means that rational persons could come to agreement on the truth or falsity of the proposition, given sufficient evidence, argument, etc. It doesn't mean that everyone or indeed anyone knows the truth of the statement now, but it is knowable in principle, and this in principle knowableness consists of familiarity with certain evidence and/or arguments regarding the matter.