What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[phiwum]

Then you should have to recognise that "Some dogs are green and some dogs are blue" is a particular sentence as the two premises. Not a universal.

You're right that I misread your post, which was, "Here, and universal sentence cannot be concluded from two particular sentences." I instead read it as your citation put it: "No conclusion follows from two particular premises." And that statement is true in Aristotelian logic, and obviously, clearly, undeniably false in first-order logic. (So, by the way, is your statement -- see below.)

Just to be clear, "Some dogs are green and some dogs are blue" is not called a particular sentence. That term applies only to sentences of the form "Some A are B", and this sentence (a conjunction) is not of that form.

Of course, as I alluded earlier, vacuous universal sentences follow from any number of particular premises, but all this is beside the point. No one does Aristotelian logic any more, because it is woefully inadequate. One cannot even express sentences such as, "For every number n, there is a number m such that m > n." Let's move on, as logic did some dozen decades ago or so.

 

[David Mo]

The Army of Africa is the army whose general was Francisco Franco (I hope you heard of him) who led a terrorist attack on Spain and its legitimate government and took over in 1936... aided by Hitler.
Los Maquis are the remnants of the Republicans who fought the (I hope you have heard of that) and they became in turn the terrorists who resisted Franco's new regime Later in France, to where they ran away, they joined with the French terrorist Résistance.

“The Army of Africa” was the colonial Army that started the coup d’état against the democratic Spanish Republic. Yes, the “national/fascist” Army and Franco’s dictatorship were responsible of a systematic practice of terrorism during and after the Civil War.
The “maquis” is the popular name of the French “Resistence” that was also used in Spain to speak of resistance against Franco in the first years of the post-war period. (“Maquis”= scrub, brush in French).There was a plural constellation of organizations. Some of them were guilty of commit acts of terrorism, others not.

Or were they Spanish human beings with the same morals as the Spaniards and the rest of humanity but have for some reason or another chosen to FIGHT AND KILL and terrorize to achieve their aims?

I don’t deny the humanity of anybody. Even terrorists are human beings with political rights and political responsibilities.

Do you think armies and soldiers who attack countries and kill and destroy are immoral? Are armies not in "moral contact points" with "us" and the rest of the people of their PATRIA and the rest of the human race?

We are not speaking of killing and destroying. This is the job of soldiers.We are speaking of attack, torture and destroy civil people. “And babies?” “And babies”. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/And_Babies.jpg . This is terrorism and a soldier that acts as a terrorist is a terrorist, even if he believed he is defending God, the King or the Country. Even if he claims for “due obedience”.
And I think the wars are the place less suitable to discuss moral subjects.

This is the kind of MORALS that all armies and RACISTS have had throughout the existence of human terrorism warfare... have you read the Buybull?

In case of war or terrorism the moral is useful to reinforce our right to defence. It is useless to debate with our enemies or terrorists. Exception: only if they share some moral principles with us. It depends of specific cases.
I am not worried about fascists' and racists' moral. It is a matter for study, only. I am worried about how can moral people defend themselves against them.

How about terrorists who are given Nobel Peace Prizes?

It is sarcasm because they are supposed to share moral principles with us.

But when they win like in Israel and General Franco... debate become possible... no?

I can assure you personally that to debate about moral with the Brigada Político Social”(Franco's political police) was absolutely impossible. I doubt they had any kind of moral. In any case it was in the antipodes of mine. I reserve my opinion on Israel. It will take us far away.

 

[Leumas]

NOTE: Your list is very strange. I live in Spain and never heard speak about an organization called “Te Maquis” or “The Army of Africa”. Instead I know other terrorist organizations not included here as GRAPO, GAL, AAA… They are fortunately inactive from many years.

I lived in Spain many years too... and have studied its history.

The Army of Africa is the army whose general was General Franco (I hope you heard of him) who led a terrorist attack on Spain and its legitimate government and took over in 1936... aided by Hitler.

Los Maquis are the remnants of the Republicans who fought the civil war after Franco took over (I hope you have heard of that) and they became in turn the terrorists who resisted Franco's new regime Later in France, to where they ran away, they joined with the French terrorist Résistance.
...

“The Army of Africa” was the colonial Army that started the coup d’état against the democratic Spanish Republic. Yes, the “national/fascist” Army and Franco’s dictatorship were responsible of a systematic practice of terrorism during and after the Civil War.

The “maquis” is the popular name of the French “Resistence” that was also used in Spain to speak of resistance against Franco in the first years of the post-war period. (“Maquis”= scrub, brush in French).There was a plural constellation of organizations. Some of them were guilty of commit acts of terrorism, others not.

Great... thanks for reading the links I gave you and finally agreeing with me despite initially finding it strange.

Now here is a question... did those terrorists spring out of some alien mentality that had no "moral contact points" with "us"?

Were the morals of the remnants of the Spanish Republican Army who had to resort to terrorism to achieve their aims so not fathomable? Did they kill babies?

Here is another question for you to consider....

Did the Wall Street psychopaths, who bankrupted entire nations, cause the deaths of countless babies? Are they terrorists?

Do they have "moral contact points" with "us"?

“The Army of Africa” was the colonial Army that started the coup d’état against the democratic Spanish Republic...

Well technically that would then be golpe de estado... no?

I can assure you personally that to debate about moral with the Brigada Político Social”(Franco's political police) was absolutely impossible. I doubt they had any kind of moral. ...

Yet they were the paragons of Catholicism... and the Vatican found that the Franco regime had many "moral points of contact" with "us"... no?

So your assurances, that Franco's regime was devoid of any kind of morals, were apparently not shared by the Holy Roman Catholic Church nor by the POPE nor by the Vatican.

Franco and the Catholic Church: The Church triumphant.

On April 1, 1939, Generalísimo Francisco Franco, crusading leader of the rebellious Nationalist forces, triumphantly declared the Spanish Civil War over.

The Catholic Church was the institution that most benefitted from Franco’s victory. Its hierarchy had blessed the Nationalist uprising as a crusade and had justified the war to the world as an “armed plebiscite.” Now it reaped the reward.....

For the Church, the privileges constituted a spiritual “reconquista” complementing the political “reconquista” enjoyed by Franco and his Nationalists. ...

The privileged status of the Church was granted immediately following the Civil War.

A little later --in June 1941-- its rights were outlined in an Agreement between the Vatican and the Franco government, and finally formalised in a Concordat signed in August, 1953.
Amongst the provisions were:

1. Recognition of Catholicism as the official religion of the country;
2. Mandatory religious instruction at all educational levels in conformity with Catholic dogma;
3. Financial support of the church by the state (paying the salary of priests and contributing to the (re)construction of church buildings);
4. Guaranteed representation in both press and radio.

....

The symbiotic relationship between the Franco regime and the Church depended on both parties retaining a shared vision of each other’s role in the destiny of Spain. Each was happy to cocoon the country in a nostalgic, imperial and Catholic past.....
​

 

[David Mo]

Great... thanks for reading the links I gave you and finally agreeing with me despite initially finding it strange.

I have not read any link. I told what I know. It is great if we coincide on something.

Now here is a question... did those terrorists spring out of some alien mentality that had no "moral contact points" with "us"?

I am not speaking of “alien” in the strong sense, only radically different. This is an important point.
And when I spook of “any moral contact” I was speaking about moral principles.

Did the Wall Street psychopaths, who bankrupted entire nations, cause the deaths of countless babies? Are they terrorists?

It is a disputable question. If we use the customary definition they are not, because only political crimes can be called “terrorism”. I think that some cases of terrorism (the paramilitary Autodefensas in Colombia, for example) have economical motivations. It is terrorism with economical aims.

Do they have "moral contact points" with "us"?

May be some moral contact, but not in moral principles. Partial agreements are possible, but not about deeper questions.

Yet they were the paragons of Catholicism... and the Vatican found that the Franco regime had many "moral points of contact" with "us"... no?
So your assurances, that Franco's regime was devoid of any kind of morals, were apparently not shared by the Holy Roman Catholic Church nor by the POPE nor by the Vatican.

In those years the Vatican was also guilty for some covenants with Hitler and Mussolini also. The Vatican support for Franco was total. The Vatican continued its support till the last days of the dictatorship. The data you presented here are correct. It seems that the State terrorism of the “nacional catolicismo” didn’t disgust Pope’s moral and this caused a great problem to some Catholics, as Georges Bernanos, which were aware of the methods of Franco’s Army. Bernanos found that these methods were incompatible with his moral principles.
I can discuss about moral with some Catholics, similar to Bernanos perhaps, but never with the priests that justify the position of the Catholic Church in those years. Their moral principles are as different to mine as the Islamic fundamentalists.
Discussing to believers in general is difficult because they maintain moral principles that include religious suppositions that are not debatable. In general, when these suppositions appear, you have to change the discussion to the philosophical field and here the discussion is also difficult.
This illustrates my claim that universal moral principles and rational arguments against them are inexistent.

 

[phiwum]

Discussing to believers in general is difficult because they maintain moral principles that include religious suppositions that are not debatable. In general, when these suppositions appear, you have to change the discussion to the philosophical field and here the discussion is also difficult.
This illustrates my claim that universal moral principles and rational arguments against them are inexistent.

Rather, no.

What it illustrates is that it is difficult to discuss moral issues with those who defer to authorities. But, of course, it is just as difficult to discuss evolution with those committed to literal readings of Genesis, so if this "illustrates" your claim regarding morality, it also illustrates that there are no rational principle supporting scientific claims.

Since the latter is nonsense, it follows that the inability to discuss morality with those who defer to authority is not evidence of moral anti-realism.

 

[Leumas]

I have not read any link. I told what I know. It is great if we coincide on something.

Wonderful that you NOW somehow know all about Los Maquis and the Army of Africa without reading anything about them.

But just a few posts back you said

NOTE:...I live in Spain and never heard speak about an organization called “Te Maquis” or “The Army of Africa”...

And it was so much so that you found it quite strange that I mentioned them

NOTE: Your list is very strange...

I wonder why you found my list so strange if you already knew all about Los Maquis and Army of Africa and agree that they were terrorists as you have said you already knew despite saying initially that you have never heard of them?

I am not speaking of “alien” in the strong sense, only radically different. This is an important point.
And when I spook of “any moral contact” I was speaking about moral principles.

But that is precisely what I am trying to explain... at one point the Republican Army soldiers and the Republicans were the NORMAL MORALITY of Spain.

They fought a terrorist golpe de estado and lost.

Now that the terrorists won... they became the NOMAL MORALITY of Spain with the full rejoicing of the Spanish Catholic Church who in fact were utterly opposed to the Republican government.

Thus despite the NORMAL MORALITY of the Republicans being the MAJORITY MORALITY, the Holy Roman Catholic Church Of Jesus Christ and Saint Peter and Saint Paul with over 2 BILLION people who think that the POPE is the representative of GOD on Earth, considered the majority democratically elected government and its soldiers were IMMORAL and supported a TERRORIST army to TERRORIZE Spain and its people and topple its elected government.

So was the Holy Roman Catholic Church of Christ ... a terrorist organization with "no moral contact points with us"?

But then once the terrorists won and became the ESTABLISHED NORMAL MORALITY of Spain.... the losers resorted to terrorism... they became now the terrorists.

But did their morality which used to be the normal one suddenly become so "radically different" and without any "moral contact points with us"?

I think your statements about "no contact points" and "radically different" are utterly erroneous and not logical... but rather based upon emotional rationalization and out-group vilification.

I think that all human "morality" is related and emanates from the very same source... human nature which evolved out of biological and sociological constraints and conditions and just as humans adapt (or invent new appropriate tools) in response to changing environments and conditions and constraints in other aspects of survival so do they do the same with the "moral" aspects of survival.

There is no such thing as "radically different" because if you take humans from one "normal moral standard" and place them in the situations that are the environment of another "moral system" they too would adopt those morals they originally found to have been "radically different"... if they want to survive that is... and the ones who do not would not survive.

And accordingly... I am happy that you agree with the RATIONAL FACT that the hypotheses of objective moral principles and arguments for them are utter nonsense.

...
This illustrates my claim that universal moral principles and rational arguments against them are inexistent.

 

[JJM 777]

without religion ... you can't have Objective Moral Values (OMV). They will then attack moral relativism as if it's the only alternative since they see it as entirely subjective

I would argue quite the opposite: moral values dictated by any religion are the subjective opinion of those who dictated them, and relativism is the only possible objective approach. (Depends on the relativism though.)

 

[David Mo]

Wonderful that you NOW somehow know all about Los Maquis and the Army of Africa without reading anything about them.

(...)
I wonder why you found my list so strange if you already knew all about Los Maquis and Army of Africa and agree that they were terrorists as you have said you already knew despite saying initially that you have never heard of them?

I have read a lot on the maquis and the Ejército de África, (articles and books). I know it well. They are not usually considered as "organizations" as you did. As I said you the maquis were a constelation of diverse organizations and the African troops only a part of Franco's Army. The "African Army" existed long before Franco.

I can make you an hughe abstract of the last book I have read about the subject if you want. It is on my table now. José Antonio Vidal Castaño: La memoria reprimida. Historias orales del maquis, Universitat de Vaència, 2004. Note that "maquis" is spelled with small letter because is not a name for a single organization.

I think that all human "morality" is related and emanates from the very same source... human nature which evolved out of biological and sociological constraints and conditions and just as humans adapt (or invent new appropriate tools) in response to changing environments and conditions and constraints in other aspects of survival so do they do the same with the "moral" aspects of survival.

There is no such thing as "radically different" because if you take humans from one "normal moral standard" and place them in the situations that are the environment of another "moral system" they too would adopt those morals they originally found to have been "radically different"... if they want to survive that is... and the ones who do not would not survive.

And accordingly... I am happy that you agree with the RATIONAL FACT that the hypotheses of objective moral principles and arguments for them are utter nonsense.

Your theory is false. Many people have lived in countries with a moral different to the dominant moral and have survived as tolerated minorities, by hiding their moral or fighting for it.

If you would say that to have a moral capacity is derived from the evolution of the human species, perhaps you are right. But this is not what we were discussing here. We were discussing if it is possible to show rationally the superiority of a moral over the others on the field of the moral arguments.

If you agree with me in that the moral arguments are subjective, I'll be glad. Then, there is not need to continue discussing.

 

[David Mo]

Rather, no.

What it illustrates is that it is difficult to discuss moral issues with those who defer to authorities. But, of course, it is just as difficult to discuss evolution with those committed to literal readings of Genesis, so if this "illustrates" your claim regarding morality, it also illustrates that there are no rational principle supporting scientific claims.

Since the latter is nonsense, it follows that the inability to discuss morality with those who defer to authority is not evidence of moral anti-realism.

The question of the literal reading of Genesis is referred to an historical fact. Therefore is more or less objective question. But the problem with believers is when they claim theological statements. They are metaphysics. This is to say, without empirical sense. This is to say irrational and non debatable. When someone says that he believes that Moses crossed the Red Sea because this is written in the Bible and the Bible is God's word and God never is wrong and if science says other thing is science that is wrong, the discussion is over.

A similar thing happens with the intent to argue on moral with some/many religious persons.

 

[phiwum]

What you said: The fact that some people defer to religious authorities on moral issues illustrates that morality is subjective.

What I said: People also defer to religious authorities on matters of evolution -- does this illustrate that evolution is subjective.

Your response: Evolution is objective, but morality is subjective.

As you can see, your first statement is nonsense, no matter whether one feels that morality is subjective or not. Moral disagreements are no more or less relevant for the objectivity of morality than disagreements over evolution are for the objectivity of evolution. Disagreements are equally explainable by the presumption of subjectivity or objectivity.

 

[David Mo]

What you said: The fact that some people defer to religious authorities on moral issues illustrates that morality is subjective.

What I said: People also defer to religious authorities on matters of evolution -- does this illustrate that evolution is subjective.

Your response: Evolution is objective, but morality is subjective.

As you can see, your first statement is nonsense, no matter whether one feels that morality is subjective or not. Moral disagreements are no more or less relevant for the objectivity of morality than disagreements over evolution are for the objectivity of evolution. Disagreements are equally explainable by the presumption of subjectivity or objectivity.

I don't think the authority of science can be matched with the authority of the Bible. And I don't think the reliability of science can be matched to the reliability of the Bible. My trust in science is based on its results and personal reasoning. Trust in God is irrational. Nobody can rationally understand it because the substratum of religion is irrational.

But the discussions about science are different from the discussions about moral in other aspects. I can understand an article about divulgative science. For a fuller understanding of a matter of science I need a specific knowledge. This is not the case of moral discussions. Everybody can understand the concepts implied in a moral discussion.

Yes, disagreement is possible in science also. But it is theoretically solvable with objective methods. This is not the case of moral, and still less in theology.

 

[phiwum]

I don't think the authority of science can be matched with the authority of the Bible. And I don't think the reliability of science can be matched to the reliability of the Bible. My trust in science is based on its results and personal reasoning. Trust in God is irrational. Nobody can rationally understand it because the substratum of religion is irrational.

But the discussions about science are different from the discussions about moral in other aspects. I can understand an article about divulgative science. For a fuller understanding of a matter of science I need a specific knowledge. This is not the case of moral discussions. Everybody can understand the concepts implied in a moral discussion.

Yes, disagreement is possible in science also. But it is theoretically solvable with objective methods. This is not the case of moral, and still less in theology.

You and I agree that relying on science is a good means to come to the truth about scientific claims.

Your claims about morality and whether there is some objective solution to the problems are obviously a subject of contention, and one that I do not anticipate coming to agreement at this point.

My only point here is this: you cannot claim that moral disputes in which one party uses religious authority is any evidence that morality is subjective. The same sorts of religiously motivated dispute occurs in disciplines which are undeniably objective. Hence, these kinds of disputes are not evidence of subjectivity.

 

[David Mo]

My only point here is this: you cannot claim that moral disputes in which one party uses religious authority is any evidence that morality is subjective. The same sorts of religiously motivated dispute occurs in disciplines which are undeniably objective. Hence, these kinds of disputes are not evidence of subjectivity.

Many years ago, Kant spoke of "the scandal of metaphysics" consisting of the incapacity to find a method for progress and consensus between philosophers. (As science has). The same scandal can be attributed to ethics more than two centuries after.

The difference between disagreement in science and in moral is the method. There is a method to solve scientific debates. There is not a similar method in moral. The method is the key to objectivity!

In religion the thing is worse.

 

[Leumas]

...
The difference between disagreement in science and in moral is the method. There is a method to solve scientific debates. There is not a similar method in moral. The method is the key to objectivity!

In religion the thing is worse.

Well said!!

 

[phiwum]

Many years ago, Kant spoke of "the scandal of metaphysics" consisting of the incapacity to find a method for progress and consensus between philosophers. (As science has). The same scandal can be attributed to ethics more than two centuries after.

Yes, I quite agree.

The difference between disagreement in science and in moral is the method. There is a method to solve scientific debates. There is not a similar method in moral. The method is the key to objectivity!

In religion the thing is worse.

The "method" is not part of what makes a proposition objective or subjective. The laws of physics did not become objective once the scientific method was developed. Rather, the method allowed persons to come to hypothesize that these objective laws were correct.

Having a good method for determining the truth of a proposition entails that the proposition is objective. Lack of a method does not entail that it is subjective.

 

[David Mo]

The "method" is not part of what makes a proposition objective or subjective. The laws of physics did not become objective once the scientific method was developed. Rather, the method allowed persons to come to hypothesize that these objective laws were correct.

Having a good method for determining the truth of a proposition entails that the proposition is objective. Lack of a method does not entail that it is subjective.

Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society. (Reiss, Julian and Sprenger, Jan, "Scientific Objectivity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/scientific-objectivity/).

I am not able to add any more. Maybe that objective claims and results are the product of the method because the discovery of the experimental-mathematical method (later called hypothetico-deductive) caused the birth of the Scienza Nuova and the abandon of scholastic science based on arbitrary principles. This is the scientific objectivity.

What is the warranty for objective claims in moral? I don’t see any method that warrants that it not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests.

 

[phiwum]

I am not able to add any more. Maybe that objective claims and results are the product of the method because the discovery of the experimental-mathematical method (later called hypothetico-deductive) caused the birth of the Scienza Nuova and the abandon of scholastic science based on arbitrary principles. This is the scientific objectivity.

What is the warranty for objective claims in moral? I don’t see any method that warrants that it not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests.

I can certainly add more.

There are objective propositions and objective methods. What is the relation between the two?

Clearly, if there is an objective method which decides a given proposition, then that proposition is also objective.[1]

Arguably, and less obviously, if a proposition is objective, then there exists a (possibly unknown) method to decide it.

Now, we can use (loosely speaking) the scientific method to show that the statement, "The earth orbits the sun," is objective. This is enough to verify the objectivity of that statement. But the statement was also objective four billion years ago, when evidently no one was capable of verifying it. The development of science didn't make the proposition objective. Rather, it produced a method so that we could objectively verify the truth of the statement.

Thus, the fact that you and I know no objective method for determining the truth of moral norms is not evidence that they are not objective, since our failure is not evidence that no such method exists.

Physics began with Aristotle, but the discipline had no good method until, oh, let's say around the time of Newton. It's not that the questions the earlier natural philosophers were working on weren't objective, but simply that a clear method was not yet available. Morality has continued without a clear method for even longer, and I can understand that one may conclude no such method is possible, but he should realize that this conclusion is merely probable at best. It is not irrational to keep a question as essential as this open.

[1] This notion of "deciding" a proposition is probably not quite what I want, since the scientific method does not really verify that a hypothesis is true. I should think more on this.

 

[David Mo]

Arguably, and less obviously, if a proposition is objective, then there exists a (possibly unknown) method to decide it.

Now, we can use (loosely speaking) the scientific method to show that the statement, "The earth orbits the sun," is objective. This is enough to verify the objectivity of that statement. But the statement was also objective four billion years ago, when evidently no one was capable of verifying it. The development of science didn't make the proposition objective. Rather, it produced a method so that we could objectively verify the truth of the statement.

Thus, the fact that you and I know no objective method for determining the truth of moral norms is not evidence that they are not objective, since our failure is not evidence that no such method exists.

“If the sentence ‘the ghosts exist’ is objective, then there exists a (perhaps unknown) method to know it”.

Strange, is it not? In reality, this is not to say anything about the existence of ghosts.

The sentence “The Earth turns around the Sun” was not objective four billion years ago because there was not anybody to utter it. A sentence is the product of the human brain and it is not an eternal entity similar to the platonic ideas. You can imagine an alien uttering this sentence four billion years ago. You can imagine God uttering this sentence four billions years ago. (Not the Bible god which has not the ideas about planets too clear). You can imagine that science is wrong and the Earth was created five thousand years ago. Why not? In this sense all is “open”. But not everything you imagine is useful to investigate. Or to believe.

You can imagine all the possibilities you want. But knowledge is not imagination. We know our sentences are objective if we have any evidence (not absolute evidence!) that they are so. If we have not this evidence, provided by an objective method, we can say that our sentence is not caused by any positive evidence, but by subjective reasons such as wishes, fears or delusions.

And this is the case of moral principles. We have not any real (not fanciful) evidence of their objectivity but we have a lot of evidences of their dependence on subjective reasons.

 

[Leumas]

“If the sentence ‘the ghosts exist’ is objective, then there exists a (perhaps unknown) method to know it”.

Strange, is it not? In reality, this is not to say anything about the existence of ghosts.

The sentence “The Earth turns around the Sun” was not objective four billion years ago because there was not anybody to utter it. A sentence is the product of the human brain and it is not an eternal entity similar to the platonic ideas. You can imagine an alien uttering this sentence four billion years ago. You can imagine God uttering this sentence four billions years ago. (Not the Bible god which has not the ideas about planets too clear). You can imagine that science is wrong and the Earth was created five thousand years ago. Why not? In this sense all is “open”. But not everything you imagine is useful to investigate. Or to believe.

You can imagine all the possibilities you want. But knowledge is not imagination. We know our sentences are objective if we have any evidence (not absolute evidence!) that they are so. If we have not this evidence, provided by an objective method, we can say that our sentence is not caused by any positive evidence, but by subjective reasons such as wishes, fears or delusions.

And this is the case of moral principles. We have not any real (not fanciful) evidence of their objectivity but we have a lot of evidences of their dependence on subjective reasons.

Well said!!

 

[phiwum]

“If the sentence ‘the ghosts exist’ is objective, then there exists a (perhaps unknown) method to know it”.

Strange, is it not? In reality, this is not to say anything about the existence of ghosts.

There is not a doubt in my mind that that sentence is objective. I think that you're confusing "objective" with "true".

The sentence, "A god carries the sun in his (visible) chariot across the sky" is objective. Any person in a position to examine the sun can see there is no such chariot.

The sentence “The Earth turns around the Sun” was not objective four billion years ago because there was not anybody to utter it. A sentence is the product of the human brain and it is not an eternal entity similar to the platonic ideas. You can imagine an alien uttering this sentence four billion years ago. You can imagine God uttering this sentence four billions years ago. (Not the Bible god which has not the ideas about planets too clear). You can imagine that science is wrong and the Earth was created five thousand years ago. Why not? In this sense all is “open”. But not everything you imagine is useful to investigate. Or to believe.

This utterly dull side issue about sentences is easily avoided. In 3000 B.C., a suitable translation of that sentence could be uttered. No one in that time had any method for determining the truth of the sentence. There are two options.

(1) The sentence was subjective then, and objective now.

(2) The sentence was objective then, though the method for verifying it was unknown at the time.

As far as I'm concerned, sentences do not go from subjective to objective. Now, a person 3000 years ago may have been expressing a subjective opinion about the truth of that sentence, but the meaning of the sentence itself was objective.

If you think (1) is the case, then we may amend my claim: moral norms are currently subjective, but it is possible that they will become objective. It's a fairly unnatural way of saying what I mean, but perhaps you will understand.

You can imagine all the possibilities you want. But knowledge is not imagination. We know our sentences are objective if we have any evidence (not absolute evidence!) that they are so. If we have not this evidence, provided by an objective method, we can say that our sentence is not caused by any positive evidence, but by subjective reasons such as wishes, fears or delusions.

No, the last part is false, unless you're willing to say that the objectivity of sentences such as, "The earth orbits the sun," is something that changes over time, that such sentences were once subjective and now are objective.


Re-reading that last sentence, I suppose it is true as stated, but introduces a new use of "subjective", namely the "subjective" reasons which cause one to utter the sentence. This is distinct from the question whether the sentence itself is subjective. (I think there's a type-token misunderstanding here. I'm not speaking of any particular utterance of the sentence, but the sentence itself. This is, after all, the approach that logicians take to understanding properties of sentences.)

On your account, when an astronomer says, "The earth orbits the sun," that sentence is objective, whereas when an uneducated person reads that same sentence aloud because he has been prompted to, it is "subjective"? Or meaningless? This is not a useful level of abstraction for understanding properties of assertions about the world around us.

By the way, pages ago I gave my definition of "objective sentence". It is clear from my definition that a sentence's objectivity does not change.

And this is the case of moral principles. We have not any real (not fanciful) evidence of their objectivity but we have a lot of evidences of their dependence on subjective reasons.

Look, as long as you admit the possibility that tomorrow, we may find such evidence, then there is no argument here. It takes a subtle argument, but I've shown that there are objective non-moral norms, and hence there is no contradiction in the concept of objective norm.