Morality? What morality?

[Betterave]

Betterave, the problem with the Venn diagrams is that they support the notion of subjective morality. A Venn diagram where each circle is a subjective morality doesn’t make the intersection objective, it makes you change the notion of “objective” to agreement on “subjectivity”. >_>

No, they don’t support subjective morality. They simply present the moral judgments deriving from different sets of principles for moral decision making. As I pointed out, inocente is simply begging the question (quite brutally) when he assumes from the get-go that each circle - each set of principles along with their entailed judgments - represents a ‘subjective morality’ (each of which he simply assumes is equally ‘legitimate,’ i.e., equally objectively unjustified).

 

[inocente]

LOL! You love to dwell in cloudy, squishy abstractions, don’t you? What is A and what is B? We’d better *stop *well *before *explaining *that *kind of thing, right?

I thought I said what A and B are - oh yes “A = {my take on set theory}; B = {your take on set theory}; A ∩ B = { }”. To translate: the intersection of my take on set theory and your take on set theory is the empty set. To retranslate: we’re failing to communicate at such a profoundly low level that continuing this dialog may risk our health and safety. To re-retranslate: we better stop there.

 

[4Horsemen]

What’s the number of deaths required to make a war horrible?

Anything over 0.

 

[jonfawkes]

Anything over 0.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[dskysmine]

No, they don’t support subjective morality. They simply present the moral judgments deriving from different sets of principles for moral decision making. As I pointed out, inocente is simply begging the question (quite brutally) when he assumes from the get-go that each circle - each set of principles along with their entailed judgments - represents a ‘subjective morality’ (each of which he simply assumes is equally ‘legitimate,’ i.e., equally objectively unjustified).

Betterave when you state that each circle is a different set of principles for moral decision making you are stating that they are subjective, i.e. that they pertain only to the subject that states them. The fact that they sometimes intersect (in your theory) is a mere coincidence. And what is even weirder is that you assume that some are objectively justified while other aren’t… if the principles only pertain the subject they are never objectively justified, which is why I proposed that morality is unrelated to the subject and must be based in factual evidence, reality, i.e. Life, Knowledge, and Universality. These 3 principles are the only objective “values” because they are factual values. Without Life, there is no experience of existence, without Knowledge existence is meaningless, and without Universality there is no sustenance or relation to reality.
Saying anything else will obviously lead you to a subjective morality…

Hug,
Daniel

 

[Betterave]

I thought I said what A and B are - oh yes “A = {my take on set theory}; B = {your take on set theory}; A ∩ B = { }”.

Of course you said that.

To translate: the intersection of my take on set theory and your take on set theory is the empty set.

I don’t need a translation; apparently you do. Here’s mine:
LOL! You love to dwell in cloudy, squishy abstractions, don’t you? What is “your take on set theory” and what is “my take on set theory”? We’d better stop well before explaining that kind of thing, right? Apparently you mistook “my/your take on set theory” for an explanation of what “my/your take on set theory” is (“my/your take on set theory” *equals *A/B - it does not *explain *it).

To retranslate: we’re failing to communicate at such a profoundly low level that continuing this dialog may risk our health and safety. To re-retranslate: we better stop there.

Your retranslation is a very inaccurate one.

In any case, actually explaining your vague, squishy claims is really not likely to pose a risk to your health. It might even benefit it!

 

[Betterave]

Betterave when you state that each circle is a different set of principles for moral decision making you are stating that they are subjective, i.e. that they pertain only to the subject that states them.

Let’s stop right there: that’s a very obvious non sequitur. Can you see that?

You might as well say, like inocente, that if I point out that he is misunderstanding the nature of what is presented by a Venn diagram, then this claim must be based on my idiosyncratic ‘subjective’ take on set theory, so there is no point in responding to my point with a rational objective statement about set theory. We just have to admit that we have fundamentally different ‘takes’ on the matter in question… But that is obviously complete nonsense, pure obfuscation - right?

 

[dskysmine]

Let’s stop right there: that’s a very obvious non sequitur. Can you see that?

You might as well say, like inocente, that if I point out that he is misunderstanding the nature of what is presented by a Venn diagram, then this claim must be based on my idiosyncratic ‘subjective’ take on set theory, so there is no point in responding to my point with a rational objective statement about set theory. We just have to admit that we have fundamentally different ‘takes’ on the matter in question… But that is obviously complete nonsense, pure obfuscation - right?

I wasn’t saying that the subjectiveness of morality was based on the subjectiveness of the Venn Diagram… the Venn Diagram is simply a model for your explanation, which, by the way I fail to see how it can prove the objectiveness of morality.
Please explain!

 

[sidbrown]

Objective morality is real in the same sense that existence is real. Once you acknowledge the world is real, objective morality is the only possibility.

The premises for objective morality are: Life, knowledge and universality.

If morality is truly objective and not relative to the culture, can you please tell me whether the following are objectively right or wrong:

1. Slavery.
2. Torture of a suspect to extract a confession.
3. Burning a heretic at the stake.

 

[dskysmine]

If morality is truly objective and not relative to the culture, can you please tell me whether the following are objectively right or wrong:

1. Slavery.
2. Torture of a suspect to extract a confession.
3. Burning a heretic at the stake.

Situation 1
Facts: humans are equal.
Situation presents us with unequal treatment of humans
Conclusion: Immoral

Situation 2
Facts: Too many unknown variables… other than knowing torture is being used.
Situation doesn’t explain what makes that suspect a suspect, what kind of information is trying to be extracted, and what method of extraction is being used.
Either way, torture is contrary to Life which is the first and most important premise for existence.
Conclusion: Immoral

Situation 3
Facts: Life is being taken by human choice.
Life is the primary premise for existence.
Conclusion: Immoral

 

[Betterave]

I wasn’t saying that the subjectiveness of morality was based on the subjectiveness of the Venn Diagram… the Venn Diagram is simply a model for your explanation, which, by the way I fail to see how it can prove the objectiveness of morality.
Please explain!

The Venn diagram is NOT a model for my explanation. It is an otiose device introduced and misunderstood by inocente. It doesn’t prove anything, certainly not apart from a working definition of ‘objective’ in relation to such presentations of data. In itself it simply presents the logical relations of particular moral judgments to various systems of moral principles - that’s it! Nothing more.

The convergence of multiple lines of intuitively plausible reasoning towards a common set of conclusions certainly could, however, *suggest *that these conclusions are objectively well-founded.

 

[Betterave]

Situation 1
Facts: humans are equal.
Situation presents us with unequal treatment of humans
Conclusion: Immoral

Unequal treatment of humans is not intrinsically immoral.

Situation 2
Facts: Too many unknown variables… other than knowing torture is being used.
Situation doesn’t explain what makes that suspect a suspect, what kind of information is trying to be extracted, and what method of extraction is being used.
Either way, torture is contrary to Life which is the first and most important premise for existence.
Conclusion: Immoral

Torture is contrary to life?? What does that mean?

Situation 3
Facts: Life is being taken by human choice.
Life is the primary premise for existence.
Conclusion: Immoral

Non sequitur. Not all intentional killing is unjustified.

“Morality is objective” does not imply that everybody at all times and in all places has the same level of moral understanding. It actually implies that people can objectively misunderstand morality (and obviously they do). You need to reject the hidden premise of sidbrown’s question, rather than giving him simplistic answers.

 

[dskysmine]

The convergence of multiple lines of intuitively plausible reasoning towards a common set of conclusions certainly could, however, *suggest *that these conclusions are objectively well-founded.

No they wouldn’t…
How would they?

If I draw a line between the two countries I like best and you draw a line between the two countries you like best and them crossing over doesn’t mean our tastes are the same…
In abstract you could define your moral premise as “greed” or “detachment”,“life” or “destruction”, “pleasure” or “control”, “beauty” or “war”, “knowledge” or “ignorance”, (i’m not making opposites) that it wouldn’t make any of it objective.

Your problem is that you consider that subjective agreement means that the conclusions are objectively well-founded…
That is the same as saying “mob rule” or “might makes right”.
It’s irrelevant to support objectiveness.

 

[dskysmine]

Unequal treatment of humans is not intrinsically immoral.

Treatment of humans is not the same as relationship towards different humans…
What is your justification for that?

Torture is contrary to life?? What does that mean?

It injures life…

Non sequitur. Not all intentional killing is unjustified.

-.-
because we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions…

“Morality is objective” does not imply that everybody at all times and in all places has the same level of moral understanding. It actually implies that people can objectively misunderstand morality (and obviously they do). You need to reject the hidden premise of sidbrown’s question, rather than giving him simplistic answers.

Your meaning of objectivity seems completely different from any I have ever seen… please explain!

 

[Betterave]

The Venn diagram is NOT a model for my explanation. It is an otiose device introduced and misunderstood by inocente. It doesn’t prove anything, certainly not apart from a working definition of ‘objective’ in relation to such presentations of data. In itself it simply presents the logical relations of particular moral judgments to various systems of moral principles - that’s it! Nothing more.

The convergence of multiple lines of intuitively plausible reasoning towards a common set of conclusions certainly could, however, *suggest *that these conclusions are objectively well-founded.

Please read the underlined sentence and don’t ignore it this time.

 

[Betterave]

No they wouldn’t…
How would they?

Immediately! By definition of the term ‘objective’!

If I draw a line between the two countries I like best and you draw a line between the two countries you like best and them crossing over doesn’t mean our tastes are the same…

So what?? You think that is analogous to something I have claimed??

In abstract you could define your moral premise as “greed” or “detachment”,“life” or “destruction”, “pleasure” or “control”, “beauty” or “war”, “knowledge” or “ignorance”, (i’m not making opposites) that it wouldn’t make any of it objective.

True - so what??

Your problem is that you consider that subjective agreement means that the conclusions are objectively well-founded…

What are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote??

That is the same as saying “mob rule” or “might makes right”.
It’s irrelevant to support objectiveness.

That’s nuts. I said nothing of the sort.

 

[Betterave]

Treatment of humans is not the same as relationship towards different humans…
What is your justification for that?

It is obvious. What is your justification for questioning the obvious?

It injures life…

Not necessarily true, and in any case, it does not follow that it is “contrary to life”.

-.-
because we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions…

Irrelevant.

Your meaning of objectivity seems completely different from any I have ever seen… please explain!

It does?? What do you think it means? I think that what I have said should be perfectly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the term.

 

[dskysmine]

It is obvious. What is your justification for questioning the obvious?

It does?? What do you think it means? I think that what I have said should be perfectly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the term.

Nothing is obvious in this Forum! Explain!

 

[Betterave]

Nothing is obvious in this Forum! Explain!

I’m happy to explain what I can, but the question “why does this word have this meaning?” is not relevant here, is it? For our purposes, the appropriate answer is: “it just does.” A discussion where one has to explain *everything *is just not feasible. Could you ask a more specific question?

 

[dskysmine]

I’m happy to explain what I can, but the question “why does this word have this meaning?” is not relevant here, is it? For our purposes, the appropriate answer is: “it just does.” A discussion where one has to explain *everything *is just not feasible. Could you ask a more specific question?

I want to know what do you mean by “objective”. That’s first! The rest can come after that little understanding. And no, you haven’t been clear on what you mean by it with your earlier explanations… so much that I have understood it as “agreed subjectivity”.
So please, explain!

Hug,
Daniel