Three friends and three questions

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is an offshot of the “absolute / relative morality thread”. Let’s take three friends, “Albert”, “Brad” and “Cecil”, abbreviated as “A”, “B” and “C”.
They go to a restaurant and order the same dish. “A” says: “this dish is too spicy”, “B” says: “it is too bland”, and “C” says: “it is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they go to the gym, and try to lift the same weight. “A” says: “bah, it is too easy”, “B” says: “ouch, it is too heavy”, and “C” says: “neither too heavy, nor too light”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Then they go to a spa, and sit in the whirlpool. “A” says: “the water is too hot”, “B” says: “the water is not hot enough”, and “C” says: “the water is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they watch a criminal trial, where the judge delivers a verdict. “A” says: “the verdict is too harsh”, “B” says: “the verdict was too lenient”, and “C” says: “the verdict was just”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?
Obviously there is no correct evaluation in either case. Their evaluation is SUBJECTIVE, according to their taste, or tolerance or sense of justice. The last one is an ethical question, the other ones are not; they are a little like an aesthetical problem. Is the music of Bach beautiful? What about rap music?

The point is that “ethics” and “aesthetics” are SUBJECTIVE. There is NO “absolute” ethics (morality) or aesthetics (beauty). When one says: “this action was immoral”, all they say that they don’t like it. When they say: “it was a moral choice”, all they express is that they agree with it.

This piece of rock weighs “100 pounds” - this is an objective proposition. On the other hand “this rock is too heavy”, or “this rock is too light” or “this rock is neither too heavy, nor too light” are subjective statements.

 

[Rhubarb]

I read all those statements as indexicals. Indexicals are words with meanings that change based on the circumstances of the utterance. So if someone says “This is a dog”, the truth value of the statement depends on what the utterer is pointing at. Another example is “I am overweight.” When Rhubarb utters the statement, it is unfortunately true. If… I don’t know. Michael Phelps were to utter it, the statement would be false. (I’m assuming he isn’t considered overweight)

So as far as the logic is concerned, if we take those examples of what A, B, and C says as indexicals - that is, when A says “this dish is too spicy” , he means “FOR ME this dish is too spicy” or “I THINK THAT this dish is too spicy”, then all those utterances said by each person is true.

 

[mVitus]

Well if you’re going to say the ethical one is the same as the matter of tastes one, we could have.

A says “I think murder is a horrible act.” B says, “Murder is a hit or miss.” C says, “Murder is an excellent thing. I think we should all be murderers.”

Whose opinion is “true?”

 

[Rhubarb]

Well if you’re going to say the ethical one is the same as the matter of tastes one, we could have.

A says “I think murder is a horrible act.” B says, “Murder is a hit or miss.” C says, “Murder is an excellent thing. I think we should all be murderers.”

Whose opinion is “true?”

If someone truly thinks we should all be murderers, then the statement “I think we should all be murderers” is true. But that doesn’t mean “we should all be murderers” is true.

I would imagine that there are no well-conceived theories (philosophically speaking) about the spice level of curry. Whereas there are those regarding morality. My explanation regarding linguistic questions of taste-statements is the best explanation I can come up with, and I think it satisfies what most people feel about those sorts of questions. Morality is another kettle of fish

 

[PseuTonym]

Later they watch a criminal trial, where the judge delivers a verdict. “A” says: “the verdict is too harsh”, “B” says: “the verdict was too lenient”, and “C” says: “the verdict was just”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

When one says: “this action was immoral”, all they say that they don’t like it. When they say: “it was a moral choice”, all they express is that they agree with it.

It sounds as though you are assuming that there was a single person who was accused of a crime, and put on trial for the crime. It also sounds as though a verdict of guilty was reached. If these two guesses are incorrect, then please explain your reading of your scenario.

Your scenario is general enough that it doesn’t seem to exclude the possibility that the accused committed an act of civil disobedience. Suppose in particular that “B” believes that the law was broken, and that the particular law broken is a morally wrong law. In that case, “B” does not necessarily believe that what the accused did to get on trial was an immoral action.

Perhaps “B” believes that the verdict of guilty was correct under the law, that the particular law in question is immoral, and that the penalty imposed on the defendant wasn’t harsh enough to rally public opinion against the particular law. In saying “the penalty imposed was too lenient”, “B” could be expressing a judgment regarding strategy.

I think that it is an error to jump to the conclusion, based on the information that you provided, that what “B” said (“the penalty imposed was too lenient”) indicates moral disapproval of the behavior of the accused that led to the accused being put on trial.

I have deliberately edited what “B” said because “guilty was too lenient” sounds meaningless to me, or at least open to a variety of interpretations.

 

[PseuTonym]

Later they watch a criminal trial, where the judge delivers a verdict. “A” says: “the penalty was too harsh”, “B” says: “the penalty was too lenient”, and “C” says: “the penalty is appropriate”.

There’s a serious problem with the process that you describe. Instead of responding after a judgment has been reached and announced, “A”, “B”, and “C” should put their own judgments into sealed envelopes before the judgment is reached.

Otherwise, “A”, “B”, and “C” could be following scripts, without paying any attention to the trial. The scripts could be based on a table that provides a reaction for each possible judgment, or the scripts could be completely fixed, and not actually responses to the judgment of the court.

If a court were to reach a verdict and impose a penalty without using any process and without providing any reasons, then it would be impossible to judge that process. Agreement with the court could be a pure coincidence. Perhaps all four parties – “A”, “B”, “C”, and the court – flip coins that happen to all land on heads.

 

[Autumn_Smoke]

Does anyone else think this could be related to Jesus’ words about judgement?

In the same way that we judge others, we will be judged (Matthew 7:2 “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”)

If we don’t judge others, we ourselves won’t be judged(Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you will be judged.”)

If we are merciful to others, we ourselves will obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”)

Every person sees things differently, and the way in which we see things and act upon things, will in part, be reflected upon in our own final judgement by God.

:

 

[seagal]

Later they watch a criminal trial, where the judge delivers a verdict. “A” says: “the verdict is too harsh”, “B” says: “the verdict was too lenient”, and “C” says: “the verdict was just”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

The way you have set out this example doesn’t speak to your point. The judge’s job is to weigh the evidence and then render a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. If he decided guilty, B is not likely to say it was too lenient, and if the judge said not guilty, A would have no reason to say it was too harsh.

The verdict could be objectively true or objectively false, depending on the evidence and the impartiality of the judge. The guilt or innocence of the criminal is an objective truth, according to the laws of the land.

However, whatever punishment the judge decides to hand down could be subjectively qualified according to the feelings of A, B and C.

 

[Memaw]

If someone truly thinks we should all be murderers, then the statement “I think we should all be murderers” is true. But that doesn’t mean “we should all be murderers” is true.

I would imagine that there are no well-conceived theories (philosophically speaking) about the spice level of curry. Whereas there are those regarding morality. My explanation regarding linguistic questions of taste-statements is the best explanation I can come up with, and I think it satisfies what most people feel about those sorts of questions. Morality is another kettle of fish

First we should ask GOD what HE thinks!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Aloysium]

Does anyone else think this could be related to Jesus’ words about judgement? In the same way that we judge others, we will be judged (Matthew 7:2 “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”) If we don’t judge others, we ourselves won’t be judged(Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you will be judged.”) If we are merciful to others, we ourselves will obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”)

Every person sees things differently, and the way in which we see things and act upon things, will in part, be reflected upon in our own final judgement by God. . .

First we should ask GOD what HE thinks!!! . . .

Ignorance is one of the manifestations of death within the human condition. As the first quote states, we see things differently. It is the same objective truth - love, but sin clouds our judgement. Ultimately, it is God who will separate the sheep from the goats. So, it is very prudent to discover what He expects from us. We learn that from Jesus Christ through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Memaw]

Ignorance is one of the manifestations of death within the human condition. As the first quote states, we see things differently. It is the same objective truth - love, but sin clouds our judgement. Ultimately, it is God who will separate the sheep from the goats. So, it is very prudent to discover what He expects from us. We learn that from Jesus Christ through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

AMEN!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Rhubarb]

First we should ask GOD what HE thinks!!! God Bless, Memaw

Um, sure. I’m not disagreeing with you. I was speaking as far as the logic of the sentences are concerned there’s a distinction between “I think murder is an excellent thing” and “murder is an excellent thing.” The truth values of these sentences can be different.

 

[Gorgias]

The way you have set out this example doesn’t speak to your point. The judge’s job is to weigh the evidence and then render a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. If he decided guilty, B is not likely to say it was too lenient, and if the judge said not guilty, A would have no reason to say it was too harsh.

The verdict could be objectively true or objectively false, depending on the evidence and the impartiality of the judge. The guilt or innocence of the criminal is an objective truth, according to the laws of the land.

However, whatever punishment the judge decides to hand down could be subjectively qualified according to the feelings of A, B and C.

Agreed. The example doesn’t do what the OP is hoping it does.

In particular, it’s an expression of opinion regarding an objective fact. Just because we are able to offer opinions about things, doesn’t mean that the things we’re opining about aren’t themselves objective.

 

[Bradski]

Agreed. The example doesn’t do what the OP is hoping it does.

In particular, it’s an expression of opinion regarding an objective fact. Just because we are able to offer opinions about things, doesn’t mean that the things we’re opining about aren’t themselves objective.

There is 12g of salt in this chicken dish.

A: I think it’s too salty.
B: I think it’s not salty enough.
C: I think it’s just right.

The chicken was bred in a cage X metres by Y metres.

A: I think that’s too cruel.
B: I think it could be smaller.
C: I think it’s just right.

There are objective facts which determine the opinions. But the opinions are…well, just opinions. Who is right?

 

[Vico]

This is an offshot of the “absolute / relative morality thread”. Let’s take three friends, “Albert”, “Brad” and “Cecil”, abbreviated as “A”, “B” and “C”.
They go to a restaurant and order the same dish. “A” says: “this dish is too spicy”, “B” says: “it is too bland”, and “C” says: “it is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they go to the gym, and try to lift the same weight. “A” says: “bah, it is too easy”, “B” says: “ouch, it is too heavy”, and “C” says: “neither too heavy, nor too light”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Then they go to a spa, and sit in the whirlpool. “A” says: “the water is too hot”, “B” says: “the water is not hot enough”, and “C” says: “the water is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they watch a criminal trial, where the judge delivers a verdict. “A” says: “the verdict is too harsh”, “B” says: “the verdict was too lenient”, and “C” says: “the verdict was just”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?
Obviously there is no correct evaluation in either case. Their evaluation is SUBJECTIVE, according to their taste, or tolerance or sense of justice. The last one is an ethical question, the other ones are not; they are a little like an aesthetical problem. Is the music of Bach beautiful? What about rap music?

The point is that “ethics” and “aesthetics” are SUBJECTIVE. There is NO “absolute” ethics (morality) or aesthetics (beauty). When one says: “this action was immoral”, all they say that they don’t like it. When they say: “it was a moral choice”, all they express is that they agree with it.

This piece of rock weighs “100 pounds” - this is an objective proposition. On the other hand “this rock is too heavy”, or “this rock is too light” or “this rock is neither too heavy, nor too light” are subjective statements.

To get a true evaluation requires that the proposition to be expressed as a conditional. So for the examples the propositions would be:

1. Restaurant: Is the spiciness perfect?
2. Gym: Is the water temperature perfect?
3. Spa: Is the weight not too heavy or too light?
4. Court: Is the verdict just?
   C answers true to all, and they are all subjective.
5. Weight: Is this rock 100 lbs?
   Also different testers uses equipment differently. Theoretically it could be objective.
   We can say there is objective morality, but culpability is determined subjectively. That is objective sin and formal sin.

 

[Gorgias]

There is 12g of salt in this chicken dish.

A: I think it’s too salty.
B: I think it’s not salty enough.
C: I think it’s just right.

The chicken was bred in a cage X metres by Y metres.

A: I think that’s too cruel.
B: I think it could be smaller.
C: I think it’s just right.

It is immoral to poison someone, regardless of the poison chosen.

It is immoral to be cruel to living creatures.

There are objective facts which determine the opinions. But the opinions are…well, just opinions. Who is right?

That there are opinions that can be generated from objective facts doesn’t imply that there are also objective moral stances that can apply to these facts. (It also doesn’t imply that one’s opinions about these moral stances make these moral assertions themselves ‘opinions’.)

 

[ericc]

The point is that “ethics” and “aesthetics” are SUBJECTIVE. There is NO “absolute” ethics (morality) or aesthetics (beauty). When one says: “this action was immoral”, all they say that they don’t like it. When they say: “it was a moral choice”, all they express is that they agree with it.

The Moral Law is absolute as given by the Lawgiver. The Divine Judge knowing all things will give the perfect judgement and sentence. The rest of us are bystanders. Some try to be lawyers looking for loopholes and trying to justify to each other what they think ought to be the verdict/sentence. At the end , THEY will be judged too according to the moral law given by the lawgiver. Justifying to each other is pretty much a useless exercise because all it does is just to make us appear “right” in the eyes of their neighbors. Whether that is a fact or not remains to be seen because the innermost thoughts of each of us remain hidden unless revealed. And that determines whether we are truly guilty or innocent or somewhere in between.

 

[Bradski]

The Moral Law is absolute as given by the Lawgiver. The Divine Judge knowing all things will give the perfect judgement and sentence.

Ah, good. Could you ask what the correct answer would be to factory farming, wearing the burka, drones, minimum wages, refugees, universal health care, cost of education, affordable housing, hunting, etc.

I look forward to a perfect judgement in each case.

 

[inocente]

Let’s take three friends, “Albert”, “Brad” and “Cecil”, abbreviated as “A”, “B” and “C”.
They go to a restaurant and order the same dish. “A” says: “this dish is too spicy”, “B” says: “it is too bland”, and “C” says: “it is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

You’re joking, right? What about when they get into a discussion about the Holocaust. “A” says: “Hitler killed too many”, “B” says: “not enough”, and “C” says: “it was just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

You say obviously there is no correct evaluation. “Their evaluation is SUBJECTIVE, according to their taste, or tolerance or sense of justice”. You’re joking, right?

The chicken was bred in a cage X metres by Y metres.

A: I think that’s too cruel.
B: I think it could be smaller.
C: I think it’s just right.

You’re joking, right? How about when ISIL capture woman and use them as slaves.

A: I think that’s going too far.
B: I think that’s not going far enough.
C: I think it’s just right.

You say “But the opinions are…well, just opinions”. You’re joking, right?

 

[ericc]

Ah, good. Could you ask what the correct answer would be to factory farming, wearing the burka, drones, minimum wages, refugees, universal health care, cost of education, affordable housing, hunting, etc.

You will get a perfect judgement when you have perfect information among other attributes. No human judge is perfect and no man made laws are perfect either and there is no perfect information either.

I am not sure whether these are moral issues or not. It looks like a mix bag of cultural, economic, political, hobbyist issues. But of course, any of these can be abused to cause a moral issue. Or are these issues of economics where limited resources can not be allocated in a satisfactory manner to satisfy unlimited wants while satisfying the politics of the country as well, democratic or otherwise ?

I look forward to a perfect judgement in each case.

Not in an imperfect world such as ours.