Quote from: on September 09, 2015, 12:27:47 PMLot of good that objective fact did you, didn't it?So? Facts aren't defined by utility of action. You could say religion is a fantastic way of reaching social cohesion, and you could be right but it would have precisely zero bearing on the truth of religious propositions. QuoteLikely, nothing.That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the fact, however; it's possible my perception on the issue is poor, but my perception doesn't define the objectivity of that fact. As far as I'm concerned, the utility of me smoking is higher than the disutility of me smoking. If information asymmetries exist, and I'm indeed wrong about my own preference that still doesn't negate the existence of the fact. QuoteSo I seriously question, what is the actual point and value of an objective fact when it can actively be ignored, stepped over, bent and broken, and discarded in favor of somebody's own personal stupidity/preferences?Objective facts have value to us as agents because we seek it; the fact that we have perceptional biases that prevent us from reaching true objectivity--and always will--doesn't negate the journey of seeking it. Even the most incorrect, psychotic nutjobs incorrigibly believe they are objectively correct.
Lot of good that objective fact did you, didn't it?
Likely, nothing.
So I seriously question, what is the actual point and value of an objective fact when it can actively be ignored, stepped over, bent and broken, and discarded in favor of somebody's own personal stupidity/preferences?
Although I can't say I'm satisfied that we live in a world where most objective truths get shit on and ignored in favor of shortsighted-ness.
Quote from: Kupo on September 09, 2015, 12:10:33 PMGood health would still exist even if there were no such thing as bad health.Of course it wouldn't; we wouldn't have developed a concept of health at all because it would be totally irrelevant. "Good health" and "bad health" are entirely relative to one another; in the future, it could be considered a crippling disability to not live to 250, or to not be able to run a marathon every weekend. The world could be configured such a way, in the future, so as to make our current conceptions of health starkly unhealthy in every respect; yet inequities would still exist. If we literally managed to abolish poor health, there would be no point in the concept whatsoever other than some kind of historical artefact.
Good health would still exist even if there were no such thing as bad health.
No, it isn't. Physics reaches 'provable' (or, more accurately, high-probability) conclusions on the assumed bases of things like physicalism, naturalism and empiricism; which we assume entirely because they are rational to assume.
Not at all: YouTubeTry and ignore the religious context of the video and focus on the epistemological considerations.
Quote from: on September 09, 2015, 12:40:20 PMAlthough I can't say I'm satisfied that we live in a world where most objective truths get shit on and ignored in favor of shortsighted-ness.Nobody is. It's just that all of us--at least in one area--are usually incapable of realising when and where we lack a proper approach to obtaining objectivity.
Good health does not require bad health in order to exist.
It's a fact that if you were to jump right now, the Earth's gravity would pull you back to the ground, assuming there are no other unmentioned factors at play, such as you using a jetpack.
The very purpose of the truth is that it is not subjective, but objective, given the overwhelming evidence, logic, and most importantly, facts that support it.
I have trouble figuring out how all three of those requirements fit into morality
I suppose I should ask--do you believe in a higher power?
The entire concept of health requires inequities in health to exist in the first place. There would be absolutely no relevance to such a concept otherwise.
Okay? That doesn't contradict a single thing I said.
Did you watch the video? You can't apply evidence or logic to reach facts until you presuppose the values of those very things. You have to define your epistemology before you can even begin drawing conclusions.
Because, like epistemology, you have to define your morality before you can begin drawing conclusions.
I'm not talking about concepts, I'm talking about the fact that good health would still exist even without bad health.
You just said physics isn't based in facts...
But if I can simply define my morality, how is that in any way objective?
Quote from: Lord Starch on September 08, 2015, 09:58:12 PMNo morality is not objective. Morality is derived from human emotion and is subject to different standards in different cultures, thus making it inherently subjective."Near Death Experiences are derived wholly from human experience, and are subject to different characteristics in different cultures, thus making it impossible for us to talk about NDEs objectively."You're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.
No morality is not objective. Morality is derived from human emotion and is subject to different standards in different cultures, thus making it inherently subjective.
But the fact that we can debate mortality inherently means it can't be objective
Quote from: Kupo on September 09, 2015, 01:06:02 PMI'm not talking about concepts, I'm talking about the fact that good health would still exist even without bad health.Uh, how? The whole idea of "good" is based on inequity; that's what qualitative propositions are in their entirety. QuoteYou just said physics isn't based in facts...Physics is not based on facts; it's based on a defined epistemology. Physics identifies what we might call facts. This is a naive notion of what truth is which doesn't account for the perceptional and linguistic barriers which stop us from ever being totally, epistemologically objective due to the fact we can't actually know if the reality we perceive is actual. It's called the 'correspondence theory of truth' and it basically says that we know something is true if it corresponds to reality, but it falls down in that "truth" simply cannot be an intrinsic property of sentences. Truth is not a property--or some abstract object--of propositions; it's a measurement for how well propositions perform within a certain epistemology. If Alvin Platinga, for instance, defines his epistemology on the basis of presuppositionalism and literal Biblicalism he could say "The proposition that Gensis is true, is itself true" and he wouldn't be wrong within the context of his epistemology. The point, however, is to overcome this relativistic barrier and actually identify the best bases on which we can build our epistemology: physics being the best example. QuoteBut if I can simply define my morality, how is that in any way objective?You could say exactly the same about epistemology; the point is that there are not incorrect and correct ways to define either morality or epistemology, but better and worse ways of defining both of these. An epistemology based on a schizophrenic is not actually wrong in that it can be described as factually incorrect, because an epistemology is the very thing we filter propositions through; it can be described as bad, however. It's a philosophically poor basis for your epistemology.
There are no facts that support the concept of morality being anything more than subjective.
no
Quote from: Kupo on September 09, 2015, 03:45:32 PMThere are no facts that support the concept of morality being anything more than subjective.The point is that there are if you can identify the best definition of morality.
Quote from: Naru on September 09, 2015, 04:01:24 PMnoyeah
Quote from: Verbatim on September 09, 2015, 04:02:30 PMQuote from: Naru on September 09, 2015, 04:01:24 PMnoyeahumno
Quote from: Naru on September 09, 2015, 04:03:50 PMQuote from: Verbatim on September 09, 2015, 04:02:30 PMQuote from: Naru on September 09, 2015, 04:01:24 PMnoyeahumnoyeah, though
because morals are based around said purpose.
Wouldn't my definition of morality be subjective itself? Because if it was objective, there would only be one definition, the 'true' definition. But even if it wasn't subjective, what 'facts' would there be, anyway?
Why does this still not make sense to me.
Quote from: Winy on September 09, 2015, 04:21:12 PMWhy does this still not make sense to me.Think of it this way: We get facts from physics, not because we actually study reality (which you realise when looking at the philosophy), but because we have defined physics in such a way as to yield useful results about the world we find ourselves in. We acquire knowledge by defining the terms of our study and then drawing conclusions. Think of it like a filter that you put sentences into, then apply an algorithm which then yields a binary result of either "True" or "False". We argue it's the same as morality. We simply have to identify the best definition of morality, and thus the facts will follow. I plan on doing a post on epistemology and truth, however, just to elucidate on how definitions fit into the whole scheme of things.
Quote from: Lord Starch on September 09, 2015, 02:11:30 PMBut the fact that we can debate mortality inherently means it can't be objective"I'm a Christian Chemist, and I don't think water is made of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen because God made water before stars, and it would be Biblically inelegant."Of course this is a silly example, but it's nevertheless valid. Of course you can engage in debates about the objective; to use an example in which one party is not so obviously empirically incorrect, just think of the current debates in theoretical physics surrounding string theory, loop quantum gravity, et cetera. The fact that physicists are debating these issues and trying to reach the truth doesn't negate the fact that objective truth exists. Indeed, you and I could begin debating something already well-established now. Because objectivity is not contingent on our perception of it. I might do a post on epistemology and truth actually, since a lot of people find it really confusing.
Quote from: Kupo on September 09, 2015, 04:03:07 PMbecause morals are based around said purpose.I don't see why you would define morality as to necessitate some kind of transcendent, intrinsic purpose. Do you see? You are defining morality so as to essentially pre-assume a morally nihilistic (or subjectivist) perspective. This is what I mean: the definition leads to the facts. If you do indeed define morality that way, then it is true there are no objective moral facts--because 'truth' is an epistemic label we apply after running propositions through our epistemology, it isn't an intrinstic or Platonic property. The actual question is whether or not you have the best definition for morality. QuoteWouldn't my definition of morality be subjective itself? Because if it was objective, there would only be one definition, the 'true' definition. But even if it wasn't subjective, what 'facts' would there be, anyway?I suppose you could say it allows for a minor degree of relativism. But, let's apply that thought to epistemology: if epistemologies are wholly relative, is an epistemology based on evidence and logic precisely equal to an epistemology based on faith and dogma? I'd argue no, there is indeed a superior--are more useful--epistemological stance in the first option. Or, let's apply it to physics: what if people defined physics in such a way as to include the study of the supernatural and the transcendent? I think we would all agree this would be a poor definition with very, very little utility. Think of it this way: all human activity--the study of everything--has to begin from the basis of an assumed "perspective". Not all perspectives, however, are created equal; there are better and worse perspective for conducting physics, chemistry, economics and--this is the point--I would argue morality too.
1) science is not based in fact and is subjective
If there is no God...
Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 09:57:10 AMIf there is no God...God is an entity, so basing morality on a single entity's opinion makes it subjective.
Quote from: Sly Instinct on September 10, 2015, 04:39:05 PMQuote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 09:57:10 AMIf there is no God...God is an entity, so basing morality on a single entity's opinion makes it subjective.God has access to all information. He would be fully capable of being objectively moral. And if you have the ability to derive absolute purpose like a God would, well heh I don't see any reason not to work towards that end.
Quote from: Kupo on September 10, 2015, 02:18:16 PM1) science is not based in fact and is subjectiveNo, science reaches objective facts on the basis of a defined epistemology.
QuotePhysics is based on provable factsNo, it isn't. Physics reaches 'provable' (or, more accurately, high-probability) conclusions on the assumed bases of things like physicalism, naturalism and empiricism; which we assume entirely because they are rational to assume.
Physics is based on provable facts
Quote from: eggsalad on September 10, 2015, 04:42:53 PMQuote from: Sly Instinct on September 10, 2015, 04:39:05 PMQuote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 09, 2015, 09:57:10 AMIf there is no God...God is an entity, so basing morality on a single entity's opinion makes it subjective.God has access to all information. He would be fully capable of being objectively moral. And if you have the ability to derive absolute purpose like a God would, well heh I don't see any reason not to work towards that end.If god merely has access to the information, then that means the information exists outside of god.
Is morality objective?
