-->
@Reece101
The fact that Brahman is a concept at all has everything to do with human experience.
Is morality objective or subjective?
Posts
Total:
753
-->
@Reece101
A foundation of a common idea can be found in beneficial evolutionary adaptations that we all share.
YES.
HOWeVER,
COMMON-IDEA =/= OBJECTIVITY
Please share your definition of "objectivity".
-->
@Reece101
Nope.But there are some like the killing of family, friends, community that are “universally” immoral.
It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed considered a moral imperative to kill your own family members under certain circumstances and in certain cultures.
For example, [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
YES.HOWeVER,COMMON-IDEA =/= OBJECTIVITYPlease share your definition of "objectivity".
Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
A judgement influenced by genetics.
Nope.It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed considered a moral imperative to kill your own family members under certain circumstances and in certain cultures.For example, [LINK]
Okay, think you’ve gone the route of secularmerlin. I don’t consider “objectivity” nor “universal” as absolute.
Do you think one aspect of an action can be considered moral while another is immoral?
That being said, can you give me the moral/synopsis of the story?
-->
@3RU7AL
[INSERT WORD HERE] =/= OBJECTIVITY
-->
@Reece101
Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
All human actions follow human motives, also known as feelings or emotions. All human motives (feelings/emotions) are personal.
If a human considers a fact, they ostensibly have a MOTIVE for considering that fact.
An action without motive is indistinguishable from RANDOM.
If a human represents a fact, they ostensibly have a MOTIVE for representing that fact.
An action without motive is indistinguishable from RANDOM.
A judgement influenced by genetics.
Please explain.
Are you suggesting that human survival instinct is "objective" (in your opinion)?
-->
@Reece101
Do you think one aspect of an action can be considered moral while another is immoral?
Certainly. Nearly anything can be considered moral or immoral by one person or another.
The goal here is to identify a logically COHERENT moral framework.
That being said, can you give me the moral/synopsis of the story?
Exodus 32:27
And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Which contrasts to your assertion,
But there are some like the killing of family, friends, community that are “universally” immoral.
-->
@3RU7AL
All human actions follow human motives, also known as feelings or emotions. All human motives (feelings/emotions) are personal.If a human considers a fact, they ostensibly have a MOTIVE for considering that fact.An action without motive is indistinguishable from RANDOM.If a human represents a fact, they ostensibly have a MOTIVE for representing that fact.An action without motive is indistinguishable from RANDOM.
I agree. I copied the definition from google. Do you have a definition we would both accept?
Please explain.Are you suggesting that human survival instinct is "objective" (in your opinion)?
Yes. But in terms of morality I’d say something along the lines of maternal/paternal care.
Certainly. Nearly anything can be considered moral or immoral by one person or another.The goal here is to identify a logically COHERENT moral framework.
First off, read the question again.
I’ll re-word it for you. Do you think an action can have both moral and immoral aspects?
Exodus 32:27And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.Which contrasts to your assertion,
But I’m talking about the real world.
-->
@Reece101
I agree. I copied the definition from google. Do you have a definition we would both accept?
I believe when people use the word "objectivity" what they are actually, more precisely referring to is, Quantifiability.
It is important to avoid conflating FACT and OPINION.
REAL-TRUE-FACT = Quantifiable, independently verifiable, rigorously defined, and or logically necessary (and emotionally meaningless).
OPINION = Qualitative, experiential, personal, private, unfalsifiable, GNOSIS (and emotionally meaningful).
Are you suggesting that human survival instinct is "objective" (in your opinion)?Yes. But in terms of morality I’d say something along the lines of maternal/paternal care.
Animals often eat their young if resources are scarce or if the young are the spawn of a competitor.
Certainly. Nearly anything can be considered moral or immoral by one person or another.The goal here is to identify a logically COHERENT moral framework.First off, read the question again.I’ll re-word it for you. Do you think an action can have both moral and immoral aspects?
(IFF) you subscribe to a moral framework where part of an action is considered moral and another part of the same action is considered immoral (THEN) you subscribe to an incoherent moral framework.
Exodus 32:27And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.Which contrasts to your assertion,But I’m talking about the real world.
Well another example would be in the American Civil War. Brothers killed brothers and fathers killed sons, and they were considered HEROIC.
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe when people use the word "objectivity" what they are actually, more precisely referring to is, Quantifiability.It is important to avoid conflating FACT and OPINION.REAL-TRUE-FACT = Quantifiable, independently verifiable, rigorously defined, and or logically necessary (and emotionally meaningless).OPINION = Qualitative, experiential, personal, private, unfalsifiable, GNOSIS (and emotionally meaningful).
When it comes to morality, “opinion” is fact. Just as my favourite colour is red.
Is it quantifiable? Yes, to an extent. Brain imaging and what have you.
Google’s definition of morality: principles concerning the d͟i͟s͟t͟i͟n͟c͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
I think we need to focus on defining objectivity and morality before moving on.
-->
@Reece101
When it comes to morality, “opinion” is fact.
This is incoherent.
Private knowledge (GNOSIS) can only be (EITHER) sincere (OR) insincere.
Private knowledge cannot be and is not REAL-TRUE-FACT.
Just as my favourite colour is red.
This is the very definition of PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE (GNOSIS).
PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is unfalsifiable and can never be REAL-TRUE-FACT.
PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.
PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is neither TRUE nor FALSE.
PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is indistinguishable-from-OPINION.
SINCERITY =/= REAL-TRUE-FACTS.
Is it quantifiable? Yes, to an extent. Brain imaging and what have you.
Please explain how a brain scan can determine what your favorite color is.
Please also explain how, even if you are determined to be 100% sincere by some quantifiable scientific process, how that makes your OPINION about the color red magically turn into a REAL-TRUE-FACT.
OPINION =/= FACT.
Google’s definition of morality: principles concerning the d͟i͟s͟t͟i͟n͟c͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Please make your proposed "moral principles" (AXIOMS) explicit.
I think we need to focus on defining objectivity and morality before moving on.
Phenomenal idea. [LINK]
OBJECTIVITY = NOT-SUBJECTIVE
MORALITY = OPINION
-->
@3RU7AL
OBJECTIVITY = NOT-SUBJECTIVEMORALITY = OPINION
Okay, is this what you’re going to sincerely stick with?
Subjective = singular person, correct?
If so, then wouldn’t it follow:
Objective = multiple people?
-->
@Reece101
OBJECTIVITY = NOT-SUBJECTIVEMORALITY = OPINIONOkay, is this what you’re going to sincerely stick with?Subjective = singular person, correct?If so, then wouldn’t it follow:Objective = multiple people?
Subjective + Subjective + Subjective + Subjective = INTERSUBJECTIVE. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Can two or more people who haven’t meet each other, have the same opinion?Subjective + Subjective + Subjective + Subjective = INTERSUBJECTIVE. [LINK]
-->
@Reece101
Certainly.Can two or more people who haven’t meet each other, have the same opinion?
-->
@3RU7AL
How is that?
-->
@Reece101
In the same way that someone in China 5000 years ago and someone in India today both have a concept of mother and father.
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you consider “mother” and “father” objective concepts?
-->
@Reece101
Would you consider “mother” and “father” objective concepts?
No, there are no objective concepts.
Mother and father are relative (subjective, not absolute) concepts.
Your mother is not my mother.
Your father is not my father.
"Honey is sweet" would be another example of an OPINION that is shared between human cultures who have never met each other.
A widely shared OPINION is often (unintentionally) conflated with FACT.
-->
@3RU7AL
Can any concept be objective (absolute)?
-->
@Reece101
Can any concept be objective (absolute)?
No.
By definition, humans are fundamentally subjective.
Everything you know is sample-biased and a consequence of your human motives (e-motions).
FACTS exist, but they are merely TAUTOLOGICAL.
REAL-TRUE-FACT = Quantifiable, independently verifiable, rigorously defined, and or logically necessary (and emotionally meaningless).
-->
@3RU7AL
You’ve driven objectivity to its extreme.
So every thought you produce is first subject to bias/emotions?
-->
@Reece101
You’ve driven objectivity to its extreme.
I've done nothing of the sort.
I'm willing to entertain any definition you care to personally select.
Build your case from scratch if you'd like.
So every thought you produce is first subject to bias/emotions?
More specifically sample-bias and chemical/biological imperative (e-motion generated by the human/mammalian limbic system).
--> @3RU7AL --> @Reece101
I see the conversation has moved on without me. Reece101 has 3RU7AL's language proven easier to understand than mine?
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
You guys are right.
-->
@Reece101
Then we agree that morality is subjective?
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Then we agree that morality is subjective?
By how you guys define objectivity, yes.
But as a compatible-determinist, I’m solely not in the subjectivity camp.
-->
@Reece101
By all means as 3RU7AL has suggested put forward your preferred definition if you like but altering your language will not make morality more than an opinion and no matter how many people hold an opinion it does not magically transmogrify the opinion into a fact.
-->
@secularmerlin
Both of you have changed your’ positions on how to define objectivity, driving it to its extreme, with the help of my input. Don’t criticise me about altering language. ”Objectivity” for you guys now is essentially on par with ”God”. We can play defining games all day
-->
@Reece101
Both of you have changed your’ positions on how to define objectivity, driving it to its extreme, with the help of my input. Don’t criticise me about altering language. ”Objectivity” for you guys now is essentially on par with ”God”. We can play defining games all day
I think you misunderstand my intention.
You can make up your own definition of "objectivity" and I will simply check it for logical coherence.
I will treat your personal definition of "objectivity" with the exact same respect (and probably more) that I would give to any standard dictionary.
It's not a "semantics game" or a "definition game".
It's a simple pursuit of logical coherence.
And hey, I'm a huge fan of determinism, or rather, indeterminism (which is functionally identical to determinism).
Freewill is patently incoherent.
Perhaps we agree on more than we first thought.