-->
@Double_R
Objectivity isn't subject to facts, facts are subject to reality, which is what makes them objective.
Then why claim that subject to means subjective?
The case for objective morality
Posts
Total:
48
-->
@WyIted
Do you believe in the prime meridian? Most people would consider the prime meridian objectively true
I believe the thing we call the prime meridian is real place here in reality.
What's your point?
-->
@Double_R
Your argument people was that just because every single moral agent that exists has the same exact moral code that doesn't mean morality is objective so I was testing how consistent your belief system was here.
-->
@Tarik
Then why claim that subject to means subjective?
Because it does in any normal context. What makes something objective is that it matches to reality, so saying "subject to reality" is the one instance where it works.
-->
@Double_R
Because it does in any normal context. What makes something objective is that it matches to reality, so saying "subject to reality" is the one instance where it works.
But the mind effects reality. See the double slit experiment
-->
@Double_R
“What makes something objective is that it matches to reality, so saying "subject to reality" is the one instance where it works.”
But anything real is reality so why would anyone say “subject to” anything that isn’t real (in any normal context)?
-->
@WyIted
But the mind effects reality. See the double slit experiment
I don't see what that has to do with this conversation.
-->
@Tarik
But anything real is reality so why would anyone say “subject to” anything that isn’t real (in any normal context)?
The phrase subject to is often used in conjunction with an uncertain determining factor. I.e. "the baseball game will be played on Saturday subject to the weather", or "this job offer is subject to a satisfactory background check". In other words we won't know what the outcome will be till we know the final status of determining factor. None of this means we're pointing to anything unreal, it's just not determined because the determining factor is not set.
Morality is the same exact thing. In this case it's determined by the moral values (aka standards) of the person asserting it. That is and will always be changeable. Objective assessments don't work this way. Reality is what it is regardless of what we think. The shape of the earth isn't subject to our beliefs or any other determining factor.
-->
@WyIted
The mind does not affect the double slit experiment.Because it does in any normal context. What makes something objective is that it matches to reality, so saying "subject to reality" is the one instance where it works.But the mind effects reality. See the double slit experiment
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I known it's about observation but it would have no way of knowing you are looking without the mind being present
-->
@WyIted
I known it's about observation but it would have no way of knowing you are looking without the mind being present
No, it's about interaction and people with intent to mislead or a poor grasp of English called it "observation".
The exact same thing happens whether you or any other mind knows it happens. Just like an apple falling from a tree.
-->
@Double_R
That is and will always be changeable.
So what if what gets you into heaven remains constant? Does that make morality objective?
-->
@Tarik
So what if what gets you into heaven remains constant? Does that make morality objective?
No, it makes the qualifications for getting into heaven objective. Whether that is moral depends on the standard for morality, and I for one do not consider one doing whatever is in their eternal personal interests to be a marker of morality.
-->
@Double_R
I for one do not consider one doing whatever is in their eternal personal interests to be a marker of morality.
Why not?
17 days later
Wylted, as far as I can tell, you're describing a type of moral subjectivism. I believe "objective morality" usually refers to moral objectivism.
-->
@WyIted
I am a strong proponent for basing objective morality with a litmus test of natural selection.
-->
@Ferbalot
I am re classifying morals as the moral intuition and then saying the interpretation of that moral intuition is what most people call morals.
I could be complicating the issue and making it pedantic. If you look into moral sense theory by Hume and I believe Locke mentions it, than you'll see what I mean
-->
@WyIted
I believe I understand how you're classifying morality. I'm just arguing that the way you're classifying it has been done before and would normally be called moral subjectivism, and that calling it "objective morality" is thus misleading, even if morality is objective in a sense given your position.