Could Science prove an "objective morality"?

Author: seldiora

Posts

Total: 72
#31
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Truth would necessarily have to be objective,
Truth would necessarily have to be inter-subjective.

FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary (and emotionally meaningless).
#32
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Truth as in what is true, or what is comporting to reality, as in - a fact. You seem to have a strange definition of the word truth.
#33
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Kant's whole deal? Yes. Do I think Kant's view is correct. No. See my interactions with Sum1hugme's on the subject.
What do you think of the following moral axioms,

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
#34
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
In all circumstances, or as moral axioms? Definitely not. Property, at least according to my moral views, only has moral value because it is valued by someone with sentience, and therefore should be categorically lower on values than people. As for family, again there are instances where something would out rule this. As general broad strokes? They aren't terrible. As moral maxims presented by Kant's thinking, definitely not.
#35
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Truth as in what is true, or what is comporting to reality, as in - a fact. You seem to have a strange definition of the word truth.
REAL = TRUE = FACT

TRUE = REAL = FACT

FACT = REAL = TRUE
#36
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If that is your understanding, then why do you say it has to be "inter-subjective" Unless I misunderstood you're meaning of that word, what precisely do you mean by inter-subjective?
#37
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
And I’m saying that y is true regardless of what one presumes, presuming otherwise is ignorant.
#38
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Prove that Y is objectively true... we are speaking on whether objective morality is true, prove that its true.
#39
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that their is no objective morality, that doesn’t make it subjective it just means nihilism is true, so my question to you is what is subjective morality?

#40
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
All morality is subjective. Definitionally and necessarily. I've given my perspective of subjective morality so much. IN fact, I have two debates on the subject, as well as a specific thread. But to be clear: I value what is sentient, I measure based on well being
#41
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
“There is no consensus around a single definition of well-being”

We’ve spoken on this subject before and every time I reference this quote it silences you.
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
If that is your understanding, then why do you say it has to be "inter-subjective" Unless I misunderstood you're meaning of that word, what precisely do you mean by inter-subjective?
By "inter-subjective" I mean (understood by all interested-parties to be) "empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary" and or simply AXIOMATIC.

If my subjective perception of a FACT is sufficiently (functionally) similar to your subjective perception of a FACT, then we can treat that (shared) description of that FACT as an AXIOM we can use to build a framework of communication.
#43
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
No consensus? Cool.. I don't care. I have already provided you what I mean, you are a joke
#44
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, you believe truth to be a fact that is believed by a number of people, and then used an axiom for further discussion?
#45
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Problem is existence isn’t predicated on what YOU mean, therefore the argument is moot jokes on you.

#46
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
You have demonstrated nothing, I have my definition of objective from the oxford dictionary, which is a valid definition. Regardless if you like it or not. You failed to prove a thing, and use non-sequiturs to prop up your arguments.
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
In other words, you believe truth to be a fact that is believed by a number of people, and then used an axiom for further discussion?
Generally.

I understand that when most people use the words "TRUE" and "FACT", they are actually just stating their personal AXIOMS.

I try to carve the definition (of FACT) down to "empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary" in order to shine a spotlight on (personal ontological) QUALITATIVE AXIOMS.

Shared AXIOMS are NOT "objective".

Shared AXIOMS are "inter-subjective".
#48
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
I wasn’t making any claims worth proving, your the one that’s claiming that subjective morality is based on well-being but even that’s a vague standard for the reasons mentioned above so even if I were to go the nihilistic route of dismissing morality as a whole, you’ve still yet to prove subjective morality.

#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
In all circumstances, or as moral axioms? Definitely not.
The functional (practical) interpretation of these AXIOMS is highly subjective.

For example,

(IFF) harming yourself serves the goal of protecting yourself from a greater threat (THEN) harming yourself can sometimes be a method of protecting yourself
(IFF) relinquishing some of your personal sovereignty serves the goal of protecting some of your personal sovereignty from total obliteration (THEN) relinquishing some of your personal sovereignty can sometimes be a method of protecting yourself.

(IFF) your family is hostile (THEN) you can re-define your family as your choice of close friends and or allies and or comrades

(IFF) relinquishing some of your personal property (taxes and or protection money) serves the goal of protecting some of your personal property from total obliteration (THEN) relinquishing some of your personal property can sometimes be a method of protecting your property

This fits the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE framework (everyone follows these AXIOMS).
#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
...you’ve still yet to prove subjective morality.
It's easy to prove subjective morality.

All you have to do is find something that two people disagree on the morality of.

Like, perhaps, eating meat?
#51
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Then its not a categorical imperative, for it to be so, it must be non-contradicting in all matters, all of these are unique maxims, and simple shifting what is meant by the moral standards. 
#52
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Then its not a categorical imperative, for it to be so, it must be non-contradicting in all matters, all of these are unique maxims, and simple shifting what is meant by the moral standards. 
I never understood the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE to mean every human being on earth should act as identical robotic clones, each moving in perfect unison.

These (3) MORAL AXIOMS are principles which apply equally to every individual.
#53
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Disagreement doesn’t mean subjective, people disagree on whether or not the earth is round or flat, it doesn’t make the issue subjective.
#54
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
Prove that Y is objectively true... we are speaking on whether objective morality is true, prove that its true.
Objective morality is morality that almost everybody in the world has agreed upon, no matter what nation, no matter what century. One example is this: everybody should take care of his or her own family. One cannot find any exception to this rule in any law-abiding community in the world or in history.
#55
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
I'm sorry then, we don't agree on what objective morality is then, I say objective morality is a morality that is true independent of a mind. So no, I don't think that satisfies the definition. 
#56
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
It can be tricky to take Theweakeredge’s ordinary thought and talk about moral objectivity at face value. After all, Theweakeredge's beliefs might be mistaken, and his discourse might be deficient. Instead of mirroring people’s ordinary beliefs about moral objectivity, our best metaethical theory might force us to revise these beliefs; instead of vindicating the commitments of ordinary discourse, our best metaethical theory might tell us to debunk them. Philosophers may hold views about the metaphysics of moral objectivity that are incompatible with laymen’s intuitions, and it may well be that philosophers are correct in doing so, and that the laymen are mistaken.
#57
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
So.... an appeal to authority then? Have any actual reasoning?
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Objective morality is morality that almost everybody in the world has agreed upon, no matter what nation, no matter what century. One example is this: everybody should take care of his or her own family. One cannot find any exception to this rule in any law-abiding community in the world or in history.
Great example.

Is this the only moral axiom you've discovered?
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Disagreement doesn’t mean subjective, people disagree on whether or not the earth is round or flat, it doesn’t make the issue subjective.
You're making another CATEGORY ERROR.

The (general) shape of the planet is empirically demonstrable (and or logically-necessary).

An individual's moral intuition is NOT empirically demonstrable (and or logically-necessary).
#60
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Roughly speaking, the three moral axioms are (i) Live and let live, (ii) Tell the truth to those who have a right to know it, and (iii) Respect the environment. These are subject to three requirements, namely, utility, reasonableness, and beauty.