Objective morality is independent of opinion....or is it?

[Dryghtons Toe]

...but if your making the same mistake Horsethorn has repeatedly done of implying that if something is an opinion it is only an opinion and can't also be an objective fact then that's clearly not true.

If it's an objective fact then how can anybody truthfully refer to it as just their opinion?

If it's an objective fact then how can anybody truthfully refer to it as just their opinion?

Delete the ‘just’ which no one has claimed and the answer is quite easily, it applies to any fact I think is true but can’t verify. I can have the opinion that Jesus did not claim to be God in the way Christians claim he did and I might have some good but not conclusive reasons for thinking it – it’s my opinion based on an assessment of the limited information we do know. Nevertheless, whether or not Jesus claimed to be God is an objective fact, and its objective irrespective of whether I can demonstrate it, and if my opinion was correct the statement ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’ is both my opinion and also a fact.

[Dryghtons Toe]

I never asked for proof I asked for a method, you were the one who brought up proof in message 34 and several times since.

Quote from you reply 32 on page 2 of this thread,

Unless you provide a method to prove (a) independent of opinion of course, which we are all looking forward to.

 

No, no one has stated that.

Really? So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

[jakswan]

I never asked for proof I asked for a method, you were the one who brought up proof in message 34 and several times since.

Quote from you reply 32 on page 2 of this thread,

Unless you provide a method to prove (a) independent of opinion of course, which we are all looking forward to.

 

No, no one has stated that.

Really? So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Lazy language on my part for the first, to clarify I'm asking for a method.

I think HT was making the point that if something is objective then opinion is irrelevant relative to its objective value.

[Leonard James]

Delete the ‘just’ which no one has claimed and the answer is quite easily, it applies to any fact I think is true but can’t verify. I can have the opinion that Jesus did not claim to be God in the way Christians claim he did and I might have some good but not conclusive reasons for thinking it – it’s my opinion based on an assessment of the limited information we do know. Nevertheless, whether or not Jesus claimed to be God is an objective fact, and its objective irrespective of whether I can demonstrate it, and if my opinion was correct the statement ‘Jesus did not claim to be God’ is both my opinion and also a fact.

Obviously you can only have an opinion about unknown objective facts.

I confess that I'm not sure what it is that we are discussing.

[horsethorn]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

[Alien]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

[Gordon]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

In this case though the speed of light (approx) is a fact that is separate and distinct from any opinions about it, whereas 'TACTDJFF is always wrong' isn't a fact but is an opinion: and this is an important difference.

[Alien]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

In this case though the speed of light (approx) is a fact that is separate and distinct from any opinions about it, whereas 'TACTDJFF is always wrong' isn't a fact but is an opinion: and this is an important difference.

You make the statement "TACTDJFF isn't a fact". That is a claim you need to back up.

You do realise that things can be both a fact and an opinion, don't you.

[wigginhall]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

But there are methods for testing the speed of light, which are repeatable, and also form the basis of various predictions, also testable.  In other words, these things are demonstrable.   How will you do this with OM?

[Andy]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

In this case though the speed of light (approx) is a fact that is separate and distinct from any opinions about it, whereas 'TACTDJFF is always wrong' isn't a fact but is an opinion: and this is an important difference.

You make the statement "TACTDJFF isn't a fact". That is a claim you need to back up.

You do realise that things can be both a fact and an opinion, don't you.

Well here we are - Gord is of the opinion that it isn't a fact and you are of the opinion that it is a fact. It's clear from your request that you are fully aware of what has been asked of you for the past year over 89 drawn out pages of bluster on how someone should conclude OM if they believe X, as you are asking for the parallel from Gordon. This is the point we have reached, is it, shifting the burden?
I suppose you don't think it's sufficient for your request for Gordon to just state he believes the opposide of  X therefore he should not conclude OM?

[Alien]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

But there are methods for testing the speed of light, which are repeatable, and also form the basis of various predictions, also testable.  In other words, these things are demonstrable.   How will you do this with OM?

As I have mentioned many times before. However,... my point here is that (Dyrghtons quote of) ht's claim that "Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted" is what I am discussing. ht seems to be arguing that having an opinion on something and that thing being a fact are mutually exclusive. They are not. That is the point I am making here and have demonstrated it. Of course this does leave us with the difficulty/opportunity of demonstrating that OM exists, but that is a separate matter.

[Alien]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

In this case though the speed of light (approx) is a fact that is separate and distinct from any opinions about it, whereas 'TACTDJFF is always wrong' isn't a fact but is an opinion: and this is an important difference.

You make the statement "TACTDJFF isn't a fact". That is a claim you need to back up.

You do realise that things can be both a fact and an opinion, don't you.

Well here we are - Gord is of the opinion that it isn't a fact and you are of the opinion that it is a fact. It's clear from your request that you are fully aware of what has been asked of you for the past year over 89 drawn out pages of bluster on how someone should conclude OM if they believe X, as you are asking for the parallel from Gordon. This is the point we have reached, is it, shifting the burden?
I suppose you don't think it's sufficient for your request for Gordon to just state he believes the opposide of  X therefore he should not conclude OM?

I have given reasons why I believe OM exists. Here Gordon is stating that TACTDJFF is not a fact as if that affects the claim that "Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted." My point here is that having an opinion on something does not thereby make self-refuting something which is claimed to be objective. That is the sole point I am making here. OM might not exist, but it still wouldn't make ht's (quoted) statement actually correct.

[Gordon]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

In this case though the speed of light (approx) is a fact that is separate and distinct from any opinions about it, whereas 'TACTDJFF is always wrong' isn't a fact but is an opinion: and this is an important difference.

You make the statement "TACTDJFF isn't a fact". That is a claim you need to back up.

You do realise that things can be both a fact and an opinion, don't you.

Indeed they can, and my claim is that 'TACTDJFF' is an opinion, and based on what has been said here I doubt that many, if any, would disagree.

I'm also saying that TACTDJFF isn't a fact because there are no good reasons to ever think that it is, since it doesn't seem likely that it could be confirmed on any basis or method similar to confirming the facts of the speed of light (approx) that you cited. This is, of course, exactly what this and the other thread are about - those like yourself who claim TACTDJFF  isn't just opinion haven't yet explained on what basis it could be considered to correspond to a definition of being factual.

Having an opinion about established facts such as the speed of light is pointless unless the opinion calls into question the basis of how the fact hs been established, since if not then the fact and what anyone thinks about the fact are separate matters: whether I agree or disagree with the how the speed of light has been calculated is irrelevant to the facts about the speed of light.

When it comes to TACTDJFF  all that has ever been presented has been opinion - and if you have something factual then please let us see it: remember the objective morality as evidence for God is your claim and not mine.

 

[Andy]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

In this case though the speed of light (approx) is a fact that is separate and distinct from any opinions about it, whereas 'TACTDJFF is always wrong' isn't a fact but is an opinion: and this is an important difference.

You make the statement "TACTDJFF isn't a fact". That is a claim you need to back up.

You do realise that things can be both a fact and an opinion, don't you.

Well here we are - Gord is of the opinion that it isn't a fact and you are of the opinion that it is a fact. It's clear from your request that you are fully aware of what has been asked of you for the past year over 89 drawn out pages of bluster on how someone should conclude OM if they believe X, as you are asking for the parallel from Gordon. This is the point we have reached, is it, shifting the burden?
I suppose you don't think it's sufficient for your request for Gordon to just state he believes the opposide of  X therefore he should not conclude OM?

I have given reasons why I believe OM exists. Here Gordon is stating that TACTDJFF is not a fact as if that affects the claim that "Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted." My point here is that having an opinion on something does not thereby make self-refuting something which is claimed to be objective. That is the sole point I am making here. OM might not exist, but it still wouldn't make ht's (quoted) statement actually correct.

Yes, yes, yes, yadda, yadda. I'd be surprised if anyone else is really that bothered. You've found something else to latch onto to prolong even further you getting off your arse and actually producing something that can be independently verified for OM.

How long are you going to string this latest diversion on for?

[Alien]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

In this case though the speed of light (approx) is a fact that is separate and distinct from any opinions about it, whereas 'TACTDJFF is always wrong' isn't a fact but is an opinion: and this is an important difference.

You make the statement "TACTDJFF isn't a fact". That is a claim you need to back up.

You do realise that things can be both a fact and an opinion, don't you.

Indeed they can, and my claim is that 'TACTDJFF' is an opinion, and based on what has been said here I doubt that many, if any, would disagree.

I'm also saying that TACTDJFF isn't a fact because there are no good reasons to ever think that it is, since it doesn't seem likely that it could be confirmed on any basis or method similar to confirming the facts of the speed of light (approx) that you cited. This is, of course, exactly what this and the other thread are about - those like yourself who claim TACTDJFF  isn't just opinion haven't yet explained on what basis it could be considered to correspond to a definition of being factual.

Having an opinion about established facts such as the speed of light is pointless unless the opinion calls into question the basis of how the fact hs been established, since if not then the fact and what anyone thinks about the fact are separate matters: whether I agree or disagree with the how the speed of light has been calculated is irrelevant to the facts about the speed of light.

When it comes to TACTDJFF  all that has ever been presented has been opinion - and if you have something factual then please let us see it: remember the objective morality as evidence for God is your claim and not mine.

Gordon,
"TACTDJFF" is not actually an opinion. "TACTDJFF is objectively morally wrong" is an opinion (and in my view also true). As I've pointed out to a couple of others above, it was your statement seeming to say that opinions and facts are mutually exclusive that I was arguing against here.

I'm going to hold off posting on this thread for a short while, but will be back.

[Gordon]

Gordon,
"TACTDJFF" is not actually an opinion. "TACTDJFF is objectively morally wrong" is an opinion (and in my view also true). As I've pointed out to a couple of others above, it was your statement seeming to say that opinions and facts are mutually exclusive that I was arguing against here.

I'm going to hold off posting on this thread for a short while, but will be back.

I'm sure ,Alan, after all this time and effort on OM, that we all understand here that TCTDJFF now serves as a handy shorthand for the full monty.

Nor was I arguing that facts and opinions were always mutually exclusive: for example, we might both hold the opinion that the recently retired Tony McCoy was a superlative jockey, and the facts of his record back this up. It is also though true that ABBA were extremely successful recording artists in the latter half of the 20th century, as their sales figures would no doubt confirm, in spite of their making crap records (which is my opinion, and other opinions are available)!

Opinions and facts are not the same thing and the distinction between them is an essential one whether or not they coincide, since conflating opinions and facts is could well be problematic if the latter can't be shown to be identifiable on a separate basis from the former. 

[jakswan]

So how do you make sense of Horsethorns statement that any example of OM is an opinion and therefore self-refuting? In what sense can an opinion about an OM be self-refuting if as you say it has no impact on the value of things that are objective?

Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted. You are basically saying that something is subjectively objective.

ht

That is incorrect surely. By the same token, having an opinion that the speed of light is 3x10⁸ms^-1 (approx) would be self-reputing "because it is an opinion".

That is after the fact. We have a method for objectively testing the speed of light that relies on no ones opinion. What we are asking you to do is provide a similar method for moral values.

I know you'll be tempting to go down old rabbit holes but bear in mind this:-

I think cheese tastes nice, would have tasted nice 100 years ago, will taste nice 100 years in the future, however I don't subscribe to taste being objective. Do you think taste is objective?

If not why not?

[Alien]

...

I know you'll be tempting to go down old rabbit holes but bear in mind this:-

I think cheese tastes nice, would have tasted nice 100 years ago, will taste nice 100 years in the future, however I don't subscribe to taste being objective. Do you think taste is objective?

If not why not?

Sigh. You still don't even understand what I am arguing for.

[Shaker]

Perhaps because you can't state it clearly?

[Alien]

Perhaps because you can't state it clearly?

Andy and Synonym seem to understand it. For example, see

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=8931.msg525930#msg525930

[jakswan]

...

I know you'll be tempting to go down old rabbit holes but bear in mind this:-

I think cheese tastes nice, would have tasted nice 100 years ago, will taste nice 100 years in the future, however I don't subscribe to taste being objective. Do you think taste is objective?

If not why not?

Sigh. You still don't even understand what I am arguing for.

Simple question, evasion noted.

[Synonym]

I think cheese tastes nice, would have tasted nice 100 years ago, will taste nice 100 years in the future, however I don't subscribe to taste being objective.

Surely taste is an experiential concept at its very core. You can say that if you had been around 100 years ago then your senses would deliver a pleasant response to the cheese you put in your mouth, and the same holds for any point in time where you exist and are eating cheese.

One theory is that right and wrong work in a sort of similar way, in that they are basically about the responses the thought of something provokes in a person, but this isn't the same as saying that this is what they mean as a concept.

To talk about objective taste and asking if it is the case that "taste" is independent of minds and their senses, doesn't really make a lot of sense. It's not so much a question of whether this is or isn't true, because it is a surely a fairly incoherent notion before we even get on to that.

[Alien]

Gordon,
"TACTDJFF" is not actually an opinion. "TACTDJFF is objectively morally wrong" is an opinion (and in my view also true). As I've pointed out to a couple of others above, it was your statement seeming to say that opinions and facts are mutually exclusive that I was arguing against here.

I'm going to hold off posting on this thread for a short while, but will be back.

I'm sure ,Alan, after all this time and effort on OM, that we all understand here that TCTDJFF now serves as a handy shorthand for the full monty....

I would normally agree with you, I think, but bear in mind that this thread has been characterized by at least some people not even understanding what is being argued for. Anything which can lead to continues confusion is perhaps best avoided.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps because you can't state it clearly?

Andy and Synonym seem to understand it. For example, see

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=8931.msg525930#msg525930

Andy's posts seem to indicate he understands what you are not arguing, not that he understands what you are.

[Nearly Sane]

 

I think cheese tastes nice, would have tasted nice 100 years ago, will taste nice 100 years in the future, however I don't subscribe to taste being objective.

Surely taste is an experiential concept at its very core. You can say that if you had been around 100 years ago then your senses would deliver a pleasant response to the cheese you put in your mouth, and the same holds for any point in time where you exist and are eating cheese.

One theory is that right and wrong work in a sort of similar way, in that they are basically about the responses the thought of something provokes in a person, but this isn't the same as saying that this is what they mean as a concept.

To talk about objective taste and asking if it is the case that "taste" is independent of minds and their senses, doesn't really make a lot of sense. It's not so much a question of whether this is not isn't true, because as a concept it is a fairly incoherent notion surely before we even get on to that.

And since jakswan is not arguing that taste is objective, is a fairly pointless post. He is merely pointing out that the language used does not give indication of either objectivity being real or even assumed by the person using the language.