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

[Synonym]

He doesn't have to believe it in order to be using it as a reduction to the absurd of Alan's reasoning. Which is what he was appearing to me to be doing.

[Nearly Sane]

He doesn't have to believe it in order to be using it as a reduction to the absurd of Alan's reasoning. Which is what he was appearing to me to be doing.

Agreed that is what he is doing, so addressing it as you did was pointless

[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

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".

We can indeed have opinions about the speed of light. People had them before it was determined what that speed was.

However, once we worked out a way to determine that speed objectively, the opinions became redundant and irrelevant.

We can indeed have opinions about the OM of a situation. People had them before it was determined what that OM was.

However, once we worked out a way to determine that morality objectively, the opinions became redundant and irrelevant.

Hold on - we haven't yet found a way to determine morality objectively, all we have at present is opinion.

We seem to be at the same stage with OM as science was when people were saying 'the speed of light is really, really fast, and it's the same all the time'/'the speed of light is really, really fast, and it's different in different substances'(etc), but we hadn't yet worked out a method to test those opinions against reality.

What we need is a method, which is independent of opinion, to determine the OM of a situation.

ht

[Synonym]

He doesn't have to believe it in order to be using it as a reduction to the absurd of Alan's reasoning. Which is what he was appearing to me to be doing.

Agreed that is what he is doing, so addressing it as you did was pointless

In what way? If you take someone's reasoning and then substitute for part of it, except that the new version is rather incoherent at a conceptual level, then what will this tell you about the original reasoning?

[Nearly Sane]

Because if applicable to the idea of morality then it would fail for the same in coherency. You are effectively making jakswan's point for him.

[Enki]

Of course holding an opinion on anything could be true/ false, accurate/inaccurate, valid/invalid. The point is surely that any opinion, of itself, is no guide at all as to whether such an opinion is any of the above.

Hence, like others, I have consistently suggested that the idea of an objective morality needs some sort of method outside personal opinion to justify its objective basis.  And for those who request what methods I would suggest, I'm afraid I have none. It is surely for those who suggest that morality has an objective basis to come up with a means of determining such. So far, in endless posts, I have not seen so far any method suggested which has tested the opinion that morality has an objective basis.

I have my own ideas of where my morality originates, but, of course, these are my opinions only. I still optimistically await some sort of verifiable method for objective morality, but, I fear I will wait in vain.

[Synonym]

Because if applicable to the idea of morality then it would fail for the same in coherency. You are effectively making jakswan's point for him.

Not entirely sure what you mean.

Position A:
"1) All men are human
2) David Cameron is a man
3) Therefore David Cameron is human

1&2 logically lead to 3. And subscribers to 1&2 are logically bound to accept 3."

Position A will not be troubled by substituting something incoherent into it such as:

Position B:
"1) All men are human
2) My dog Rex is a man
3) Therefore my dog Rex is human

1&2 logically lead to 3. And subscribers to 1&2 are logically bound to accept 3."

Great, this demonstrates that if you start with absurd you end with absurd. This does nothing to rebut the original position.

In Alan's case you could claim that the notions of morality being independent of minds and human agreement, and that a moral value would still hold even if everyone who believed this died out, are incoherent or false, but this will need a separate argument.

You will achieve nothing to trouble it by substituting something that probably is incoherent in its place. As the notion of an experiential concept such as how things taste being independent of minds and senses, is.

Once again, Alan's notions and argument may or may not be incoherent or false, but the specific tactic employed by Jakeswan of applying the same position to taste does nothing here.

[jakswan]

Once again, Alan's notions and argument may or may not be incoherent or false, but the specific tactic employed by Jakeswan of applying the same position to taste does nothing here.

Not really, morality is the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad behaviour, taste is the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad flavours.

Al has argued that if I think an action was always good, is now good and will be good in the future I'm logically bound to accept morality is objective.

I don't see the distinction between that and 'Al has argued that if I think something will taste good in the future and has always tasted good then I'm logically bound to accept that taste is objective'.

Al's make the assertion that good is not subjective at its very core and he is going to provide a method to demonstrate that it isn't. Hopefully he won't be asking anyone for their opinion in the process. 

[Synonym]

Not really, morality is the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad behaviour, taste is the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad flavours.

As experienced by a taster. You need to have a taster whose senses are reporting positive feedback. Whether you need a mind in order for morality is another question.

Al has argued that if I think an action was always good, is now good and will be good in the future I'm logically bound to accept morality is objective.

I don't see the distinction between that and 'Al has argued that if I think something will taste good in the future and has always tasted good then I'm logically bound to accept that taste is objective'.

Yes, you could substitute taste into Alan's argument just as I substituted a dog Rex into position A above. You then get something like:

1) Cheese tastes good
2) Cheese will always taste good even if everyone dies out other than the people who find it to taste horrible
3) Cheese tasting good is objective, and so taste is objective

1&2 logically lead to 3. And subscribers to 1&2 are logically bound to accept 3.

Insert an incoherent notion into Alan's argument and derive an incoherent conclusion. What does this tell us about Alan's position?

Al's make the assertion that good is not subjective at its very core and he is going to provide a method to demonstrate that it isn't. Hopefully he won't be asking anyone for their opinion in the process.

Since he is discussing with people what we all believe, you might be asked what you believe about the matter. Which is not the same as saying that the matter relies on or derives from belief.

[jakswan]

As experienced by a taster. You need to have a taster whose senses are reporting positive feedback. Whether you need a mind in order for morality is another question.

It sure is and we are all looking forward to Al who is going demonstrate that actually it is different.

Yes, you could substitute taste into Alan's argument just as I substituted a dog Rex into position A above. You then get something like:

1) Cheese tastes good
2) Cheese will always taste good even if everyone dies out other than the people who find it to taste horrible
3) Cheese tasting good is objective, and so taste is objective

1&2 logically lead to 3. And subscribers to 1&2 are logically bound to accept 3.

Insert an incoherent notion into Alan's argument and derive an incoherent conclusion. What does this tell us about Alan's position?

Al's argument contained an incoherent notion.

Since he is discussing with people what we all believe, you might be asked what you believe about the matter. Which is not the same as saying that the matter relies on or derives from belief.

I might think speed of light in a vacuum is 30mph when we have a method to measure the same it renders my belief irrelevant.

[Synonym]

Al's argument contained an incoherent notion.

Maybe, maybe not, but replacing a claimed incoherent notion with an almost certainly incoherent notion won't really do any work to demonstrate this.

[Dryghtons Toe]

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.

 Well I was simply answering your question. I guess when you ask a question with an obvious answer it shouldn't really be a shocker when the answers obvious...
 

[Dryghtons Toe]

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".

We can indeed have opinions about the speed of light. People had them before it was determined what that speed was.

However, once we worked out a way to determine that speed objectively, the opinions became redundant and irrelevant.

We can indeed have opinions about the OM of a situation. People had them before it was determined what that OM was.

However, once we worked out a way to determine that morality objectively, the opinions became redundant and irrelevant.

Hold on - we haven't yet found a way to determine morality objectively, all we have at present is opinion.

We seem to be at the same stage with OM as science was when people were saying 'the speed of light is really, really fast, and it's the same all the time'/'the speed of light is really, really fast, and it's different in different substances'(etc), but we hadn't yet worked out a method to test those opinions against reality.

What we need is a method, which is independent of opinion, to determine the OM of a situation.

ht

Saying an opinion is redundant if the thing its about is objectively testable doesn't stop it being an opinion. Everything we believe is by definition our opinion and some are also facts (whether we know them or not) and some are also measurable facts. Your claim was very specific, that:


"Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted."

But nothing you have said about light implies this. Having an opinion about the speed of light either before or after we measure it and regardless of whether or not you consider it to be irrelevant, does not make the objectivity of the speed of light self refuting. However we view Alans argument, Alan is correct that the particular critique you have articulated just doesn't work as an argument.

Demonstrability is a different thing entirely from something being self-refuting and its a mistake to conflate the two.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Of course holding an opinion on anything could be true/ false, accurate/inaccurate, valid/invalid. The point is surely that any opinion, of itself, is no guide at all as to whether such an opinion is any of the above.

Hence, like others, I have consistently suggested that the idea of an objective morality needs some sort of method outside personal opinion to justify its objective basis.  And for those who request what methods I would suggest, I'm afraid I have none. It is surely for those who suggest that morality has an objective basis to come up with a means of determining such. So far, in endless posts, I have not seen so far any method suggested which has tested the opinion that morality has an objective basis.

I have my own ideas of where my morality originates, but, of course, these are my opinions only. I still optimistically await some sort of verifiable method for objective morality, but, I fear I will wait in vain.

No one has claimed OM can be independently verified have they? I might be wrong its been a long thread (the other one anyway) but its certainly not a view I have..the majority of accademic philosophers are moral realists, atheists and theists alike, but I don't think I can think of anyone who thinks that OM is verifiable..what makes you think that it should be?

 I think its been clarified a number of times that verifiability isn’t possible (although that doesn’t mean we can’t make progress towards discovering moral truth). The issue is 'can moral statements be facts?', and things can be facts whether we can verify them or not. I’ve given examples of factual questions we can't verify and every time I do someone will say ‘well obviously it can be a fact about [whatever] irrespective of whether we can verify it’ yet a few paragraphs on we still get someone harping on about ‘independently verifying OM’ as if they were making some sort of meaningful point that makes any difference to the debate over whether morality is objective.

[Dryghtons Toe]

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.

Sorry where in the definition of a fact is verification? Some people believe other universes exist. If this was true this would be unverifiable even in principle as we cannot observe other universes. Nevertheless if another universe existed it would be a fact that it exists whether or not I can verify it. It does not cease to be a fact because it is not observable.
 
Other metahpyiscal questions are also in principle unverifiable – take for example determinism – it is impossible in principle to verify if determinism is true or false because it would only take 1 undetermined event to contradict this and until a theoretical end of the universe when ‘everything has happened and is known’ we couldn’t know if  there was one. Equally we could never show that something was undetermined unless we could know every possible cause and have ruled them out which we also can’t do in practice. Metahpysical questions are often in principle undeterminable, yet we can and have made progress with many metaphysical questions.

 Meta-ethical questions are just the same.

 What we can do is give an account of how ethical truths can be fact we discover just as the anti-realist can try to give an account of morality as an invention, it’s then about testing the implications of our theory against our moral intuitions and moral reasoning as it is practiced, not about making a measurement that is anything like an observation in physics.

Regards

DT

[jakswan]

Al's argument contained an incoherent notion.

Maybe, maybe not, but replacing a claimed incoherent notion with an almost certainly incoherent notion won't really do any work to demonstrate this.

Good isn't a incoherent notion.

[jakswan]

No one has claimed OM can be independently verified have they? I might be wrong its been a long thread (the other one anyway) but its certainly not a view I have..the majority of accademic philosophers are moral realists, atheists and theists alike, but I don't think I can think of anyone who thinks that OM is verifiable..what makes you think that it should be?

 I think its been clarified a number of times that verifiability isn’t possible (although that doesn’t mean we can’t make progress towards discovering moral truth). The issue is 'can moral statements be facts?', and things can be facts whether we can verify them or not. I’ve given examples of factual questions we can't verify and every time I do someone will say ‘well obviously it can be a fact about [whatever] irrespective of whether we can verify it’ yet a few paragraphs on we still get someone harping on about ‘independently verifying OM’ as if they were making some sort of meaningful point that makes any difference to the debate over whether morality is objective.

Al seems to think he can demonstrate objective moral values. Of course we do get you and others harping on about how morality could be objective, I'd accept could.

Al tells us though his belief in a god is based on this argument, its one of the famous flaky five, not sure he'll be satisfied with.

1. If objective moral values and duties exist, God could exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties could exist.
3. Therefore, God could exist.

If pigs could fly there would be flying pigs.

[Spud]

Splendid view of children you have there,

Have you read Lord of the Flies?

A group of isolated, 'innocent' schoolboys turn into murderers.

We are told the situation before the flood. Matthew Henry says,

"In all ages there has been a peculiar curse of God upon marriages between professors of true religion and its avowed enemies. The evil example of the ungodly party corrupts or greatly hurts the other. Family religion is put an end to, and the children are trained up according to the worldly maxims of that parent who is without the fear of God."

It seems God knew that mankind (except Noah) had rejected him, with no hope of restoration.

[Shaker]

Splendid view of children you have there,

Have you read Lord of the Flies?

A group of isolated, 'innocent' schoolboys turn into murderers.

Yes. It's a novel, not a work of bleeding non-fiction, you plank.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Splendid view of children you have there,

Have you read Lord of the Flies?

A group of isolated, 'innocent' schoolboys turn into murderers.

Yes. It's a novel, not a work of bleeding non-fiction, you plank.

Of course it is, everyone knows unsupervised pupils given sharp sticks trees and rocks self organise into secular humanist reading and discussion groups and organise sponsored walks for charity.

[Enki]

Hi DT,

Quote from Mess. 113 by Dryghton's Toe:

No one has claimed OM can be independently verified have they? I might be wrong its been a long thread (the other one anyway) but its certainly not a view I have..the majority of accademic philosophers are moral realists, atheists and theists alike, but I don't think I can think of anyone who thinks that OM is verifiable..what makes you think that it should be?

Well, maybe you should look back again at the thread 'Objective morality exists!' where Alan made the point(repeatedly) that if one considered TACTDJFF to be morally wrong in all circumstances, then that person must also believe in an objective morality. (I hasten to say that this isn't my position, as I clearly stated in Mess. 26).

However, the point was repeatedly stressed by others that it would still only be opinion that objective morality exists unless it can demonstrated by some means independent of opinion. That's why so many people, including myself, have asked for a method which would demonstrate the objective existence of morality.

If you look back through the original thread you will find that this is a recurring theme throughout the many posts. If a person suggests that objective morality exists then it is surely encumbent upon them to demonstrate its validity, rather than resort to simple opinion.

I think its been clarified a number of times that verifiability isn’t possible (although that doesn’t mean we can’t make progress towards discovering moral truth). The issue is 'can moral statements be facts?', and things can be facts whether we can verify them or not. I’ve given examples of factual questions we can't verify and every time I do someone will say ‘well obviously it can be a fact about [whatever] irrespective of whether we can verify it’ yet a few paragraphs on we still get someone harping on about ‘independently verifying OM’ as if they were making some sort of meaningful point that makes any difference to the debate over whether morality is objective.

Glad to see that you don't think that it can be verified in any meaningful way. That's my position too.

You then ask, can moral statements be facts? I would suggest, not in any objective sense, because there is no evidence that morality exists outside the animal brain, unless one counted as fact certain evolutionary/cultural/social tendencies which it may be possible to quantify.

[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

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".

We can indeed have opinions about the speed of light. People had them before it was determined what that speed was.

However, once we worked out a way to determine that speed objectively, the opinions became redundant and irrelevant.

We can indeed have opinions about the OM of a situation. People had them before it was determined what that OM was.

However, once we worked out a way to determine that morality objectively, the opinions became redundant and irrelevant.

Hold on - we haven't yet found a way to determine morality objectively, all we have at present is opinion.

We seem to be at the same stage with OM as science was when people were saying 'the speed of light is really, really fast, and it's the same all the time'/'the speed of light is really, really fast, and it's different in different substances'(etc), but we hadn't yet worked out a method to test those opinions against reality.

What we need is a method, which is independent of opinion, to determine the OM of a situation.

ht

Saying an opinion is redundant if the thing its about is objectively testable doesn't stop it being an opinion. Everything we believe is by definition our opinion and some are also facts (whether we know them or not) and some are also measurable facts.

Correct.

Your claim was very specific, that:

"Having an opinion that something is OM is self-refuting because by it being an opinion, the 'objective' bit is necessarily contradicted."

But nothing you have said about light implies this.

Perhaps you have misunderstood. (Having an opinion that X is objectively morally good) is self-refuting, because 'objective', we agreed some time ago, means 'independent of opinion'.

So 'having an opinion...' refutes (or cancels out, if your prefer) '...objectively...' It equates to saying 'subjectively objective', which is an oxymoron.

Having an opinion about the speed of light either before or after we measure it and regardless of whether or not you consider it to be irrelevant, does not make the objectivity of the speed of light self refuting.

I agree. What I said was that once we have a method to determine c, the opinions become redundant and irrelevant, because we know objectively what c is. People can still have opinions about it, but those opinions are pointless when we have access to the fact.

However we view Alans argument, Alan is correct that the particular critique you have articulated just doesn't work as an argument.

I'm not convinced. I think you (and Alan) have misunderstood it.

Demonstrability is a different thing entirely from something being self-refuting and its a mistake to conflate the two.

I agree. Luckily, I haven't.

However, as no method for demonstrating OM has been forthcoming, opinion is all we have, which refutes any possibility of OM due to the 'independent of opinion' bit.

ht

[Synonym]

Perhaps you have misunderstood. (Having an opinion that X is objectively morally good) is self-refuting, because 'objective', we agreed some time ago, means 'independent of opinion'.

How is that self-refuting? I am of the opinion that the speed of light is independent of my opinions. I believe it is unaffected by what I believe.

If you have an opinion on a matter this is not the same as saying that the matter is now dependent on your opinion.

[horsethorn]

Perhaps you have misunderstood. (Having an opinion that X is objectively morally good) is self-refuting, because 'objective', we agreed some time ago, means 'independent of opinion'.

How is that self-refuting?

I thought the next sentence explained that...

So 'having an opinion...' refutes (or cancels out, if your prefer) '...objectively...' It equates to saying 'subjectively objective', which is an oxymoron.

I am of the opinion that the speed of light is independent of my opinions. I believe it is unaffected by what I believe.

That's not an equivalent.

(1) 'I am of the opinion that TACTDJFF is morally good. In my opinion it has always been morally good, and always will be, regardless of what other people think'

An equivalent would be

(2) 'I am of the opinion that the speed of light is 123.456m/s. In my opinion it has always been that speed, and always will be, regardless of what other people think.'

The difference is that we have a means of testing the speed of light which is not dependent on opinion.

If you have an opinion on a matter this is not the same as saying that the matter is now dependent on your opinion.

Except that's what Alien has been arguing. He has been claiming that (1) means that you must believe that OM exists.

Does having the opinion that c is 123.456 m/s mean that you believe objective speed exists?

ht

[Synonym]

Does having the opinion that c is 123.456 m/s mean that you believe objective speed exists?

Not on its own. If however I believed that the speed is that and will be that independently of what anyone believes, then I believe that the speed is objective.

That we have a method of verifying what I believe about the speed to be true or false, has nothing to do with the fact that I believe the matter to be independent of what I believe. And I am not contradicting myself by having an opinion on a matter which I believe is independent of what I believe.