I'm wondering how this related to the issue of whether morality is subjective or objective...
I am beginning to wonder why as well lol. I am trying to see the subjective/objective moral issue from a different angle. As you know we have been debating this issue and with others for some time countering each other with scenarios and examples and it gets nowhere. Both sides think they are right.
I am trying to see the bigger picture metaphysically and questioning what is reality. The is/ought problem for objective morality is measured by the “is” and the "is" is regarded as reality I assume which is usually a material thing. Which is also what materialistic science claims is the measure of reality. Or at least assumes it is and then sets out to prove that.
I am questioning that and saying that there is more to reality than material/physical stuff and that consciousness (conscious experience) plays an important part. If this is the case then this dispels the “is/ought” problem because the “is” in the is/ought is no longer the measuring stick.
We would have to re-evaluate what reality is which is already happening across most disciplines like psychology, physics and evolution.
As we have been discussing our conscious experience plays an important if not the most important influence on reality. We can derive non-material influences that make a difference to reality.
That's why many people ask the question what is reality. Does the observer or subject help create reality. If phenomena like colours and pain are something the subject creates then why not physical reality itself and why not morality.
That makes the subject an arbiter of not only reality but also morality because morality is intertwined with conscious experience and consciousness is all. We can experience how immoral behavior affects ourselves and others and it matters to us for survival. We intuitively know moral truths and become the morality we choose or choose not to be. This has a tangible affect on ourselves and society as its part of our reality.
Right. Things that are subjective can not be measured and things that are objective CAN be measured, right?
That's only according to the assumption that reality is only material/physical. I am taking a metaphysical view and questioning that assumption. If conscious experience is subjective and conscious experience is a part of is reality then then the subject creates reality. Or at least has an influence on reality.
As we have been discussing with colours and feelings like pain though these things may not have an actual material/physical basis they are as real as anything physical. So reality must be made on non-physical stuff as well. We can't measure that through methodological naturalism.
That's why I originally quoted Jordan Peterson who said reality is not just about 'Matter” but 'What Matters' because it seems its not just about the material/physical mechanisms and processes like a robot has but also about our conscious experience. We can't reduce that to material/physical mechanisms like nerves, electrical signals, neurons our senses, etc but it is still real enough for us.