Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok, so let's go back.
I said:
"To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that’s not possible.”
You said:
Objects cannot have opinions. That makes the idea that people are "objects" logically incoherent.
Now, I'm not sure where you're going with this and I'm open to the fact we simply aren't communing what you want to say (or maybe it's me), but I'm not sure how you justify what you said.
Excellent!
Personally, I would definitely prefer to eat any flavor of ice cream over immeasurable suffering. What does my opinion matter though?
Therefore, it’s possible for a subject to be objectively correct.
We can also agree that vanilla is bad and chocolate is good. Same thing. I could place vanilla as the worst possible suffering and chocolate as the greatest possible happiness and I wouldn't be incorrect to do so. I wouldn't be correct either, because opinions and values aren't evaluated on whether they're true or false.It doesn't diminish the fact that you and I can agree that the worst possible suffering is "bad" and the greatest possible happiness is "good".
No, we don't "know" that; it isn't a fact. We subjectively agree to arrange things in that manner. Intersubjectivity =/= objectivity.From there we know that every other state of human existence, morally speaking, exists between those two extremes
I don't disagree. The trouble is that you think there's something special about some values. There isn't. Vanilla is just as valid of a thing to hate as murder because it's all subjective.science can't tell us what we should value or if we should value it, once we agree to value it, science can tell us if we are successful or failing to achieve what we claim to value.
Ok, sure I can agree with that.
But when it comes to morality, truly objective morality is impossible because only subjects can value. To say that subjects can be objectively correct is not really what I was talking about.
Make sense?
I could place vanilla as the worst possible suffering
If you don’t think so, how do you distinguish objective correctness from morality?
Yes, that's exactly how morality works. People value whatever they want.You can, but that's not how morality works.
No, it's not. I can value things and determine how I want to act based on those values without anyone else around. Morality does not require other people.See, morality, despite some who claim otherwise, is how people in social groups feel about behavior.
I dont think so. There's lots of social conditioning and eons of biological coding for values that's extremely difficult to overcome.Yes, that's exactly how morality works. People value whatever they want....
I dont think so. There's lots of social conditioning and eons of biological coding for values that's extremely difficult to overcome.
You cant just decide vanilla is the worst possible suffering, to use your example. You can say it, but you cant just decide to actually feel its worse than having your feet burned off.
I agree we don't consciously choose what we want. Take a look at my phrasing again (it's a double entendre). I would also agree it's extremely unlikely to find such an individual, but people can have weird values.I dont think so. There's lots of social conditioning and eons of biological coding for values that's extremely difficult to overcome.
You cant just decide vanilla is the worst possible suffering, to use your example. You can say it, but you cant just decide to actually feel its worse than having your feet burned off.
That's cute and all, but some folks lack the ability to feel physical pain so getting their feet burned isn't going to be on the list. I don't happen to be one of those folks, but that doesn't mean they're wrong to organize their values without physical pain being on the list. Whatever they believe is the worst possible suffering is going to seem pretty bizarre to us.I'm picturing you strapped to a chair and a guy puts a blowtorch and bowl of vanilla ice cream on the table before you. "O god please not the ice cream!!!"........ yeah... no.
OK... but what we want at a lot of deep value levels isnt something we just decide to create. Its the result of our real world biology and social conditioning. Minorities of people with slightly different real world biology doesnt change that fact. Actually, it reinforces that fact.I agree we don't consciously choose what we want. Take a look at my phrasing again (it's a double entendre). I would also agree it's extremely unlikely to find such an individual, but people can have weird values.
That's cute and all, but some folks lack the ability to feel physical pain so getting their feet burned isn't going to be on the list. I don't happen to be one of those folks, but that doesn't mean they're wrong to organize their values without physical pain being on the list. Whatever they believe is the worst possible suffering is going to seem pretty bizarre to us.
That's all basically true. But as we've been over before, those abnormal pathologies don't create incorrect values and us normal folk don't have the correct values. None of what you've said turns a value into a fact.OK... but what we want at a lot of deep value levels isnt something we just decide to create. Its the result of our real world biology and social conditioning. Minorities of people with slightly different real world biology doesnt change that fact. Actually, it reinforces that fact.
Values are facts about species and individuals.That's all basically true. But as we've been over before, those abnormal pathologies don't create incorrect values and us normal folk don't have the correct values. None of what you've said turns a value into a fact.
No, they aren't. Here's an example of a value:Values are facts about species and individuals.
That isn't a moral fact, it's an argument for a fact about the effectiveness of a behavior.As for turning a value into a moral fact, it doesnt seem that hard: if you value X, then Y behavior promotes it and Z behavior hinders it.
No, I'm getting at the actual nature of what opinions are. I haven't ever disagreed with anyone that after we agree on some subjective opinion we can objectively determine the most effective course of action to promote that opinion. You all seem to want to elevate some opinions to a special status above other opinions because you're afraid that your opinions will become arbitrary. That is what I'm arguing against.You seem to to making a giant unnecessary stumbling block over the way we attach the feelings of right and wrong to these moral facts.
This is kind of cheating. Because "chocolate is good" is just an unthinking shorthand for the more precise "I like chocolate". When pressed, no perceptive person will insist this personal preference is actually a universal fact of the world.No, they aren't. Here's an example of a value:
Chocolate is good.
Now, it is a fact that I like chocolate. It is a fact that I like chocolate as a result of biological and social processes. It is not a fact that chocolate is good.
I think we've established that the valuing of life is an objectively factual trait of the human species (and pretty much all species - it runs that deep). Dont get derailed by the way we also feel attached to life. Its like you think our subjective feelings about it are the whole story. Its not.That isn't a moral fact, it's an argument for a fact about the effectiveness of a behavior.
Here's an example of a moral fact:
One should not murder.
If you have to appeal to yours or my subjective value for life and harm, then it is not a fact.
(Wow self, there's a ridiculous amount of P words in that sentence.)...When pressed, no perceptive person will insist this personal preference is actually a universal fact of the world.....
Of course some opinions are better than others. People hold destructive ignorant opinions that lead to suffering all the time. Its called being "unwise". I'm perfectly fine having my opinions challenged and I'd like to change them if shown to lead to suffering and misery.....No, I'm getting at the actual nature of what opinions are. I haven't ever disagreed with anyone that after we agree on some subjective opinion we can objectively determine the most effective course of action to promote that opinion. You all seem to want to elevate some opinions to a special status above other opinions because you're afraid that your opinions will become arbitrary. That is what I'm arguing against.
Exactly! Chocolate is good. Harm is bad. Survival is good. Death is bad.This is kind of cheating. Because "chocolate is good" is just an unthinking shorthand for the more precise "I like chocolate".
Yes we've established that humans (generally) like living. So what? It's a fact that humans (generally) like sweets too. So what?I think we've established that the valuing of life is an objectively factual trait of the human species (and pretty much all species - it runs that deep).
How we feel is what valuing is! To value is to desire!Dont get derailed by the way we also feel attached to life.
Nope, I've quite explicitly said different. How we feel is merely the starting point, and therefore the basis, for morality.Its like you think our subjective feelings about it are the whole story. Its not.
Nope, not in terms of values they aren't. Remember when we established that it's nonsense to ask if it's "correct to hold value X"?Of course some opinions are better than others.
Eh, I think you're talking about opinions in a different context. People use the word "opinion" to make a guess about a fact, and that's what you're getting at here. For instance, if we want to get to the top of a tall building the fastest way possible I could say, "In my opinion we should take the stairs" and you could say "In my opinion we should take the elevator". In that context, sure, one of us can be correct. But that isn't the context of values. Getting there the fastest is the value. What if I felt that exercise is more important than getting there faster? Is my value less valid than your value? Then we can't compare my "We should take the stairs" versus your "We should take the elevator".People hold destructive ignorant opinions that lead to suffering all the time. Its called being "unwise". I'm perfectly fine having my opinions challenged and I'd like to change them if shown to lead to suffering and misery.
There are no values that randomly and idiosyncratically pop into people's heads. "Chocolate is good" didn't randomly or idiosyncratically pop into my head either. Valuing good living and the reduction of suffering isn't special. It's normal, sure, but normal =/= good.But I'm not worried about them being arbitrary so long as they are aimed at good living and the reduction of suffering, which are natural human desires that didnt just pop randomly and idiosyncratically into my own head.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?