Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Objective morality, can it exist? Sort of....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zippy2006" data-source="post: 75147850" data-attributes="member: 342410"><p>There is a difference between the noun and verb forms of value. Just because something is not valued (verb) by an intentional agent does not mean it has no value (noun). That is one of the basic conflations I think you are committing. Saying something has value is not the same thing as saying that it has value for humans. The colloquial word "value" simply isn't human-relative, despite the fact that the verb (generally) is.</p><p></p><p>Similarly, human morality need not depend on human valuing. An alien species could observe our species and formulate a virtue ethics based on the objective ends that relate to our flourishing. The subjective values of our species need not enter into this, though for our sake it is obviously good that they do.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>According to your definition it is not subjective. It is not "based on how we feel about them or how they make us feel."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is objective. It is the statement that the length of your body is equivalent to 73 inch measurements. According to your definition that is an objective statement, because it is what it is regardless of how we feel about it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And what other option is there when referring to "inch"? You're introducing the tangential problem of how naming works and confusing the issue.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would say that we are using the same name to name different realities. When introduced in such a way it is the logical fallacy of equivocation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Names are social conventions; lengths are objective realities. When a name refers to a length--such as an inch--it is referring to an objective reality. The fact that someone can name their child "Inch" doesn't matter.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zippy2006, post: 75147850, member: 342410"] There is a difference between the noun and verb forms of value. Just because something is not valued (verb) by an intentional agent does not mean it has no value (noun). That is one of the basic conflations I think you are committing. Saying something has value is not the same thing as saying that it has value for humans. The colloquial word "value" simply isn't human-relative, despite the fact that the verb (generally) is. Similarly, human morality need not depend on human valuing. An alien species could observe our species and formulate a virtue ethics based on the objective ends that relate to our flourishing. The subjective values of our species need not enter into this, though for our sake it is obviously good that they do. Okay. According to your definition it is not subjective. It is not "based on how we feel about them or how they make us feel." It is objective. It is the statement that the length of your body is equivalent to 73 inch measurements. According to your definition that is an objective statement, because it is what it is regardless of how we feel about it. And what other option is there when referring to "inch"? You're introducing the tangential problem of how naming works and confusing the issue. I would say that we are using the same name to name different realities. When introduced in such a way it is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Names are social conventions; lengths are objective realities. When a name refers to a length--such as an inch--it is referring to an objective reality. The fact that someone can name their child "Inch" doesn't matter. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Objective morality, can it exist? Sort of....
Top
Bottom