Objective standards

[quatona]

I would actually quarrel with your use of that definition.

So would I. But this post was addressing an argument brought forth by several persons here recently who defined it that way. Thus, in order to deal with their argument based on this definition, I have to accept that definition for purposes of discussing their argument.

The philospher John Searle can be very instructive here. Something can be dependent on human perception and still be an "objective" fact about us. Individual phenomena, like for example having tinnitus and hearing a ringing in your ear, is experienced subjectively. But it is ontologically subjective, that is, it is a first-person experience. You cannot experience someone else's ringing, even while you may have the condition yourself. This ontologically subjective fact, however, can be communicated to dispassionate, neutral third-parties. Indeed this is how much of the sciences of the mind work.

I bring this up because it can be the case that something is not merely an epistemically subjective experience; that is to say, biased, merely personal, etc. It can be a feature that not only is dependent on one's neurobiology but perhaps even be a feature that is common among homo sapiens. Given that we are, for the most part, composed very similarly, it should not be at all surprising that many aesthetic evaluations are objectively true about being human. There have actually been scientific studies that have determined most humans (regardless of cultural influence, epoch, etc.) generally regard blue as the most beautiful color. Is that a non-anthropocentric truth independent of human experience such that it would be true regardless of thinking minds evaluating the color? Of course not. Such a thing would be absurd, as aesthetic evaluations are dependent on thinking minds. That doesn't mean that there cannot be an objective "truth" about beauty.

I am in ahurry but I´m gonna read this more carefully and respond later, ok?
Just wanted to clarify the definition thing for the time being.

 

[quatona]

OK a person has many interests, granted, you seem to imply form this a radical skepticism about pursuit of interests. He likes sex, entertainment and food, but which ought he pursue? Obviously to me if he is in danger of starving it is in his interests to eat. Also if he is unhealthily lonely he ought to try and socialise etc.

I grant that deciding between stuff like a chocolate bar or a biscuit can at times be rationally incalculable, but on a more basic level oughts can be inferred.



Thats a good point and one I cannot really answer, except to say that you seem to want to jeapordise the whole project of morality by looking for complications. As if (by analogy) hearth surgery ought to be abandoned because of complications which may arise.

I think that psychologists can assess people's quality of life and adaptation strengths and weaknesses. Its not a case of being sooooo complicated that pursuit of the "good life" is rationally absurd. A good psychologist, and perhaps in the future a brain scientist, might be able to assess and offer advice better than (at present) a priest or friend, or one's instincts and gut feelings, might offer. IMO normative ethics will be part of psychology to some degree (overlap), insofar as psychology can promote flourishing in a scientific fashion.

No, GS, all I meant to explain was that which you said was objectively observable (the way from A to B) didn´t even start to address the actual issue: morality.
It´s possible that you also have an idea as to how moral values can be objectively measured/determined - but the idea you presented (and which I don´t disagree with at all) didn´t support your idea.
My response wasn´t meant to address arguments you hadn´t even made. So mildly ridiculing what you feel would be the implications of my reponse (as if it had been addressing arguments you hadn´t even made) is not really fair.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

If I may offer a suggestion that if heeded may allow for a fruitful discussion?

The people discussing the issue need to come to an agreement on their understanding of the word "objective" specifically in the context of moral discourse. This should not be too difficult and to aid in this I would recommend referencing the available internet encyclopedias of philosophy.

 

[quatona]

If I may offer a suggestion that if heeded may allow for a fruitful discussion?

The people discussing the issue need to come to an agreement on their understanding of the word "objective" specifically in the context of moral discourse. This should not be too difficult and to aid in this I would recommend referencing the available internet encyclopedias of philosophy.

Thanks for trying to help.

But no...the definition has been given.
This thread is meant to discuss a certain idea, not to discuss a word.
The idea I am discussing here is the one that the definition describes.
This thread is a follow up from a couple of threads in which people argued that there are values existed independently of human perception. They called that "objective".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

all values are morally relavent. intrinsic inherent instrumental contributory. moral value are instrruments organising experience. i take it to be a self evident intuition that my psychial welfare is subject to objective forces . its value is a pyhsical feature ofthe cosmos afaict, thrust upon me . my opinion is rational, experientiallly grounded and compellled. instrument moral systems are posited rationistically as objectively functional, subjectively formulated answwrs to this predicament.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

dependent on perception, agreed. but such is a cosmic event .with inaliable structural demands.

 

[RDKirk]

Would you assert that the statement "this piece of music is beautiful" is necessarily (implicitly) appealing to an objective aesthetic standard?

No. I would disagree with that assertion.

Would you therefore assert that everyone behaves as though objective aesthetic standards exist?

I do assert that everyone behaves as though such objective standards exist.

Would you therefore conclude that objective aesthetic standards must and do exist?

No, not at all.

The behavior of people does not prove the existence of that which--as you've already defined it--is independent human perception.

There is no guarantee that they perceive it correctly or even perceive it at all or that what they think they perceive truly exists.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

This thread is a follow up from a couple of threads in which people argued that there are values existed independently of human perception. They called that "objective".

Are these "people" you are referring to interacting with you in this thread at the present moment?

 

[quatona]

Are these "people" you are referring to interacting with you in this thread at the present moment?

No.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

ETA: Let´s for purposes of this thread use the definition for "objective" that has frequently been presented in this context: "independent of human perception".

You state here that this definition has been frequently presented.

Is this an accurate statement? Who believes that "objective" means independent of human perception?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well "subjective" can mind dependent, so if "objective" is the complement of that, then it means mind independent. Or not?

Thanm again in ethics I think that the language is more confused. There can be objective science about epistemic subjects for example. Sop what do we call such ethicising?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No. I would disagree with that assertion.



I do assert that everyone behaves as though such objective standards exist.

I suppos eyou may have a kind of point. Experience supports "naive reralism" until we start philosophising. So if art is beautiful, it would possibly seem to be an objective fact directly accessed.

 

[quatona]

You state here that this definition has been frequently presented.

Is this an accurate statement? Who believes that "objective" means independent of human perception?

I didn´t expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Whether it´s an accurate statement depends on what you accept as "frequent".
I have spent quite some time discussing with people who presented an argument based on this definition here. So, for me, that´s frequent enough.

But let´s for simplicity´s sake assume it was only one person, and it happened only once.
What´s your point?
We could even assume that it never happened and that I am only addressing a hypothetical line of reasoning based on a hypothetical definition.
What´s your point?

If this is not the definition based on which you want to discuss, then the OP wasn´t meant for you.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

What´s your point?

If this is not the definition based on which you want to discuss, then the OP wasn´t meant for you.

My point is that I am aware of no proponent of the moral argument who uses the definition you have supplied and I am familiar with its history as an argument for the existence of God. I am also familiar with the work of those who are proponents of the argument.

None of them maintain that objective moral values and duties are "independent of human perception".

 

[quatona]

My point is that I am aware of no proponent of the moral argument who uses the definition you have supplied and I am familiar with its history as an argument for the existence of God. I am also familiar with the work of those who are proponents of the argument.

None of them maintain that objective moral values and duties are "independent of human perception".

So I guess the ones who proposed it here are a fringe minority in the history of philosophy. Do you think I should simply ignore their argument?

 

[quatona]

I do assert that everyone behaves as though such objective standards exist.

Please clarify:
What about a behavior makes you conclude that the person behaves as though such objective aesthetic standards exist?
How would a person have to behave in order for you to accept that they behave as though such objective aesthetic standards don´t exist?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

So I guess the ones who proposed it here are a fringe minority in the history of philosophy. Do you think I should simply ignore their argument?

I think you should quote properly and accurately the definition people here have given for "objective" as is used in the moral argument.

 

[quatona]

I think you should quote properly and accurately the definition people here have given for "objective" as is used in the moral argument.

Ok, since you seem to know that I have quoted them improperly, you may want to correct me and provide the accurate wording they used.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Ok, since you seem to know that I have quoted them improperly, you may want to correct me and provide the accurate wording they used.

Since you are the one claiming that the definition supplied in the OP is one that is frequently used, you should be able to supply quotes from people here who have used that definition.

All I am asking for you to do is give support to the claim you are making and shifting the burden over to me is not giving support to the claim you made in the OP.

If you cannot supply quotes from people here who have used that particular definition, I think it only appropriate to actually quote what they have written instead of something they have not.

That is fair is it not?

You would not want someone to misrepresent you would you, intentionally or unintentionally?

 

[quatona]

Since you are the one claiming that the definition supplied in the OP is one that is frequently used, you should be able to supply quotes from people here who have used that definition.

I have told you before: If you don´t think that my claim was accurate, that´s fine with me.

All I am asking for you to do is give support to the claim you are making and shifting the burden over to me is not giving support to the claim you made in the OP.

Well, the way I have presented the question it is not dependent on how many people made that claim or who they are.
So I don´t think I have any burden of that kind, in the first place.
Plus, I didn´t put a burdon on you. I told you how you could help.
If you don´t want to discuss based on this definition, be my guest. If you think this definition has never been given, you could still discuss hypothetically or leave it.

Those persons who have come up with this definition (and to whom this thread is directed) know who they are. You are not one of them.

You would not want someone to misrepresent you would you, intentionally or unintentionally?

No, and I don´t want to misrepresent anyone intentionally or unintentionally, either.