Objective standards

[quatona]

Would you assert that the statement "this piece of music is beautiful" is necessarily (implicitly) appealing to an objective aesthetic standard?
Would you therefore assert that everyone behaves as though objective aesthetic standards exist?
Would you therefore conclude that objective aesthetic standards must and do exist?

(Of course, this question is primarily for those who argue that way when it comes to moral statements.)

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".

 

[Elioenai26]

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

No.

Would you therefore assert that everyone behaves as though objective aesthetic standards exist?
Would you therefore conclude that objective aesthetic standards must and do exist?

No.

 

[quatona]

No.
No.

Thanks!
So why do you think this very line of reasoning is sound when it comes to moral statements but not when it comes to aesthetic statements?

 

[Elioenai26]

Thanks!
So why do you think this very line of reasoning is sound when it comes to moral statements but not when it comes to aesthetic statements?

I believe moral statements are categorically different than aesthetic statements.

Any argument against that will have premises less obvious than the objectivity of moral values and duties themselves.

And that is not something a Christian has said, I am actually referencing something an atheist said. So do not accuse me of appealing to God and arguing in a circle.

 

[discipulus]

aesthetic jusdgemnts and moral judgments are diffent i think because everyone treats em different in their lives.

if i say beethobven is good and listen to beethoven because i think it is good, no one is going to see that as being worthy of punishment.

if i say raping children is good and rape children cause i think it is good, people are going to see that as being worthy of punishment.

so that is one way they are different.

 

[quatona]

I believe moral statements are categorically different than aesthetic statements.

Well, "I believe" is not really a particularly strong argument when it comes to defending the validity of an entire line of reasoning, eh?

Any argument against that will have premises less obvious than the objectivity of moral values and duties themselves.

I´m not sure I understand this sentence. Care to explain?

If the validity of a line of reasoning depends on certain premises I think those premises should be presented.

And that is not something a Christian has said, I am actually referencing something an atheist said. So do not accuse me of appealing to God and arguing in a circle.

Why so pre-emptively defensive?

 

[Gadarene]

Are they objectively different?

LOLZORS

 

[quatona]

aesthetic jusdgemnts and moral judgments are diffent i think because everyone treats em different in their lives.

if i say beethobven is good and listen to beethoven because i think it is good, no one is going to see that as being worthy of punishment.

if i say raping children is good and rape children cause i think it is good, people are going to see that as being worthy of punishment.

so that is one way they are different.

Yes, I am aware that there are differences between the two.

The main difference is that morality is concerned with human interaction and therefore with something that affects us incomparably stronger than music.

Another difference is that most people feel that there need to be regulations for human interactions, for obvious pragmatic reasons.

What I am looking for, though, is a compelling reason that and how exactly one of those differences justifies the notion that the argument is sound in one case but not in the other.
Furthermore, I would expect an argument for the existence of something that´s allegedly objective ("independent of human perception") not to rely so heavily on "how everyone treats them".

Besides, and as a minor point: Neither is it true that everyone wants morality be enforced by punishment, nor is it true that noone has ever considered listening to certain music punishmentworthy.

 

[juvenissun]

Would you assert that the statement "this piece of music is beautiful" is necessarily (implicitly) appealing to an objective aesthetic standard?
Would you therefore assert that everyone behaves as though objective aesthetic standards exist?
Would you therefore conclude that objective aesthetic standards must and do exist?

(Of course, this question is primarily for those who argue that way when it comes to moral statements.)

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".

They exist in a statistical sense.
In other words, they do not really exist. They are actually reflections of some other properties.

 

[quatona]

They exist in a statistical sense.
In other words, they do not really exist. They are actually reflections of some other properties.

Thanks for your response. Could you expand on that a bit? I would like to know what those other properties are (and what it is that they are properties of) and what reflects them?

Additional question (because the difference is what I am actually trying to find out): Would you describe moral statements in the same way?

 

[discipulus]

Yes, I am aware that there are differences between the two.

The main difference is that morality is concerned with human interaction and therefore with something that affects us incomparably stronger than music.

Another difference is that most people feel that there need to be regulations for human interactions, for obvious pragmatic reasons.

What I am looking for, though, is a compelling reason that and how exactly one of those differences justifies the notion that the argument is sound in one case but not in the other.
Furthermore, I would expect an argument for the existence of something that´s allegedly objective ("independent of human perception") not to rely so heavily on "how everyone treats them".

Besides, and as a minor point: Neither is it true that everyone wants morality be enforced by punishment, nor is it true that noone has ever considered listening to certain music punishmentworthy.

if ethical subjectivism is so self-evidently correct then you should not have a problem showing us why it is.

Can you do that with a syllogism?

 

[quatona]

if ethical subjectivism is so self-evidently correct then you should not have a problem showing us why it is.

Can you do that with a syllogism?

Not with a syllogism, but I hope I can help you anyway (even though this is not the topic of this thread, and even though nowhere in my post did I claim that the existence of subjective moralities is self-evident, and even though it is not pertinent to the current discussion):

Maybe you remember me saying something in another thread? I am pretty sure I have never said that "subjectivism is self-evidently correct" but rather that "subjective moralities exist demonstrably".

We experience that different people hold contradicting moral views. Even if we - for the sake of the argument - assume that there is an objective morality and that one of those views is congruent with this objective morality, the other view is still the subjective view of the person holding it.
So, subjective moral views do exist. The question is: Is there - beyond subjective moralities - an objective morality?
The same question applies to aesthetic valuations.

So now that I have answered your unrelated question, can we get back to the topic of this thread?
I would appreciate it if you´d address the points in the post you quoted instead of ignoring everything in it and instead challenging me on a point I hadn´t even made. Thank you.

 

[discipulus]

Not with a syllogism, but I hope I can help you anyway (even though this is not the topic of this thread, and even though nowhere in my post did I claim that the existence of subjective moralities is self-evident, and even though it is not pertinent to the current discussion):

We experience that different people hold contradicting moral views. Even if we - for the sake of the argument - assume that there is an objective morality and that one of those views is congruent with this objective morality, the other view is still the subjective view of the person holding it.
So, subjective moral views do exist. The question is: Is there - beyond subjective moralities - an objective morality?
The same question applies to aesthetic valuations.

So now that I have answered your unrelated question, can we get back to the topic of this thread?
I would appreciate it if you´d address the points in the post you quoted instead of ignoring everything in it and instead challenging me on a point I hadn´t even made. Thank you.

why do you think most philosophers are moral realists?

 

[quatona]

why do you think most philosophers are moral realists?

I don´t know how to answer this question, other than by "because that´s their opinion". Since it isn´t in any way pertinent for the topic of the thread why there´s a majority for whatever view, I again kindly ask you to let go off the red herrings and strawmen, and instead stay on topic and help answering my question. Thank you.

 

[discipulus]

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

i would think the above was someone's opinion not a fact. so no.

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

hmmm....... no

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

no

and i think only in academic philosophical settings are questoins like this even entertained.

if people dont belive objective moral values and duties exist, they sure dont live as if they dont believe they exist. they live as if they do bleieve they exist

 

[quatona]

i would think the above was someone's opinion not a fact. so no.




hmmm....... no




no

and i think only in academic philosophical settings are questoins like this even entertained.

if people dont belive objective moral values and duties exist, they sure dont live as if they dont believe they exist. they live as if they do bleieve they exist

Thank you.
I am not sure why you go back to answering the very first questions you had already answered when we were already way further in the discussion?

You left the actual discussion in favour of asking some unrelated questions after you had told me that the significant difference between aesthetic and moral judgements that necessitates us to assume that the line of reasoning in question is not valid for the former but valid for the latter.
I responded to this hypothesis of yours, giving a few objections and doubts. I would appreciate if we could continue from there.

In addition to the objections I gave there, I would like to add some examples that help demonstrating that your distinguishing hypothesis is demonstrably wrong:
We do enforce speed limits by way of punishment. Would you say that speed limits are objective?
We do punish driving on the left side (in other countries on the right side). Would you say that there is an objectively correct side to drive on - and if so, which is it? Which countries have it right, and which have it wrong?

My point being: Our quest for punishment does not point to our idea that there are objective values in these matters (as opposed to those which we don´t punish), it rather points to the fact that these matters deal with pragmatic necessities and urgencies (which aesthetic values usually don´t).

 

[discipulus]

Thank you.
I am not sure why you go back to answering the very first questions you had already answered when we were already way further in the discussion?

You left the actual discussion in favour of asking some unrelated questions after you had told me that the significant difference between aesthetic and moral judgements that necessitates us to assume that the line of reasoning in question is not valid for the former but valid for the latter.
I responded to this hypothesis of yours, giving a few objections and doubts. I would appreciate if we could continue from there.

In addition to the objections I gave there, I would like to add some examples that help demonstrating that your distinguishing hypothesis is demonstrably wrong:
We do enforce speed limits by way of punishment. Would you say that speed limits are objective?
We do punish driving on the left side (in other countries on the right side). Would you say that there is an objectively correct side to drive on - and if so, which is it? Which countries have it right, and which have it wrong?

My point being: Our quest for punishment does not point to our idea that there are objective values in these matters (as opposed to those which we don´t punish), it rather points to the fact that these matters deal with pragmatic necessities and urgencies (which aesthetic values usually don´t).

im not going to argue with you about whether there are moral values and duties that are objectively grounded because I believe it is self-evident that propositions like "torturing people for fun is wrong" is true in the same sense that "the earth is round" is true.

to me both are facts about reality because they correspond to an actual state of affairs namely, that torturing people for fun is actually wrong and that the world is actually round.

some people may disagree that the earth is round......ok.....that still does not change the fact that there is actually a shape that the earth corresponds to in reality.

some people may disagree that torturing people for fun is wrong......ok......that still does not change the fact that torturing people for fun is an act that is wrong.

if you need to have an argument given to you or some type of proof that torturing people for fun is wrong even if people think it is right then something is wrong with your ability to correctly make moral judgments.

 

[quatona]

im not going to argue with you about whether there are moral values and duties that are objectively grounded because I believe it is self-evident that propositions like "torturing people for fun is wrong" is true in the same sense that "the earth is round" is true.

I am delighted to hear that you aren´t going to argue with me about something I didn´t intend to argue about and which is not the thread topic.
I would be even more delighted if you´d be willing to contemplate on the question I asked and the issue I raised.

 

[juvenissun]

Thanks for your response. Could you expand on that a bit? I would like to know what those other properties are (and what it is that they are properties of) and what reflects them?

Additional question (because the difference is what I am actually trying to find out): Would you describe moral statements in the same way?

What you called the "objective aesthetic standard" can simply be called the "human nature". It is observed on all humans, not only among atheists. But any such standard only exists on a statistical basis. For example, being true to 50% or 90% of people. There are ALWAYS exceptions and they are always arguable. In that sense, such kind of "standard" really does not exist.

Example: "most people hate killing", because we are human, not animal. But some psychos simply like to kill, and terrorists always intend to kill.

 

[quatona]

What you called the "objective aesthetic standard" can simply be called the "human nature". It is observed on all humans, not only among atheists. But any such standard only exists on a statistical basis. For example, being true to 50% or 90% of people. There are ALWAYS exceptions and they are always arguable. In that sense, such kind of "standard" really does not exist.

Example: "most people hate killing", because we are human, not animal. But some psychos simply like to kill, and terrorists always intend to kill.

I think I get what you are saying:
There is an objectively (measurable) distribution of subjectively held standards?
Or do I misunderstand you here?