dshimel

bd-from-kg,
Your Pythagorean Theorem argument got me a big step of the way to understanding what some people see as objective truth. It applies to any triangle shaped object as well as any idea of a triangle.

And, there is still where the problem of objective morality. While it is possible to create a triangle shaped object, it is not possible to create a moral shaped object.

For something to be objectivly true, it must be able to be based upon an objects. In geometry, we can draw the shapes. They can exist outside of the mind. Everyone can measure the objects and come up with the same answer. We can all see a right triangle. We can all measure the temperature change of an exothermic reaction.

Something that can't be represented as an object, can't be objective. Something that can only exist within the mind, is subjective. Ought is, by definition, a value judgement, and can't be thought into existance. Morality is subjective.

Darrell

bd-from-kg

dshimel:

What do you mean, what some people see as objective truth?

Look, the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal (in area) to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. There are infinitely many primes. The square root of two is not a rational number. Surely you don’t dispute that all of these statements are true? And surely you don’t dispute that they’re true always and everywhere, regardless of what anyone thinks or believes? Well then, they are objective truths. That’s what it means for something to be an objective truth.

Perhaps what you mean by saying that morality is not objective is that it isn’t objective according to some quirky, idiosyncratic definition of your own, fine. But in that case, why do you expect anyone else be interested? You might just as well announce that you’ve made the amazing discovery that there are no waterfalls in Australia, and then explain that what you mean by a “waterfall” involves water that moves in a direction that would be called “down” in Manitoba.

Where did you get that idea? For example, consider the proposition “For something to be objectively true, it must be able to be based upon an object.” Is this objectively true? If so, what object is it based on? If not, what do you mean by asserting it?

Every one of these statements is false. The “objects” dealt with in geometry “exist” only in the mind. You couldn’t draw an actual triangle to save your life; the best you can do is to create a 3-D object that kinda, sorta suggests a triangle. Since you can’t draw a triangle, you certainly can’t measure one or see one. If you want to say that geometric “objects” don’t “really” exist at all, I have no problem with that. But the theorems of geometry (and mathematical theorems in general) are objectively true in any case.[/quote]

This is total nonsense. Look. If I roll an ordinary pair of dice it’s more likely to come up seven than eleven, but this fact cannot be represented by an object. The fact that my wife and I are married cannot be represented as an object. The fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light cannot be represented by an object. The fact that I’m justified in thinking that the sun will rise tomorrow cannot be represented by an object.

If all that you mean by saying that morality is not objective is that moral statements are in the same category as these statements, you’re saying nothing of interest. Everyone agrees that morality is not objective in this sense.

dshimel

Okay, maybe I just needed to switch from the abridged to the unabridged version of Mirriam-Webster.

I was getting a definition of:
of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff> -- compare SUBJECTIVE

Checking unabridged, it adds this definition:
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum.

So, clearly, when discussing morality as "objective truth" people must be referring to the second definition. There is the piece of the puzzle I was missing.

So, how does one propose we perceive moraliy without distortion?

For the other "objective truths" you mention such as Pythagorean Theorem, prime numbers, and rationality of numbers, it is possible to find objective examples to demonstrate the objective truth. We can make a triangle, and put a ruler up to it. We can attempt to divide 3 balls into 2 piles to see the piles won't be the same size. We can determine the square root of 5, then try forever to find two whole numbers that divid to that amount.

I still don't see how someone could create an objective example of determine what one ought to to in a given situation. There is no way to create an example given well defined objects. There will always have to be a value placed on the various possible outcomes.

AnthonyAdams45

Better still, get a dictionary of philosophy. I'm partial to Angeles', but Lacey's isn't bad, nor is Blackburn's. Many other good dictionaries are available. Keeps one's foot out of one's mouth.

bd-from-kg

dshimel:

Your latest post really doesn’t raise any interesting issues, because you’re still laboring under a very confused notion of what “objective” means, and in particular the notion that there is some important general relationship between objective truths and objects. I’ll deal with just one point, then move on.

How does one perceive anything without distortion? How do I perceive without distortion whether my wife is faithful to me? I don’t. Yet this is a simple question of fact: either it’s objectively true that she’s faithful or it’s objectively false. Here’s a harder one: how do I perceive without distortion who’s going to win the Super Bowl this year? I don’t. Yet it is either objectively true that the Buccaneers are going to win, or objectively true that the Raiders are going to win. Whether it’s possible (especially as a practical matter) for us to perceive whether something is true “without distortion” is not a good test of whether there is an objective “fact of the matter”.

Now let’s go back to your OP and see what you have to say about subjective morality.

Huh? This is the only other option? What about tronvillain’s “me first” morality? What about the morality that places the highest value on producing the maximum possible number of purple turtles? What about the view (championed by Mackie) that morality (at least as it is commonly understood) is bunk; that moral statements are intrinsically based on false premises about the nature of things, like statements about which virgin the volcano god would most like to have sacrificed to him this year? What about the view (very widely held) that moral statements, while meaningful in a sense, do not express propositions (i.e., noncognitive theories)?

Besides, your position seems inconsistent. If the only foundation for morality is the Golden Rule, it appears that you’ve discovered the objectively true morality after all.

Why is treating people the way they want to be treated ipso facto moral? Why is the goal of making this world the best possible place for humans superior to any other goal? In what sense is it superior? How do you know that making the world a better place is always compatible with treating people the way they want to be treated?

Ah, so you’re not claiming that anything you said above is true? That’s a very peculiar way to proceed. What if I wanted to know how to get to Cleveland and you said, “This road leads to Cleveland. But mind you, I’m not saying that that’s true”. Don’t you think I’d be a tad annoyed? Why are you wasting our time with statements that even you don’t regard as true? Why should we be interested in your “recommendations” in this matter, any more than you’d be interested in my recommendations about which TV shows to watch or what clothes to wear?

In what sense are you using the word “should” here? Do you mean that it would please you if we all did that? If so, why are we supposed to care about what would please you? Personally I’m a lot more interested in what would please me.

According to your moral code, that’s correct. But Jack here has a moral code that says that his highest duty is to force other people to act the way he wants them to. So (if I’m following you) it would be supremely moral for Jack to force his beliefs on you. (And by the way, what Jack believes is that you should devote your life to serving him.)

Now if morality is subjective – if what’s right is whatever one decides to call “right” – it seems to me that Jack’s morality has it all over yours. Why would anyone adopt a morality that puts all kinds of constraints on him when he can adopt Jack’s morality instead?