tk

Exactly. There's no point!

The fact that spoken languages tend to be ambiguous is why scientists and mathematicians use formal notations. And this is also why I advocate the use of formal notations in discourse about logic.

99Percent

Yes, but there comes a point where you must use ordinary language to communicate knowledge. You cannot rely on pure formal notations.

You obviously did not learn elementary math using pure logic since we are not computers or robots. A teacher at your school used ordinary language to convey the principles of mathematics of which you then understood on principle. From then on all logic can follow.

Likewise with objective morality.

dshimel

Okay, let's assume my problem with the whole "subjective" vs. "objective" is just ambiguity in definitions of the terms. In that case, I need a good solid, consistant definition of objective that allows ideas and opinions in.

I think it more likely that the real root of the problem is people trying to promote thier subjective ideas to the status of some universal objective truth.

Gurdur

*sigh*
Wrong.
I'll just re-state and expand.
Respond where wanted to the numbered points, please, to keep it focused.

1. Almost all forms of objective morality today suppose certain morals
   
2. They claim these are available to all rational humans
   
3. Many rational humans live by very different morals
   
4. Explain the contradiction between prediction and reality,
   without rhetorically trying to claim that humans living by different morals than those posited by objective moralities are somehow irrational.

tk

There are ongoing attempts to create formal languages for day-to-day discourse, such as the Lojban project.

While it's true that I learnt math and logic using natural language, but I also see many people having great difficulties learning the same things. Many folks still can't grasp the whole "formal semantics" idea: when a formal system is presented before them, they get all confused and make a huge mess.

The problem is aggravated in the issue of "objective morality", because in the field of philosophy, there aren't any established rules for checking whether an argument is bogus or not. In science, if you get the wrong idea, the machine will break down.

Will the above problems be solved with the use of an artificial logical language? I don't know, but I conjecture that a large part of these problems will vanish. It'll be interesting to find out, in any case.

99Percent

This is not a point for argument. Any morality objective or subjective suppose certain morals.
No. There is a clear distiction between theistic objective morality that is supposedly dictated from God, and applies to everyone whether you are have faith or not, and rational objective morality where it is assumed that any rational being can understand themThat rational humans sometimes commit immoral acts by moments of irrationality (say by murdering someone) doesn't mean that they are rational all the time and therefore perfectly moral beings in the rational objective sense.
Again, not irrational all the time. People live imperfect lives. In fact the belief in God is completely irrational, yet many rational people still believe in it.

And many people are naturally moral in the objective sense without intentionally being rational about it. That does not mean that people must be rational in order to act morally. For example lots of people don't murder because of their personal beliefs or they find it subjectively repugnant.

Gurdur

You've misssed the point completely.
Subjective moralities do not presuppose any specific morals.
Let's take an example of an objective morality --- Objectivism.

Objectivism states,
"A is moral, while B is immoral".
Objectivism states, "A is a moral in all rational humans",
However, many humans live by B instead, and rationally think it quite moral.
Explain the contradiction between Objectivism's claim and what actually happens in reality.

Let's really get this point settled before we move onto the others, shall we ?

I'll give you some options, tell me which one you think is correct:

1. There are no such things as fixed morals.
   Both moral A and moral B are justifiable rationally even though they are contradictory to each other.
   
2. Only moral A is an actual moral, and it is in all rational humans.
   Explain then why many humans live by moral B instead.

tk

(99Percent continues to avoid the strong arguments against Randism... well I guess some people need to be scammed really hard before they realized what they were getting themselves into.)

OK, I don't get this junk about being "perfectly rational" and "perfectly irrational".

Have you ever seen someone saying that such and such a proof of a mathematical theorem is "almost" correct? Likely not. Why? Because in order for a theorem to go through, every step of the proof must be correct. Just one mistake is all that's needed to make the whole proof fall apart.

So it is with logic. There's no such thing as an "almost" logical argument. Any argument which contains logical flaws is illogical, period. So what if a person is rational "most of the time"? A single slip of the mind, and he'll get exactly the wrong idea about how the world works.

99Percent

tk, you keep on confusing terms. In the philosophical sense, rational does not mean logical. Reason is not science.

99Percent

Incorrect. Objectivism states that "A is moral, while not A is immoral".
Simply those who live moral B are doing so because of their own subjective interpretation. But those who live by moral not A are indeed being immoral.
Agreed.

1. moral B must be equal to not moral A for it to be contradictory, yes.
   Quote:

   Only moral A is an actual moral, and it is in all rational humans. Explain then why many humans live by moral B instead.

If moral B is indeed objectively immoral then they are living immoral lives.

Anyway, concrete real life examples would be useful I think.