Do you have a coherent ideology?

[Mise]

EDIT: Actually I don't know what I'm saying. I'll get back to you

 

[Borachio]

Is the sky blue for a blind person?

Actually, I think I'll bow out of this conversation.

Incoherence is something of a speciality of mine.

I honestly don't see how a phenomenon can be divorced from its observer. It's a failing I have.

 

[Global Skeptic]

BTW here is another set of definitions:

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.


The bolded are the meanings that I have been using. Clearly Global Skeptic is using other definitions.

a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
That you love your mother is an emotions and thus not objective according to the definitions provided by you, but rather if subjective is depend on emotions or personal prejudices, then it is a subjective fact.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, if you use that particular meaning, and ignore the other, alternative meanings of the word. As I said, you clearly mean something different to me when you say "objective". My contention is that my love for my mother is something that actually exists, in reality.

I think El Mac was right

 

[El_Machinae]

The wavelengths coming downwards from the sky are objective. The color blue is subjective.

"Murder is wrong" IS a truism, so you'd unpack the word murder. I mean, clearly not all killings are wrong. Some killings are. The killings we think are wrong, we call murder. It's not even a legal/illegal divide. I mean, "abortion is murder" makes sense colloquially, even in regions where it's legal. It's not a meaningless statement, even if you disagree. "Apples are bitter" also makes sense, even if you don't agree. Bitterness also being subjective, see?

Where as, "circles are round" is also a truism. Calling something circular, say a tree stump, is subjective. It depends on how anal you're being with your definition of "circular". But, it's objectively true that a tree stump is more circular than a Prius is. Sure, circular is subjective, but it can still lead to objective statements.

 

[Angst]

Ideology is poisonous.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Okay, I will try something.

Using all of the above definitions try to explain in as many words as possible if "Objectivity is better than subjectivity" is objective or subjective? Concentrate on word better and use the example of "The sky is blue" and "I love my mother". I.e. is there a kind of wavelength for better or does it depend on how you think/feel?

 

[Tahuti]

Ideology is poisonous.

Ideology is soap. When you try hard enough to picture ideology as soap, it turns into soap. Or a horse.

 

[Borachio]

Okay, I will try something.

Using all of the above definitions try to explain in as many words as possible if "Objectivity is better than subjectivity" is objective or subjective? Concentrate on word better and use the example of "The sky is blue" and "I love my mother". I.e. is there a kind of wavelength for better or does it depend on how you think/feel?

I love my sky-blue mother best.

There!

 

[Global Skeptic]

I love my sky-blue mother best.

There!

 

[brennan]

If the fate of humanity rested on you murdering one completely innocent person. Would that one murder be wrong?

 

[Borachio]

Yes. Why not?

That comes down to a choice between two evils doesn't it?

 

[Global Skeptic]

If the fate of humanity rested on you murdering one completely innocent person. Would that one murder be wrong?

Can you answer that yourself without thinking/feeling about it?

 

[kochman]

Yes. Why not?

That comes down to a choice between two evils doesn't it?

Yep. Didn't think that was to hard to figure out either.
Some confusion about the idea of "wrong" and "justified".

 

[El_Machinae]

If the fate of humanity rested on you murdering one completely innocent person. Would that one murder be wrong?

Will he come back to life in 3 days?

 

[madviking]

If the fate of humanity rested on you murdering one completely innocent person. Would that one murder be wrong?

no because numbers shouldn't matter for morality.

 

[Global Skeptic]

no because numbers shouldn't matter for morality.

How do you know that?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think it's useful to distinguish between 'social fact' and 'brute fact', where a social fact is something intersubjectively constructed in some way (such as 'murder is wrong'), rather than necessarily being an objectively existing phenomenon.

This.

I am fine with the believe that there are more or less universal - shall we say "moral instincts" to the human condition. And if we then understand moral "facts" as social facts I am fine with saying there are objective moral facts.

And said I am also fine with the idea that there is an objectively most useful moral code out there. Let's say it is waiting to be discovered, also fine with that. Let's call that moral truth.

But what is the thing about this fact or that truth - they are not innate. They don't stand for themselves. They both just represent an idea.

That the sky is blue is - so at least the assumption if we accept our picture of reality as more or less accurate - is an innate fact because the sensation is innate. It exist in itself. I see it. It is a brute fact of my subjective reality. It is real.
But the social fact of morality requires us to label emotions/instincts/social dynamics with artificial constructs. It is an abstraction. Hence not actually in itself real.
It is similar with moral truth. A construct. An abstraction.

Morality is as real as say Germany is real. It may be tied to innate realities, but in itself it is just fiction. Hence not objectively existent.

We can decide to embrace such a fiction. And often we do one way or another. Or we can not.

 

[Borachio]

How do you know that?

How does anyone know anything?

But to attempt an answer: I think Mr Viking correctly identifies that numbers don't enter into assessing morality, because morality at least tries to attain the absolute, and the absolute is either correct or it isn't. One good action cannot be said to be better than another good action. It's either a good action or a bad action.

Now, I don't know whether this is so or not. It may be always true, sometimes true or never true. You take your pick, and find a shovel to go with it.

 

[El_Machinae]

That the sky is blue is - so at least the assumption if we accept our picture of reality as more or less accurate - is an innate fact because the sensation is innate. It exist in itself. I see it. It is a brute fact of my subjective reality. It is real.

Ah, see that's where I am at too. This is why I asked 'what is the point of morality'.

To me, morality affects too many things that are true sensations: thriving, sapience, horror, pain, gladness, pleasure, etc. They're as real as blue is.