James is wrong

Logic is the foundation of mathematics and so by definition has to be true. Also were
it falsifiable then it could not be true so presumably you meant potentially falsifiable

In order for morality to be truly objective it would have to be so for all moral issues not just some
Because even if there is universal agreement on all of them except one then morality is subjective

And that’s just not true of logic. People make false logical statements constantly shown through premises and conclusions. The area you are trying to articulate is sound and unsound.

My point being: if everyone agreed that morality wasn’t objective, they are making a universally applied subjective statement that solves in that special case as being objective - true beyond opinions of subjective beings or even the existence of subjective beings.

(Read my last post as well)

An argument can be unsound but valid within the context of the argument where there is logical
consistency between the premises and the conclusion but the argument itself is not actually true

That is a bit woolly though I know what you mean. If everyone agrees on something it is a universally
objective statement by default and so cannot be subjective because there is no difference of opinion

No, theyd be making expressing their opinion and this would not make morals real or unreal. It would be a universally held opinion. Whether it was right or wrong would not be demonstrated, proven or remotely indicated.

  1. you still haven’t responded to my earlier post. 2) Unicorns can’t gallop does not demonstrate there are unicorns. 3) It could be what the speaker considers an apriori truth, one directly apprehended, not based on deduction or induction. 4) It could be a guess based on what the person feels. There need not be a line of reasoning. It is a statement. I could be a premise in a longer argument or a conclusion in one. But given that we do not have one, it is merely an assertion, grounded on what we do not know.

And, of course, again, even if the speaker is a hypocrite and has put that statement in an argument, ihe fact that someone made this statement does not mean there is logic, it merely means that this person is not noticing he or she is contradicting him or herself, or does not care or cannot understand that.

It might work in a discussion with that person, to show them they seem in fact to believe - if it was in an argument - but it does not prove anything objectively. It would only prove something about that person’s beliefs.

But again, you keep not responding to the earlier post. This must be why I had you on ‘foe’ before. You simply restate your position, announce that you have proven it and do not interact with objections. I will leave you to other interlocutors.

So if everyone agrees the world is flat, it is, or in this case was flat?

It is an objective statement that they believe it, if they do, but that doesn’t make it correct.

And in the context of the existence of objective morals, do you really think everyone actually believes in them?

Though, of course, if they did, it would mean they exist.

Unless we are merely saying that the belief exists.

I will not contest the belief that if everyone believes there are objective morals, then the BELIEF in objective morals exists.

I know everyone does not think morality is objective because I myself am a moral relativist like many atheists are
And so therefore not only is the concept of objective morality a fallacious one it is also not a universal one either

What I was stating was that morality is objective as in in the case of statements like “there is no such thing as logic” or “logic is false”. It doesn’t matter if everyone believes it, they would be wrong, in this same way objective morality exists. I was not stating that complete agreement makes something true, that would make logic subjective.

The soundness is another issue entirely.

Every statement that can be comprehended requires logic to exist. You need logic to make the statement “logic is false”

Likewise, the statement “there is no morality”, requires a determination of good and bad, such that if everyone agreed with it, they’d all be wrong as does any statement put forth, an amoralist is like an animal with electrodes wired to the happiness center of the brain, it doesn’t do anything and just dies of dehydration. An amoralist has no reason to do something - by definition. They are objectively wrong.

Yes, these definitions appear to be in sync with the manner in which those who use the English language understand the meaning of those words.

But where James often feared to thread [in my view] was in incorporating these definitions out in the world of actual human interactions.

What effect/affect embedded in what context producing what changes?

We all can be in agreement that when, for example, the Trump administration scrapped the Iran deal, it effectively produced any number of changes around the globe.

And we can note these changes as events unfold in one or another nation. They either do or do not in fact happen.

But what has also effectively/affectively unfolded are the reactions to these changes. Political reactions in particular.

How, using RM/AO, would these be assessed as either the right or the wrong way to react precipitating behaviors that either are or are not judged to be reasonable and/or virtuous?

Yes, but what does physics and/or RM/AO know of the fate of “I” once the body is dead and gone? All the way back to [as some say] “star stuff”?

Somehow James intertwined this in what he called The Real God: ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = “The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is”.

So: How on earth might he have integrated “I” into this?

Consider: if James has died and his own body is now on that sojourn back to star stuff, what of his own “I”? Here and now for example.

That is what I often nudged him in the direction of exploring. But, to the extent that I could ever understand him, he never really went there with RM/AO. Either because he would not or he could not.

I don’t for a minute think he is dead, I feel it in my still alive bones.

Maybe. But consider the following:

James S. Saint:

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:05 pm
Last visited: Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:16 am
Total posts: 25,976 (2.34% of all posts / 8.82 posts per day)

Death is certainly one possibility to explain his absense.

Statements pertaining to logic are only true or false and so have nothing to do with morality
there is no such thing as logic or logic is false are therefore logic statements not moral ones
So conflating logic with morality even by use of simple analogy is confusing and unnecessary

And also you appear to be confusing amorality with moral relativism
I am not amoral since that would mean I did not think morality exists
As a moral relativist I do think it exists but I do not think it is absolute

Physics and chemistry and biology can only reference the body from a scientific perspective
The notion of I is a philosophical one and so it is beyond the remit of science to investigate

And yet, to the best of my recollection, James tied it altogether in RM/AO and The Real God. His very own “theory of everything”.

Either his own “I” is still beyond the reach of science or science itself is subsumed in the optimal or the only rational philosophical perspective.

So, of those here who still embrace [or think they understand] his arguments, I ask, “What of his ‘I’ here and now”?

How would they go about demonstrating to the rest of us that James was not wrong?

We might be in agreement here, but I am not sure what you are trying to say above. I agree that people’s opinion that morality does not exist does not make it not exist. Nor does it make objective morality exist.

I say ‘There is no objective morality.’
You argue that since I am saying this I must be trying to be good in saying this.
This might, as I have said, at best mean that I am a hypocrite. Look, you are trying to do good Karpel, so you believe morals exist.
But my believing does not mean that morals exist. You have said you proved that morals exist based on the implicit belief in objective morals inherent in statements like ‘Objective morals do not exist’. That argument does not hold.

Likewise, the statement "there is no morality", requires a determination of good and bad, such that if everyone agreed with it, they'd all be wrong as does any statement put forth, an amoralist is like an animal with electrodes wired to the happiness center of the brain, it doesn't do anything and just dies of dehydration. An amoralist has no reason to do something - by definition. They are objectively wrong. This analogy between morality and logic does not hold. You can see above how you equivocate around right and wrong (fitting the facts, not fitting the facts) and morality (is good is bad).

Further you just simply refuse to deal with counterexamples. You repeat your position. You will not or cannot deal with specific points made by other people. Repeating your position, rather than interacting with counterarguments gets us nowhere. It’s not honorable discussion form, it’s even against forum rules and it wastes people time. It also comes off as if you cannot find a way to deal with the counterarguments. That may or may not be true, but perhaps that will motivate you in the future to actually interact with people who raise points of criticism.

There have already been counterarguments to this. All sorts of animals do things are yet are not moral creatures. There are all sorts of non-moral motivations in humans also. I gave specific examples earlier about how this arises in humans, and you chose not to respond or rebut these examples. It’s just poor form.

Karpel, you only need have a meta discussion of the counters…

A subjectivist takes a very objective stance…

Everyone is right.

Objective. Unilateral. Inarguable.

However, if the subjectivist says "some people are more right than others.

That differentiation leads also to an objectivist stance.

Thus, the subjectivist has no argument.