Yes yes I know the difference between law and morality, but you get my point. Killing someone with in a certain context (ripping babies heads off for fun) isn’t inherently bad, or inherently anything other than what it is.
Yes.
No, that still doesn’t follow. For the third time now, it’s possible that one of them is mistaken.
The classic ‘is’-‘ought’ question is about how a statement containing an ‘ought’ can be deduced from a statement containing an ‘is’. It has nothing to do with the metaphysical question you seem to be posing. And the moral objectivist isn’t committed to any particular view about whether or how an ‘ought’ can be deduced from an ‘is’.
Well, yes. And this perfectly consistent with what the objectivist would say: that the act is an act of killing (the ‘is’) and is bad in virtue of this (the ‘ought’). The idea isn’t that the property of being-an-act-of-killing and the property of being-bad are somehow muddled together. Rather, it’s that one and the same act has both properties. There’s nothing problematic about this.
That’s right. But for the third (fourth? fifth?) time now, what I’m disputing is your claim that value can’t be objective. It may be more rational to believe the simpler of two theories (I don’t know), but it doesn’t follow that the other one can’t be correct.
You have forced me to refine my argument, good work. Here’s the slightly improved version.
The value is not something other than her eyes, it’s her eyes. Your not gonna hear them say, well it’s not her eyes that’re beautiful, it’s the beautiful with her eyes, or around her eyes that’re beautiful. Since value can’t inherently be something it’s not (eyes in this case), they must be describing how they’re reacting to her eyes. It’s the only logical alternative.
It is problematic, because then it wouldn’t strictly be the murder that’s bad, but the bad that’s bad. You never hear people say, well I don’t mind murder per say, it’s the bad associated with murder I don’t like. You do hear people say, well it’s not the wall that’s red, it’s the red on the wall that’s red. Well, at least that’s what I gather from talking to thousands of people over the years.
If the bad is something other than murder, than the bad just happens to be associated with murder, it could just as easily been associated with triangle or dogness. That’s just an observation mind you, not necessarily a problem for non natural objectivist. Perhaps there’s a reason why bad keeps accompanying similar physical acts and objects, I delve into that a little in the latter part of part 3. I suggest you take a look at it, it’s pretty far out there.
Although objective value might be theoretically possible, it seems counter intuitive and not what you’d expect from talking to people.
Could our feelings, positive or negative, be based on external things the way our sensory perception might be based on external things. I suppose they could theoretically, so my initial assertion seems wrong. However, I think I have shown the concept of ethical intuitionism is itself counter intuitive.
I’m not sure if this is a problem for objectivists, but here it is.
How could an object, be it natural or non natural, be an ought. Only a subject is capalbe of oughting, that is, telling you not to do something. How could an is be telling you not to do something, or be inherently good.
What does it mean to be inherently good, Inherently valuable, inherently likeable? Only a subject can like something, an object being inherently likeable seems absurd. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I feel I’m getting close to something. It’s up to subjects to decide whether they like something or not. How can an object decide for you?
The word ‘value’ is ambiguous in a way that many words are ambiguous: it can refer to either the thing that’s valuable (sense 1) or its valuableness (sense 2). The quotation above is perfectly true if you’re using ‘value’ in sense 1.
You’re misrepresenting objectivism again. Objectivism would agree that it’s her eyes that are beautiful, or, in other words, that the value (sense 1) has value (sense 2).
How do you come to that conclusion? Objectivism explicitly states that it’s the action that’s bad. It doesn’t state that it’s the action’s badness that’s bad. I can’t see where you’re getting that from.
I strongly recommend you look up the essays ‘Moral Realism’ and ‘Supervenience Revisited’ by Simon Blackburn. He’s on your side. He doesn’t show that objectivism is impossible, but he does pose a challenge to objectivists to make it plausible (which is where I think you should be happy to limit your own challenge).
You’re begging the question against the objectivist in reading ‘ought’ statements as ‘telling you not to do something’. He would reject this reduction.
‘Likeable’ means ‘worth of being liked’. Yes, only a subject can like something, but the objectivist needn’t deny this.
Moore’s Claim can’t be proven to be an objective truth, because objetive truths are one; of the objective, physical world, and two; universal and absolute. Moore’s theory isn’t of the objective, physical world, so in that sense of the word his theory is not objective. In the other sense of the word, his theory can’t be proven to be objective or unobjective. Moore can’t prove his non physical qualities exist, nor can he prove that the non physical qualities he values are valued by all who are allegedly aware of them. His non physical qualities might be externally existent, and they might be valued by all, or they might not be externally existent, or they might not be valued by all. Therefore, I cannot confirm nor deny his theory. His claim is theoretically possible, but unverifiable.
I’ll be sure to check out Blackburn when I get a chance.
Splendid, so you’re withdrawing your claim that values can’t be objective?
Incidentally, intuitionists wouldn’t agree that claims about objective values are unverifiable. They’d say they’re verifiable (or, more likely, confirmable, which is a weaker claim) by intuition. We’ve been through this already.
Are you dropping this line of argument?
Yes, I am, you’ve convinced me.
Is is Charle’s Manson who’s mistaken, or is it Nancy Grace who’s mistaken. How do they know? They may claim they intuitively know that Charle’s Manson is misktaken, Charle’s Manson may claim that he intuitively knows they’re mistaken.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s the non natural property of rape they find abhorent, not the rape itself. This shows what extraordinary lenghts some will go to keep the theory of objectivism on life support. This seems counter intuitive because like I said, I think it’s the rape people find bad, dislikable, not the non natural property of rape. Perhaps the rapists vision is distored, perhaps not, I’ll never know. I think most rapists know exactly what they’re doing.
There is something inherently illogical about the sentence; horses are cats, unless you’re a radical wholist. There’s nothing inherently illogical about the sentence; rape is good, likable. There’s nothing inherently illogical about the sentence; rape is bad, unlikable. The only way to verify these two claims, is to go out there and do some research. What you’ll find is that some people find rape good and some find rape bad. Are the ones who find rape good mistaken about rape in some way? I don’t think so. Are the ones who find rape bad mistaken about rape in some way? Again, I don’t think so. They’re both reacting to the same action in different ways. Unless the rapist is a child, an idiot, or a schizophrenic, he knows exactly what he’s doing. The sentence rape can’t inherently be good, likable, is illogical to me, because rape could be good, likable, just as swans could be black. The only way to know is to investigate. What we find, is that swans are not black, though we may find a black swan one day. What we find is that some people like rape, some people don’t. Is there a non natural property of rape the rapist would find bad, dislikable, if his intuition were working correctly? I highly doubt it, but it is theoretically possible.
In conclusion, I’m highly skeptical about Mr Moore’s theory, but it isn’t categorically impossible.
Sweet.
I can do no better than quote this from an earlier post: ‘[T]he problem for intuition is ultimately no worse than the problem for the physical senses. In the extreme case, if everyone disagreed at every point in the deliverances of their physical senses, there would be no way of resolving the differences between them.’
No, I’m afraid you’re still misrepresenting objectivism. The objectivist line is that when someone finds rape abhorrent, he finds it (‘the rape itself’) abhorrent because he judges that it has the objective property of badness. There’s nothing in my last sentence to suggest that it’s the objective property of badness that he finds abhorrent.
Manson knows the girl is suffering but has a perverse perception of what that means. Perverse because he doesn’t equate pain [mental or physical] as bad, yet our bodies are hardwired to let us know when something is destroying or harming it. The objectivity is in the wiring, though some people may enjoy pain, if enough harm is administered they will die, so if things are taken to their full extent those who recognise the meaning survive, those who don’t don’t survive. The true values can often be found by simply taking a thing to its logical conclusion, here by doing that we remove the adherent of the false perspective ~ literally. Is anything more objective than death as an end to a false belief system?
I was reffering specifically to G E Moores objectivism. It’s the non natural qualities of natural qualities we find good/bad according to Moore. At least that’s my interpretation of what he was saying.
Some people may inherently like death, although I haven’t met any yet. It’s not impossible, though they would be unable to pass on the gene that makes them that way, if genes do in fact make us who we are. Some people feel life and death are a means to an end, not ends in and of themsevles. Thus, we see that some poeple commit suicide when life becomes unpleasant, or unbearable. Some people endanger their lives for kicks (skydivers, bungee jumpers, mountain climbers, etc). Anyway, we all have to go to the grave sometime, it’s just a question of how we get there. If (and that’s a big if) our offspring live on, in a million years, our descendants might not even be human. They might be unrecognizable to us. So there is no perfect immortality in the flesh. So if our life is our ultimate goal, then we have already failed. There must be another goal, otherwise, life is meaningless. Hedonism for some. Spirituality for others. Love for some. Hate for others. Hate could be a motivation for living.
Oh I have, my missus is a goth lols.
What I meant is that if we take things to their logical ends, it usually if not always gives us a resolution to the problem. The way I see it is that morals don’t exist until the given situation arises, so it is all very much in the present rather than in a million years time ~ which is impossible to predict. The thrill of facing death is a lust for life [for skydivers etc], the survival is enthralling, …perhaps its similar for manson, the survivor reins supreme in their own ego’s. however there is a disconnection between survival - for all/others in manson’s mind, his philosophy would result in his own end if applied to himself, or to others if applied to them, yet the universal value [and thence perhaps the objective value] is survival [irrespective of the idea we will all die]. The failure to connect is maybe he didn’t have children [?] so it is an infantile basis, if he did have children of his own he by extension [of self] would wish them to survive, thus would appreciate the same value in others.
So
- Objective values can be gotten in the logical end result.
- Can be arrived at by the universal applications.
?
She claims she likes death, but put a knife to her throat, or your throat, and I bet she’ll come to her senses. Perhaps she’s in love with aspects of death; its mystery, its romance, its tranquility, the supernatural, or the death of her enemies, I don’t know, but I doubt she’s in love with all things death all the time. Anyway, my point was that life doesn’t have to be loved by all people, all the time, nor is it.
It usually is about the present and immediate future.
Interesting observation, I never thought of it like that.
That’s very Kantian. It is not illogical to say; Manson likes eating other people, Manson doesn’t like being eaten by other people. Here’s another objection. I want to be a banker, but if everyone was a banker, we’d all starve, so I shouldn’t be a banker. I don’t see why we have to; “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. In any case, Manson isn’t contradicting himself. He’s saying it’s ok to eat people except himself. If he were to say; eating people is good, that would be illogical, unless he wants to be eaten.
Exactly, manson has a universal he only applies to others and thus it is not a universal [though apparently you do get people who want to be eaten]. His only rule is what he wants and likes is the rule, like many criminals it’s a value only they adhere to and is somewhat infantile. His value system is not objective but the universal application value may be. Even with the guy who wants to be eaten if applied universally we would no longer exist.
Universal = Human, Particular = Manson. Yes, Manson is choosing for himself, not for all of humanity.
I wouldn’t use the word rule, I would say it’s a description of his values.
How is it somewhat infantile?
What do you mean by objective? Needless to say, I’ve been throwing that word around a lot lately, but I’ve come to realize that people define the word differently. What I mean by the word objective is; Absolutely True/False. Not true/false for most people, most of the time, but inherently true/false. A truth of reason (logic), as opposed to a truth of fact (experience). There is nothing absolutely false, or illogical about the statement; I like to eat other peoples children; or is there? I think you think there is. Please enlighten me.
Manson is not applying it universally. Why must (emphasis on must) we do things as a species as opposed to individuals? Does your wife listen to goth music because she thinks everyone should listen to goth music, or does she just like goth music?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like eating children, nor do I like most of the acts that are peculiar to sociopaths. But not because they’re illogical, but simply because I don’t like them. I normally don’t like hurting people.
From my experience, people use the word objective to mean, universal (in your case I think), absolute, physical, inherent. Words are indeed ambiguous, especially philosophical words.
Do you see logic in nature? Some believe that the human mind and thinking is all part of nature’s doing. The consequences of our thoughts and actions will not guide nature, imo. If we are not in harmony with it, nature may well kill off the present human species just to randomly create a new species. It’s hard to place logic in the scheme of nature.
I do see logic in nature. There is no contradiction in nature, but perhaps there is contradcition in our thought. A chair is not a walrus, nor can a chair be a walrus. A chair might have things in common with a walrus; both exist, both are made of organic compounds, both are visible to the naked eye, etc, but they’re not the same. Bits of one might be able to mix with other bits and transform into the other, but at least for the moment, they’re two different things.
Human beings may frustrate their desires by doing or valuing something in the present that might have repercussions in the future. Example: Cathy likes eating berries. Cathy doesn’t like being poisoned. Cathy ate poisonous berries. Unbeknownst to Cathy, she did something in the present that had severe consequences in the future. Had she known those berries were poisonous, she wouldn’t of ate them. So her contradicorty behaviour was the result of her ignorance, her behaviour wasn’t inherently contradictory. Our nature cannot be contradictory, just as nature cannot be contradictory. We cannot both like and dislike the exact same thing. We may like one aspect of a thing and despise another, but we cannot both like and dislike the same aspect of a thing. So yes, nature is logical, I think. What do you think? If a chair can be a walrus, then…
If by logic you mean telos, purpose, then I doubt it. There may be a purpose to my actions, there may be a purpose to your actions, but can inanimate things have a purpose? No, obviously not. Is there an animate thing steering the course of all inanimate things; maybe, it’s theoretically possible, but how can it be proven/disproven? The laws/guidelines of nature seem to run automatically without the continuous imput of the Gods. Did the Gods put the laws/guidelines in place, or were they always in place? No one can say they’re certain and be honest with themselves and others. To this day, there are many things in the universe that science can’t provide a mechanistic explanation for. Evolution might be one of them. The origin of life is another. Consciousness is one more. Did what we think of as the Gods create life here on earth? Do they continually redesign life (evolution)? Does man have a soul? If all of the above, then life has a purpose.
I think you’re mistaken, but I’m not too interested in exegesis. Suffice it to say that no objectivist is committed to that view.
It illogical if logic is to preserve life, or if you don’t want people to eat your children. If we don’t use that logic and people decided to eat each other it would cause great suffering and if applied universally would bring humanity to an end. Hence the universal application of either approach gives us the objective principle or rule.
You can do as you wish as an individual, given that its universal application doesn’t stop others from doing what they want [as above]. So e.g. if you want to listen to different music, or like different art to me etc, there is no problem.