YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8882
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:22 pm

Logical Celery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:54 pm
Also, this may be a very nooby 101 question, but I've read some threads this morning and some people are saying that morality is by definition objective/universal,
This is how it's used in discourse, otherwise people using reason to argue about morality doesn't make any sense.
Morality would only be subjective (or simply non-real) if it's impossible for it to be objective (impossible for something to fit that usage). E.g. if there is no possible non-arbitrary objective basis to look at.
Logical Celery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:54 pm
and that it is something close to the golden rule. I'm still a bit confused on how it's close to the golden rule, and I was wondering if somebody could clear that up for me and explain how that is the case?
The golden rule is about consideration of the interests of others.
Not do unto them AS they do unto you (reciprocity), or do unto them SO they will do unto you, but do unto them as you'd like to be done unto regardless of how they do or would do.

Keep in mind that it is self-correcting. Wikipedia's summary of response to criticism is good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ru ... criticisms
Walter Terence Stace, in The Concept of Morals (1937), wrote:
Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.[83]
Marcus George Singer observed that there are two importantly different ways of looking at the golden rule: as requiring (1) that you perform specific actions that you want others to do to you or (2) that you guide your behavior in the same general ways that you want others to.[84] Counter-examples to the golden rule typically are more forceful against the first than the second.

In his book on the golden rule, Jeffrey Wattles makes the similar observation that such objections typically arise while applying the golden rule in certain general ways (namely, ignoring differences in taste, in situation, and so forth). But if we apply the golden rule to our own method of using it, asking in effect if we would want other people to apply the golden rule in such ways, the answer would typically be no, since it is quite predictable that others' ignoring of such factors will lead to behavior which we object to. It follows that we should not do so ourselves—according to the golden rule. In this way, the golden rule may be self-correcting.[85] An article by Jouni Reinikainen develops this suggestion in greater detail.[86]

It is possible, then, that the golden rule can itself guide us in identifying which differences of situation are morally relevant. We would often want other people to ignore any prejudice against our race or nationality when deciding how to act towards us, but would also want them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, desire for aggressiveness, and so on. This principle of "doing unto others, wherever possible, as they would be done by..." has sometimes been termed the platinum rule.[87]
This is in essence consideration for interests of others, which is an objective and non-arbitrary basis.
Logical Celery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:54 pm
Also, I would appreciate if somebody pasted the definition of morality that is argued to be by definition objective/universal. Is it just the basic one from Google or something? I'd like to start of my future conversations with this basic route as a means to introduce new people to the general idea. I know this is like one of the basic semantic arguments. This is also the "sophistry" that Ask Yourself is referring to ^_^
You will find it hard to get comprehensive definitions from a dictionary, they're all pretty vague and broad with multiple cited definitions, e.g.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

The definition we're talking about refers to how it's used in practice, that is the semantic thesis. It's a question of what people mean when they talk about morality. When people engage in moral discourse in philosophy (aside from anthropologists talking about the "moral systems" of different cultures, which IS a different definition of morality) they're talking about an objective universal morality and trying to work out what it is.

Whether such a morality exists or can exist is beyond the semantic question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rea ... al_realism
The semantic thesis: The primary semantic role of moral predicates (such as "right" and "wrong") is to refer to moral properties (such as rightness and wrongness), so that moral statements (such as "honesty is good" and "slavery is unjust") purport to represent moral facts, and express propositions that are true or false (or approximately true, largely false, and so on).
You can be an irrealist and agree that most people think that morality is objective.

I don't believe in god, but I recognize that by definition most people consider 'god' to be a real being that thinks and acts in the world. Doesn't mean it IS one, of course.

Morality being defined as objective doesn't make it real; to be real, there has to be truth value to the purported claims.

Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Frank Quasar » Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:34 pm

@brimstoneSalad

If you have the time to read the relatively short reddit post below it might be somewhat of an interesting take from a Philosophy student. This is the guy who was on stream with Destiny, and he somehow found himself in a debate with Ask Yourself and AVI.

It's sad that the stream was not saved, because Rem (the guy who debated them, and made the reddit post below) called out Ask Yourself on his continuous conflation between several different philosophical terminologies and clumsily mixing different concepts together. Rem is a moral realist.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/commen ... tirealism/

This was REM's little argument against AY's axiomatic retort for the whole "shallow claim/deep claim".

who is also a fucking idiot
And I'm going on stream after this guy to show how Ask Yourself is an idiot
using the following argument
1. The Axiomatic Axiom: things are true only relative to axiomatic scheme
2. The Axiomatic Axiom is itself an axiom, so to what axiom is it true relative to?
3. This creates an infinite regress
C. Ask Yourself is dumb

Also, there's this little argument that he uses against AY's position in regards to the whole "nothing is true outside my axiomatic scheme"

Image

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8882
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:47 pm

@Frank Quasar Yes, that's a pretty common retort to certain claims of knowledge that knowledge is impossible.

Any way to invite him to the forum?

Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Frank Quasar » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:41 am

brimstoneSalad wrote: Yes, that's a pretty common retort to certain claims of knowledge that knowledge is impossible.

Any way to invite him to the forum?


He's a relatively busy guy, so I do not think he will join the forum, however, if you'd like to get in touch with him you can join his server and DM him. Rem is always happy to engage in discussion so you can speak to him there. His server is a philosophical oriented server.

Also, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts in regards to the "Partners In Crime" argument, sometimes also known as "Companions in Guilt" argument? Rem considers it to be one of the best knock-down arguments against moral-anti realism as he touches up on this in his Reddit summary post (cited earlier). People try to reject the presupposition that there exists correct epistemic concepts, but Rem debunks this objection via the screenshot earlier.

Do you consider it to be a good argument against moral anti-realism?

Strangely enough, JHC, AY and AVI touch up on this as well during their live stream from around 1:39:00 -- It's only like 1 minute and 30 seconds long, but they explain their reasons for why they reject this argument.

Apparently, they think a "should" is being slipped in, a value claim is being made in both contexts and they don't conclude it for both contexts. Feel free to watch that 1 minute and 30 second clip if you'd like, but it's pretty weird. To me it sounds like they already reject the "ought" notion for morality, no "objective" ought exists out there somewhere (lol), and this seems to be true for them in the epistemic context as well.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8882
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:04 pm

Frank Quasar wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:41 am
He's a relatively busy guy, so I do not think he will join the forum, however, if you'd like to get in touch with him you can join his server and DM him. Rem is always happy to engage in discussion so you can speak to him there. His server is a philosophical oriented server.
Thanks, can you get me an invite?
Frank Quasar wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:41 am
Also, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts in regards to the "Partners In Crime" argument, sometimes also known as "Companions in Guilt" argument? Rem considers it to be one of the best knock-down arguments against moral-anti realism as he touches up on this in his Reddit summary post (cited earlier). People try to reject the presupposition that there exists correct epistemic concepts, but Rem debunks this objection via the screenshot earlier.
It's a good argument if made well, and he seems to make it pretty clearly. [EDIT: Actually, no, he isn't making it very well, I will reply here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4146 ]
I often say that moral subjectivists are ultimately subjectivists about facts and logic too, when it comes down to it. And Isaac has proved to be.

The argument isn't useful to convince an opponent who is willing to throw out all knowledge and logic too, as Isaac is, but it may be beneficial to convince the audience that you're not dealing with a reasonable person when it's in a public debate.
Frank Quasar wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:41 am
To me it sounds like they already reject the "ought" notion for morality, no "objective" ought exists out there somewhere (lol), and this seems to be true for them in the epistemic context as well.
It's a shame they won't accept that a general "ought" is a question of binding force, which is beyond the scope of minimal realism.
Some believe it contains it, some do not.

You don't have to accept the truth content of ought claims to accept them for IS claims on morality.

Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Frank Quasar » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:28 pm

I just started a separate topic for this specifically, but thanks for your thoughts on it. And yeah, it's an extremely good argument for those whom do not throw out logic. Couldn't the epistemic error theory argument suffice well against people like AY, do you think?

Here's the link, the name of the server is "Scholar's Retreat" -- https://discord.gg/9d5YMps

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests