What are "rights"?

[Nous]

That something is subjective does not mean that the holder of a subjective view does not believe it objective.

Say what? How does "the holder of a subjective view" on something believe that it is objective?

 

[Curious George]

Say what? How does "the holder of a subjective view" on something believe that it is objective?

Really, you have never met anyone that believes that it is objectively wrong to blaspheme some god or another? Are you going to try to assert that because they believe it to be objectively true that it is no longer subjectively true?

 

[Nous]

Really, you have never met anyone that believes that it is objectively wrong to blaspheme some god or another? Are you going to try to assert that because they believe it to be objectively true that it is no longer subjectively true?

No, I do not assert that. But you said that you think I am somehow "misunderstanding subjective here"--not the views of people who are moral realists. What the forms of moral anti-realism assert is that there are no objective moral facts.

 

[Curious George]

No, I do not assert that. But you said that you think I am somehow "misunderstanding subjective here"--not the views of people who are moral realists. What the forms of moral anti-realism assert is that there are no objective moral facts.

Yes. I claimed that you were misunderstanding subjective because you asserted that the civil war could not have been started if only subjective morality existed. That is wrong for the reasons I have put forth. There was a mistake in your reasoning. Nothing more, nothing less. I also pointed to a mistake in the reasoning of the person to whom you were arguing against.

If you would like me to better explain the mistake, I can do that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you are misunderstanding objectivity here. That something is objectively true does not entail all people will know it. Consequently, disagreement about truth does not contradict objective truth.

Objectively, we evolved to be pro-social animals. However, there is nothing that makes the interpretation of morality objective. It's more like language, in this regard, in that there is no objective way to communicate, and it changes as society changes.

I'll just point out again: People disagree on the interpretation of quantum theory. That doesn't mean that there is no objective fact about it. Let me know if you grasp that at some point.

Things such as rights and morality emerge from emotional/philosophical considerations. Science, however, is based on testable hypothesis as it explains the natural world. We can measure the effects of slavery on a society, and base our positions on such measurements, but there is still ultimately nothing that makes slavery inherently good or bad. And, indeed, slavery has been morally acceptable throughout most of our history, and only we began to consider the subject of morality and rights in a different light did we begin to consider slavery as bad.

 

[Curious George]

However, there is nothing that makes the interpretation of morality objective. It's more like language, in this regard, in that there is no objective way to communicate, and it changes as society changes.

You are welcome to this opinion. It does not change your error in reasoning regarding my previous post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are welcome to this opinion. It does not change your error in reasoning regarding my previous post.

There is no error: It cannot be objectively proven that slavery is good or bad.

 

[Curious George]

There is no error: It cannot be objectively proven that slavery is good or bad.

Yet that is not what you said.
You said:
"If that were objective, then both sides would have agreed from the start and not only would slavery have come to an end upon America's sovereignty, it never would have existed in the first place."

That does not follow. You were in error.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet that is not what you said.
You said:
"If that were objective, then both sides would have agreed from the start and not only would slavery have come to an end upon America's sovereignty, it never would have existed in the first place."

That does not follow. You were in error.

What are the objectively true premises for morality?

 

[Curious George]

What are the objectively true premises for morality?

Do not confuse my correction of fallacy with an argument for the existence or non-existence of an objective morality.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do not confuse my correction of fallacy with an argument for the existence or non-existence of an objective morality.

Her argument wasn't fallacious, but I'd have phrased it differently.
If we had objectively valid premises, there would've been wider
agreement on this. It's why there's no real argument against
the laws of thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. That just
cannot be said of morals, where there is wide disagreement.

 

[Curious George]

Her argument wasn't fallacious, but I'd have phrased it differently.
If we had objectively valid premises, there would've been wider
agreement on this. It's why there's no real argument against
the laws of thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. That just
cannot be said of morals, where there is wide disagreement.

LOL, are you shifting the argument a little and then saying the original argument wasn't fallacious?

Either way we are left with the assertion that x could not have happened if objective morality does not exist.

Nothing in objective morality entails that knowledge of such a morality exists. Consider the atom. We can argue that objectively atoms exist. We can also argue that there was not "wider agreement" on the existence of atoms for the majority human history. Why is that? How is the argument not fallacious?

It says: if x exists then we will see y. Whether that is wide agreement or complete agreement doesn't matter. Neither conclusion follows logically.

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL, are you shifting the argument a little and then saying the original argument wasn't fallacious?

I don't think I'm shifting it.
Are you deflecting from the issue of objectively factual premises?

Either way we are left with the assertion that x could not have happened if objective morality does not exist.

I think you're taking common speech, & parsing it for logical precision, thereby missing her point.

Nothing in objective morality entails that knowledge of such a morality exists. Consider the atom. We can argue that objectively atoms exist. We can also argue that there was not "wider agreement" on the existence of atoms for the majority human history. Why is that? How is the argument not fallacious?

It says: if x exists then we will see y. Whether that is wide agreement or complete agreement doesn't matter. Neither conclusion follows logically.

This isn't clear.

 

[Nous]

Yes. I claimed that you were misunderstanding subjective because you asserted that the civil war could not have been started if only subjective morality existed.

Here is what I actually said (#74):

. . . if there were no objective moral facts, there would not have been a Civil War, because there would not have been a rational reason for to engage in such a war.​

If you claim that there is something erroneous about my statement, then just give the rational reason for engaging in the Civil War if it were true that there is nothing objectively wrong about slavery.

I don't believe that I have misunderstood something about moral anti-realism or those espousing some form of moral anti-realism. You haven't pointed out any such error in my understanding or any logical error I've committed.

 

[Nous]

Things such as rights and morality emerge from emotional/philosophical considerations.

I feel sure that everyone here is aware of what you believe. Is the best you can do just state and re-state your beliefs ad nauseam? You cannot deduce your beliefs on meta-ethics from any fact. Right? Your beliefs have not been tested as a hypothesis using the scientific method and shown to be true. Correct?

And you still haven't been able to articulate a rational reason for engaging in the Civil War if it were true that there is nothing immoral about slavery. Right?

 

[Nous]

If we had objectively valid premises, there would've been wider
agreement on this.

So, the fact that there is wide disagreement on the interpretation of quantum theory means that there is no objective fact about it?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, the fact that there is wide disagreement on the interpretation of quantum theory means that there is no objective fact about it?

What a strange post.

 

[Nous]

What a strange post.

I merely applied your "reasoning" to the fact of the wide disagreement on the interpretation of quantum theory.

As I already noted several times on the this thread, the "disagreement argument" is not an argument against moral realism or for any form of moral anti-realism. Such "disagreement argument" was disposed of in the ethics literature long ago. The fact that people disagree about something does not mean that there is no objective fact about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I merely applied your "reasoning" to the fact of the wide disagreement on the interpretation of quantum theory.

As I already noted several times on the this thread, the "disagreement argument" is not an argument against moral realism or for any form of moral anti-realism. Such "disagreement argument" was disposed of in the ethics literature long ago. The fact that people disagree about something does not mean that there is no objective fact about it.

I think this misses my point.

 

[Curious George]

I don't think I'm shifting it.
Are you deflecting from the issue of objectively factual premises?

Nope, I have not claimed such premises do or do not exist. I have only claimed an argument was fallacious.

I think you're taking common speech, & parsing it for logical precision, thereby missing her point.

OR I am taking a fallacious argument and pointing out the fallacy. First you claimed it wasn't fallacious, now you claim that it was fallacious but it was okay because it wasn't meant to be logical in the first place?

This isn't clear.

What isn't clear. There is an example of a supposed objective fact that was not considered an objective fact for many many years. There was no agreement, total or widespread. Yet there is the fact. The idea that if something is objectively true it is or would be known is simply incorrect.