Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
But who would say that "moral judgement about X qualifies as an objective moral fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so"?ruby sparks said:If I've left something out there, it's either because I agree, or because I need to think about it a bit more. I admit I'm struggling with the issues around 'objectivity', and you've made some very good, interesting and challenging points, but at this time I'm still a bit inclined to stick with 'mind-independent' for now. Saying something like "moral judgement about X qualifies as an objective moral fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so" still feels like too big a hurdle, especially if the thing itself, X, is, in the end, non-moral by what I might call fully objective standards. And we can't say those sort of things about schizophrenia. We surely can't say either "the existence of schizophrenia qualifies as an objective physical fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so" or "schizophrenia is, in the end, non-physical, by fully objective standards".
Rather, the idea would be that that provides evidence, not that it is objective because of that.
But aside from that, since you sticl with 'mind-independent' for now, your paragraph translates as follows:
If I've left something out there, it's either because I agree, or because I need to think about it a bit more. I admit I'm struggling with the issues around 'objectivity', and you've made some very good, interesting and challenging points, but at this time I'm still a bit inclined to stick with 'mind-independent' for now. Saying something like "moral judgement about X qualifies as a mind-independent moral fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so" still feels like too big a hurdle, especially if the thing itself, X, is, in the end, non-moral by what I might call fully mind-independent standards. And we can't say those sort of things about schizophrenia. We surely can't say either "the existence of schizophrenia qualifies as a mind-independent physical fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so" or "schizophrenia is, in the end, non-physical, by fully mind-independent standards".
Even if you don't care about the usual meaning of the words for some reason, there is still a fact of the matter as to whether a person has schizophrenia, or is angry. Then why would there not be a fact of the matter as to whether a person is a bad person? After all, being non-objective in this particular sense of 'objective' is not relevant to the question of whether there is a fact of the matter.