Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

[Angra Mainyu]

I have no idea what distinction you're trying draw here. Even more baffling is why this is so important to you.

The distinction should be very clear. You may well not be able to tell what agent A exactly proposes as a definition of 'O', but you can still tell that agent A's definition is not the same as yours if - say - by your definition, Fs are not Os, but by A's definition - as applied and explained by A -, Fs are Os. It is important because you said

How on earth can what I mean by 'objective' bear on my ability to know what RS precisely means by 'objective'?

which ridicules my views and arguments by grossly mischaracterizing them. Again, I never claimed that you were in a position to know what RS precisely means by 'objective'. I never even made an either-or argument with that. I meant what I said and explained in detail by now.

As I tried to explain before, this makes no logical sense.

As I explained carefully, it does, and further, it is true.

My ability to tell that my definition of objective does not comport with anyone else's definition cannot possibly be contingent upon your understanding of my definition.

Of course it is not. I do not understand why you fail to understand my point. It is detailed - painfully detailed. Here is a summary, but the painfully detailed explanation is of course better:

1. On the basis of an understanding of your proposed definition and ruby sparks's proposed definition based on what was written by you and by him in this thread, I reckon they are very different from each other.
2. If I did not seriously misunderstand your definition, then you too can, on the basis of what was written in this thread, make that assessment (unless you are not sufficiently intelligent, but I rule that out as the assessment in 1. was very, very easy to make).

This can't be what you mean. But I'm at a loss as to what could possibly mean.

Of course that is not what I mean. But I'm at a loss as to how you can be at a loss about what I mean. Are you reading my posts for at least, say, 5 minutes?
I explained this in detail in this post and this post, the latter being more detailed - really, I dedicate so much time to give every step in the argument, and you still won't dedicate 5 minutes to see it's obviously correct? I doubt you'd need more than that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I can easily tell that the two of you do not mean the same, or even something similar...

To me it seems clear they are at least similar.

Why would you call them similar?

They differ on the key issue, namely whether an assessment can fail to be objective even if the truth of an assessment cannot depend on the person making the assessment (in her capacity as assessor).

And I am also totally confused as to what your point is about it in any case.

I am both trying to elucidate what your definition of 'objective' is, and trying to get you to change your definition because it is not useful in this context (which I know due to some of its consequences, even if I do not know all of the details about that definition). I am also trying to persuade you and The AntiChris that you two have very different definitions. That is important for the sake of clarity in the conversation, to reduce miscommunication.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra, a more fruitful direction might be to explore how much we (you and I and anyone else who participates here) agree, on for instance, the existence of natural (biological/psychological/evolved) moral behaviours, 'rules' and norms. It may be that there certain things we will never agree on, so it might be interesting to try setting those aside, for a change if nothing else, and focus on agreement where possible. Common ground in other words. We would be covering much of what B20 previously said, and on which I agree with him, and with you too.

But I do not see that as very fruitful in this context I'm afraid. Without a clarification of the concept and your claims, there is not much room for a productive discussion. So, I'm trying - also for the sake of readers of course.

 

[The AntiChris]

As I tried to explain before, this makes no logical sense.

As I explained carefully, it does, and further, it is true.

But you're wrong and you repeat your error:

2. If I did not seriously misunderstand your definition, then you too can, on the basis of what was written in this thread, make that assessment,

This is a conditional statement of the form "if-then".

The "then" clause (emboldened above) does not logically follow from the "if" clause. It is based on an assumption on your part dependent on information (about my abilities and knowledge) that you do not have.

Earlier I said:

Even more baffling is why this is so important to you.

I'm still baffled.

For some reason you seem intent upon getting me to make an assessment I'm not prepared to make - I really do not understand RS's views sufficiently well to make the kind of judgement you want me to make. For reasons known only to yourself, you do not accept this.

This is all quite bizarre.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The "then" clause (emboldened above) does not logically follow from the "if" clause. It is based on an assumption on your part dependent on information (about my abilities and knowledge) that you do not have.

No, it is based on an assessment. It's extremely obvious to me, and furthermore, I gave the step-by-step explanation, so I reckon an average level of reading comprehension suffices (with perhaps a small effort), and you do have more than that.

For some reason you seem intent upon getting me to make an assessment I'm not prepared to make - I really do not understand RS's views sufficiently well to make the kind of judgement you want me to make. For reasons known only to yourself, you do not accept this.

The reasons have been explained in detail in my posts.

 

[The AntiChris]

For some reason you seem intent upon getting me to make an assessment I'm not prepared to make - I really do not understand RS's views sufficiently well to make the kind of judgement you want me to make. For reasons known only to yourself, you do not accept this.

The reasons have been explained in detail in my posts.

Are you saying you have reason to not accept my sincere claim that I do not have sufficient information to make the assessment you're asking for?

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

 

[ruby sparks]

But I do not see that as very fruitful in this context I'm afraid.

That's a bit short-sighted, imo.

Without a clarification of the concept and your claims, there is not much room for a productive discussion.

It seems to be obtusely pedantic sophistry and semantics to me, and I think it's actually preventing productive discussion.

 

[ruby sparks]

They differ on the key issue, namely whether an assessment can fail to be objective even if the truth of an assessment cannot depend on the person making the assessment (in her capacity as assessor).

Do they indeed. How do you even know that?

Angra, I would say they are broadly very similar. AntiChris agrees. Furthermore, it is a not uncommon meaning and usage of the term. This is getting silly.

Imo the best route to at least getting as close as possible to understanding what 'moral facts' might be is down the biology/evolution route, and that is why I suggest we go down that route instead of this cul-de-sac. It may be that we will find 'facts' (more likely they will be non-universal rules or norms imo) that can be said to be objective by some meaning of the word. Personally, I don't think we will, not because there necessarily aren't such facts but because the matter is probably so incredibly complicated that we as humans can't reliably know or name any of them or more importantly how they pertain to or interact or conflict with each other in any particular situation. As B20 said, they may be irreducibly (for us) complex, or have so many exceptions that they are, effectively, relative. For example, I suggested in an earlier post, that no one has yet replied to, that moral judgements are relative to situationally-activated emotions (which are a subset of thoughts and/or feelings). And since emotions =/= moral judgements* (even if they are related phenomena) it seems to me that that is the case, in other words that this is a good case for saying morality is relativistic.






* I believe =/= means 'not equal to' but I am not sure.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

For some reason you seem intent upon getting me to make an assessment I'm not prepared to make - I really do not understand RS's views sufficiently well to make the kind of judgement you want me to make. For reasons known only to yourself, you do not accept this.

The reasons have been explained in detail in my posts.

Are you saying you have reason to not accept my sincere claim that I do not have sufficient information to make the assessment you're asking for?

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

No, I am saying that you are very probably mistaken, and you have not taken a sufficiently close look, but dismissed my points (sincerely) without realizing they were correct.
Now, if the available information - which is far more than enough to make the assessment I am explaining to you in detail - really is not enough to allow you to make that assessment, then you are much less intelligent than I thought you were. But I consider this very, very improbable - again, using information only available to you (as it is in the thread - it is very, very easy for me to make that assessment, for the reasons I have explained in great detail.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That's a bit short-sighted, imo.

It is not. I have talked to you for quite some time, in this thread and others.

It seems to be obtusely pedantic sophistry and semantics to me, and I think it's actually preventing productive discussion.

See, for example? B20's "beyond exasperating" remains apt.

Do they indeed. How do you even know that?

Yes, unless I vastly misunderstood what The AntiChris proposes as a definition. However, if I did that, I will say that the definition provided by The AntiChris is also not at all useful in this context, and certainly is not what either B20 or I mean by 'objective', or what English speakers who aren't doing philosophy mean when they say there is an objective fact of the matter about something.

Angra, I would say they are broadly very similar. AntiChris agrees. Furthermore, it is a not uncommon meaning and usage of the term. This is getting silly.

No, it is a very uncommon meaning in ordinary English. It's not uncommon in philosophy, I grant you that, because there are several common meanings of 'objective' and 'mind-independent' in use in philosophy. But in any event, at least realize that you do not even understand what B20 or I mean when we say that morality is objective, if you use a definition like that.

As B20 said, they may be irreducibly (for us) complex, or have so many exceptions that they are, effectively, relative.

B20 did not suggest that they are relative, and that is not the sense of 'relative' that matters here. It's not about 'exceptions', but rather, about complex, detailed rules. It's what you'd expect from evolution. But that's not at all a problem for objective morality.

For example, I suggested in an earlier post, that no one has yet replied to, that moral judgements are relative to situationally-activated emotions (which are a subset of thoughts and/or feelings).

What does that mean? What does it mean to say 'moral judgments' are relative to such-and-such? Are you saying that whether they are true depends on whether the person making them has such-and-such feelings? If not, then what is it? Is it that people who have such-and-such feelings are more inclined to make them? If so, then what of it?

 

[The AntiChris]

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

No, I am saying that you are very probably mistaken,

Let me remind you of what you say I'm mistaken about:

I'm reasonably happy with the idea that, in my view, 'objective' means independent of anyone's subjective opinions, attitudes or feelings. I'm in no position to comment on whether this precisely comports with your notion of objectivity.

My statement here (in bold) is a value assessment based on what, in my personal view, I believe I'd need to be aware of in order to confidently know if my view of objectivity comports precisely with ruby sparks' view. This is not something I can be mistaken about - it's my value judgement.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Let me remind you of what you say I'm mistaken about:

I'm reasonably happy with the idea that, in my view, 'objective' means independent of anyone's subjective opinions, attitudes or feelings. I'm in no position to comment on whether this precisely comports with your notion of objectivity.

My statement here (in bold) is a value assessment based on what, in my personal view, I believe I'd need to be aware of in order to confidently know if my view of objectivity comports precisely with ruby sparks' view. This is not something I can be mistaken about - it's my value judgement.

First, of course you can be mistaken about that. It may very well you have sufficient information to make that assessment, but you have not realized that yet because you have not followed my very clear, step-by-step painfully obvious arguments. For that matter, a mathematician or engineer can very well believe he has insufficient information to solve a problem and be mistaken about that - and later solve the problem. So, sure you can be mistaken about that. And it happens much more often in daily life.

Second, I actually did not claim that you were mistaken about that.

Rather, the assessment I want you to make is that either you are in a position, using information available on this thread, to realize that your definition of objectivity does not comport at all (not even close) to that proposed by ruby spark, or I have seriously misunderstood your position. I already explained, in detail, how your definition and ruby sparks's definition differ greatly.

I also explained how I interpret your view, given what you said in your posts. But if that is the difficulty, here goes again:

I understand your position as holding that moral assessments are mind-independent if whether a moral assessment is true does not depend on the feelings, evaluative attitudes, etc., of the agent(s) making said assessments, in her capacity as assessor. In particular, this includes cases in which the truth of the assessments about M depend on the evaluative attitudes, feelings, etc. of the person whose behavior is being assessed.

Now, surely you can tell whether the above is a really mistaken interpretation of your own definition, right? It's your own definition. So, if that is a very incorrect understanding of your definition, then you are in a position to tell that, and then you are in a position to know that either your definition and ruby sparks's are very different, or else I seriously misunderstood your definition.

On the other hand, if the above is a correct interpretation of your definition, then - unless you are far less intelligent than I'm pretty sure you are -, you are in a position to tell that your definition and ruby sparks's are very different, and thus that either your definition and ruby sparks's are very different, or else I seriously misunderstood your definition. This is not to say that you will realize that you're in a position to tell that - and just by dedicating like 5 minutes to read my posts (actually, less than a minute should suffice as it should be obvious, but let's say 5 minutes). Maybe you just don't think my posts are worth reading and/or are just inclined to never recognize a significant error in a hostile debate like these usually are. But regardless, that does not mean you are not in a position to make that assessment (it does not have to be right now; I'm saying you could do it in a few minutes if you were to actually read my posts with the determination to understand them - rather than dismiss them as incomprehensible without trying).

 

[The AntiChris]

First, of course you can be mistaken about that.....

This is bordering on the manic obsessive.

Can you please explain to me why it's so desperately important to you to know if my views are precisely the same as RS's?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, of course you can be mistaken about that.....

This is bordering on the manic obsessive.

Can you please explain to me why it's so desperately important to you to know if my views are precisely the same as RS's?

Manic obsessive? While you keep dodging the obvious questions, no matter how many times I make them? After repeatedly accusing me, and saying things like

Outside the rarefied heights of academic debate, the term 'mind independent' is commonly used to describe objective moral facts and is typically understood to mean independent of how we as individuals happen to think or feel.

as a way of saying I should intepret ruby sparks's definition like yours (which of course would have gone against his own posts), and now you keep ignoring the fact that his defition is vastly different from yours, unless I badly misunderstood yours - which you keep refusing to say.

This is just...what I could expect from you in any debate. So, again, I have several reasons to show repeatedly the differences between your definition (as stated and explained by you) and ruby sparks's definition (as stated and explained by them), such as:

1. Try to see whether I can get you and/or he to clarify what you/he mean/s so that it is possible to have a serious discussion.

2. Try to get ruby sparks to change the definition he proposes.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, it is a very uncommon meaning in ordinary English. It's not uncommon in philosophy, I grant you that, because there are several common meanings of 'objective' and 'mind-independent' in use in philosophy.

I don't know how you know how uncommon it is in ordinary English. If it is uncommon in everyday English, then fine, hooray for ordinary English, but I am still using it. And I consider yours a weaker version. If you disagree with that, then also fine.

 

[ruby sparks]

B20 did not suggest that they are relative, and that is not the sense of 'relative' that matters here. It's not about 'exceptions', but rather, about complex, detailed rules. It's what you'd expect from evolution.

Ok perhaps I understood B20 wrong, or perhaps I feel, optimistically, that he would agree with me about morality being relative in the way I suggested. I think I only cited B20 because you keep referring back to him, and I actually wish you would stop, because he's not taking part at the moment.

But yes, complex, detailed rules are what we would expect from evolution.

Are you saying that whether they are true depends on whether the person making them has such-and-such feelings?

One thing I am saying is that they are not objectively true.

Is it that people who have such-and-such feelings are more inclined to make them?

I would not like to say which affects which. It might work either way. My guess would be that the two things interact.

If so, then what of it?

If it's true then morality is relativistic.

What's frustrating here is that there is room for much more agreement, between all parties who have participated in this discussion, but you seem quite determined to focus on disagreement.

I think, if we moved on, you keeping your version of objective and me keeping mine, we might agree on a lot of other things about morality.

 

[The AntiChris]

I understand your position as holding that moral assessments are mind-independent if whether a moral assessment is true does not depend on the feelings, evaluative attitudes, etc., of the agent(s) making said assessments, in her capacity as assessor. In particular, this includes cases in which the truth of the assessments about M depend on the evaluative attitudes, feelings, etc. of the person whose behavior is being assessed

This appears to be in line with my view (this is assuming what you say here is intended to represent what I agreed with B20 in post #300). I have no idea if it comports precisely with RS's view.

Given this, you are perfectly capable of determining if it comports precisely with your understanding of RS's view.

And I'm still no wiser as to why you've been badgering me so relentlessly over this.

 

[ruby sparks]

...moral assessments are mind-independent if whether a moral assessment is true does not depend on the evaluative attitudes, feelings, etc., of the agent(s) making said assessments, in her capacity as assessor. In particular, this includes cases in which the truth of the [moral] assessments..... depend on the evaluative attitudes, feelings, etc. of the person whose behavior is being assessed

The first part (in blue) implies that the truth does not depend on evaluative attitudes (etc), but the second (in red) implies that the truth does depend on evaluative attitudes (etc).

In the first case, it's the evaluative attitudes (etc) of the assessor (not the actor) in the second case, it's the evaluative attitudes (etc) of the actor.

But it makes no difference. Because the given definition (of mind-independent objectivity) is essentially "does not depend on evaluative attitudes (etc)".

Examples:

1. Cancer. Whether or not someone has cancer is not dependent on evaluative attitudes (etc).
2. Moral judgements. These depend on evaluative attitudes (etc).

 

[The AntiChris]

...moral assessments are mind-independent if whether a moral assessment is true does not depend on the evaluative attitudes, feelings, etc., of the agent(s) making said assessments, in her capacity as assessor. In particular, this includes cases in which the truth of the [moral] assessments..... depend on the evaluative attitudes, feelings, etc. of the person whose behavior is being assessed

The first part (in blue) implies that the truth does not depend on evaluative attitudes (etc), but the second (in red) implies that the truth does depend on evaluative attitudes (etc).

In the first case, it's the evaluative attitudes (etc) of the assessor (not the actor) in the second case, it's the evaluative attitudes (etc) of the actor.

But it makes no difference.

But it does.

If evaluative attitudes (call them brain states) objectively exist, then objectively true/false statements can be made about them.

Here's B20's example: The claim that "It is morally acceptable to to mercy kill a cancer patient if the patient wants to be killed" can be an objective claim because the patient isn't the assessor. The point being that if the assessor deems it morally acceptable because she does not want the patient to suffer then it's not objective. However if the assessor believes the acceptability is a 'moral fact' (i.e. it's morally acceptable regardless of anyone's concerns for the patient) then it's an objective claim and in my view untrue (I don't believe moral facts exist).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, it is a very uncommon meaning in ordinary English. It's not uncommon in philosophy, I grant you that, because there are several common meanings of 'objective' and 'mind-independent' in use in philosophy.

I don't know how you know how uncommon it is in ordinary English. If it is uncommon in everyday English, then fine, hooray for ordinary English, but I am still using it. And I consider yours a weaker version. If you disagree with that, then also fine.

"Weaker" in what sense?