It is merely a convention that we have adopted a language in which the term “astronomy” does not cover chemical facts.
I suppose that is true… but surely that doesn’t render the word meaningless? In the actual world where words mean the things they mean and not other things that they could have meant in a world with different linguistic convention “astronomy” still means something like “the study of celestial bodies”, right? Surely people asking for astronomical facts about airplanes, as if they were celestial bodies is a sign of confusion and ought to be gently corrected, no?
And, yet, these facts about language—these facts about the ways we define our terms—does not cause science to fall to its knees either.
Where in the world did you get the notion that I wanted science on its knees or that I thought it was? I’m as kinky as the next guy but I quite like science where it is. I’m completely bamboozled by this rhetoric. Do you take me for someone who believes God is required for morality or some other such nonsense? If so let me be clear: moral judgments are neither natural nor supernatura objectivel facts. They are the projection of an individuals preferences and emotions that people mistake for externally existing things, much as people mistake cuteness as an intrinsic property of babies when in fact it is simply the projection of our affinity for babies that makes them appear cute-to-us. That does not mean that there are not facts about moral judgments or that science is not on strong and worthy grounds when gathering such facts.
So, what are you talking about? Are you talking about morality, or are you talking about “morality”?
My chief concern in my initial comment to which you replied was getting everyone straight on what the meta-ethical terminology means. People enjoy freelancing with the meanings of words like “objective”, “subjective”, and “relative” and it creates a terrible mess when talking about metaethics because no one know what anyone else is talking about. I didn’t have any kind of straightforward factual disagreement with the original commenter, bracketing the fact that I was quite sure what their position was and if they in fact thought they had succeeded in solve a two-thousand old debate by discovering and objective foundation for morality when they had in fact just rediscovered moral subjectivism with some choice bits of ev-psych thrown in. Note that hankx7787, at least, does seem to think Sam Harris has found an objective and scientific foundation for morality, so it seems this blustering isn’t all semantics. Maybe words have meanings after all.
A person says, “X” is true of morality or of “moral judgments” in the public at large. This brings the talk of an objective morality to its knees. I answer that X is also true if science “or of “truth judgments” in the public at large. But it does not bring all talk of objectivity n science to its knees. Therefore, the original argument is invalid.
A case in point: whether somethis is moral depends on your definition of moral. But there is no objective way to determine the correct definition of “moral”. Therefore, there is no chance of an objective morality.
Well, whether Pluto is a planet depends on your definition of “planet”. There is no way todetermine an onjectively correct definition of “planet”. Yet, planetology remains a science.
Yes, many moral judgments are projections of an individual’s likes and dislikestreated as intrinsic properties. But, then, many of their perceptions and observations are theory-laden. This does not eliminate the possibility of objectivity in science. We simply incorporate these facts about our perceptions into our objective account.
The original post to which I responded did not provide a helpful definition. Defining “subjective” as “mind independent” denies the fact that minds are a part of the real world, and we can make objectively true and false claims about minds. Values may not exist without minds, but minds are real. They are a part of the world. And so are values.
Every “subjective” claim has an “objective” claim that says exactly the same thing.
A case in point: whether somethis is moral depends on your definition of moral. But there is no objective way to determine the correct definition of “moral”. Therefore, there is no chance of an objective morality.
Well, whether Pluto is a planet depends on your definition of “planet”. There is no way to determine an objectively correct definition of “planet”. Yet, planetology remains a science.
Of course I never made such an argument, so this rebuttal is rather odd.
Your point of course leads to the question: what does make science objective. I would argue for two candidates though some might say they are the same an I’m happy to here others. 1) Scientific theories make predictions about our future experiences, constraining them. When a scientific theory is wrong we have unexpected experiences which lead us to reject or revise that theory. 2) Science reveals the universe’s causal structure which gives us power to manipulate one variable which in turn alters another. If we are unable to do this as our theory expects we reject or revise that theory. The process leads to ever-more effective theories which, at their limit, model objective reality. This it seems to me is how science is objective, though again, I’m happy to hear other theories. Now. What are the predictions a moral theory makes? What experiments can I run to test it?
Whether or not Pluto is a planet might not have an “objective definition” (what ever that means) but it sure as heck has an objective trajectory through space that can be calculated with precision using Newtonian physics. You can specify a date and an astronomer can tell you Pluto’s position at that date. But there is no objective method for determining what a person should and should not do in an ethical dilemma.
Yes, many moral judgments are projections of an individual’s likes and dislikes treated as intrinsic properties.
No, my position is that all moral judgments are these kinds of projections. If there were ones that weren’t I wouldn’t be an anti-realist
But, then, many of their perceptions and observations are theory-laden. This does not eliminate the possibility of objectivity in science. We simply incorporate these facts about our perceptions into our objective account.
This is neither here nor there. Scientific observations are theory-laden and to some point under-determined by the evidence. But ethical theories are in no way constrained by any evidence of any kind.
Defining “subjective” as “mind independent” denies the fact that minds are a part of the real world,
You mean “objective” and no it doesn’t. It just denies that moral judgments are part of the world outside the mind.
and we can make objectively true and false claims about minds.
It does not deny that.
Values may not exist without minds, but minds are real. They are a part of the world. And so are values.
I agree that values exist, I just think they’re subjective.
Every “subjective” claim has an “objective” claim that says exactly the same thing.
You’re either using these words differently than I am or you’re totally wrong.
I’m just gonna leave the wikipedia entry on ethical subjectivism here and see if that clarifies things for anyone.
I suppose that is true… but surely that doesn’t render the word meaningless? In the actual world where words mean the things they mean and not other things that they could have meant in a world with different linguistic convention “astronomy” still means something like “the study of celestial bodies”, right? Surely people asking for astronomical facts about airplanes, as if they were celestial bodies is a sign of confusion and ought to be gently corrected, no?
Where in the world did you get the notion that I wanted science on its knees or that I thought it was? I’m as kinky as the next guy but I quite like science where it is. I’m completely bamboozled by this rhetoric. Do you take me for someone who believes God is required for morality or some other such nonsense? If so let me be clear: moral judgments are neither natural nor supernatura objectivel facts. They are the projection of an individuals preferences and emotions that people mistake for externally existing things, much as people mistake cuteness as an intrinsic property of babies when in fact it is simply the projection of our affinity for babies that makes them appear cute-to-us. That does not mean that there are not facts about moral judgments or that science is not on strong and worthy grounds when gathering such facts.
My chief concern in my initial comment to which you replied was getting everyone straight on what the meta-ethical terminology means. People enjoy freelancing with the meanings of words like “objective”, “subjective”, and “relative” and it creates a terrible mess when talking about metaethics because no one know what anyone else is talking about. I didn’t have any kind of straightforward factual disagreement with the original commenter, bracketing the fact that I was quite sure what their position was and if they in fact thought they had succeeded in solve a two-thousand old debate by discovering and objective foundation for morality when they had in fact just rediscovered moral subjectivism with some choice bits of ev-psych thrown in. Note that hankx7787, at least, does seem to think Sam Harris has found an objective and scientific foundation for morality, so it seems this blustering isn’t all semantics. Maybe words have meanings after all.
Here is the general form of my argument.
A person says, “X” is true of morality or of “moral judgments” in the public at large. This brings the talk of an objective morality to its knees. I answer that X is also true if science “or of “truth judgments” in the public at large. But it does not bring all talk of objectivity n science to its knees. Therefore, the original argument is invalid.
A case in point: whether somethis is moral depends on your definition of moral. But there is no objective way to determine the correct definition of “moral”. Therefore, there is no chance of an objective morality.
Well, whether Pluto is a planet depends on your definition of “planet”. There is no way todetermine an onjectively correct definition of “planet”. Yet, planetology remains a science.
Yes, many moral judgments are projections of an individual’s likes and dislikestreated as intrinsic properties. But, then, many of their perceptions and observations are theory-laden. This does not eliminate the possibility of objectivity in science. We simply incorporate these facts about our perceptions into our objective account.
The original post to which I responded did not provide a helpful definition. Defining “subjective” as “mind independent” denies the fact that minds are a part of the real world, and we can make objectively true and false claims about minds. Values may not exist without minds, but minds are real. They are a part of the world. And so are values.
Every “subjective” claim has an “objective” claim that says exactly the same thing.
Of course I never made such an argument, so this rebuttal is rather odd.
Your point of course leads to the question: what does make science objective. I would argue for two candidates though some might say they are the same an I’m happy to here others. 1) Scientific theories make predictions about our future experiences, constraining them. When a scientific theory is wrong we have unexpected experiences which lead us to reject or revise that theory. 2) Science reveals the universe’s causal structure which gives us power to manipulate one variable which in turn alters another. If we are unable to do this as our theory expects we reject or revise that theory. The process leads to ever-more effective theories which, at their limit, model objective reality. This it seems to me is how science is objective, though again, I’m happy to hear other theories. Now. What are the predictions a moral theory makes? What experiments can I run to test it?
Whether or not Pluto is a planet might not have an “objective definition” (what ever that means) but it sure as heck has an objective trajectory through space that can be calculated with precision using Newtonian physics. You can specify a date and an astronomer can tell you Pluto’s position at that date. But there is no objective method for determining what a person should and should not do in an ethical dilemma.
No, my position is that all moral judgments are these kinds of projections. If there were ones that weren’t I wouldn’t be an anti-realist
This is neither here nor there. Scientific observations are theory-laden and to some point under-determined by the evidence. But ethical theories are in no way constrained by any evidence of any kind.
You mean “objective” and no it doesn’t. It just denies that moral judgments are part of the world outside the mind.
It does not deny that.
I agree that values exist, I just think they’re subjective.
You’re either using these words differently than I am or you’re totally wrong.
I’m just gonna leave the wikipedia entry on ethical subjectivism here and see if that clarifies things for anyone.