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.
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.