Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is Morality Objective?
#76

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 02:00 AM)Snoopy Wrote: Exactly.

When does a "species" appear or disappear?
To define something transforming into another "species" needs rules.

What happens to the anteater that stops eating ants?
What is the difference between different human species and race and when exactly does that line appear?


Species is subjective.

Smile

This is referred to as vagueness which is inherent to language. 

Start removing grains from a heap until nothing remains of it. Exactly at what point the heap turned to non-heap? It is unclear. Does that mean "heap is subjective"?

Vagueness is related to subjectivity, but to say "species is subjective" would be misleading.
The following 1 user Likes exodus's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#77

Is Morality Objective?
(11-09-2018, 09:46 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-09-2018, 06:44 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: But...is #1 an objective statement? Do species have "goals"?  Individuals have goals, but species?

Once we observe an ant colony for example, we clearly see individuals having goals that extends to the whole species. The same holds for human species. Observation of human societies in sufficiently long time spans gives us clear evidences of goals  that can be attributed to humans as a whole.

But that's the problem with the concept of "objectivity."  It literally allows for no exceptions.  Putting a gun to your head, are you prepared to say that it is objectively true that all ants have goals that extend to the whole species?  There may well be, considering there are a shitload of ants on the planet at this moment, that there is an ant mutation alive at this moment that doesn't have that goal, at this moment, at this second.  He probably won't live long.  But still.  It's a generalization that sniffs objective truth but probably doesn't reach it.  Objective truth is that almost all ants clearly have goals that extend to the whole species or most ants clearly have goals that extend to the whole species or all but a few ants clearly have goals that extend to the whole species or something like that.
The following 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post:
  • exodus, Alan V
Reply
#78

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 02:38 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 02:00 AM)Snoopy Wrote: Exactly.

When does a "species" appear or disappear?
To define something transforming into another "species" needs rules.

What happens to the anteater that stops eating ants?
What is the difference between different human species and race and when exactly does that line appear?


Species is subjective.

Smile

This is referred to as vagueness which is inherent to language. 

Start removing grains from a heap until nothing remains of it. Exactly at what point the heap turned to non-heap? It is unclear. Does that mean "heap is subjective"?

Vagueness is related to subjectivity, but to say "species is subjective" would be misleading.


This was on the link:

"Many scientific concepts are of necessity vague, for instance species in biology cannot be precisely defined, owing to unclear cases such as ring species. Nonetheless, the concept of species can be clearly applied in the vast majority of cases. As this example illustrates, to say that a definition is "vague" is not necessarily a criticism. Consider those animals in Alaska that are the result of breeding huskies and wolves: are they dogs? It is not clear: they are borderline cases of dogs. This means one's ordinary concept of doghood is not clear enough to let us rule conclusively in this case".


I think my opinion of a heap can be very different than your opinion of a heap.

I thought the concept of species is just an opinion.
So I thought that was subjective.

Smile
The following 2 users Like Snoopy's post:
  • exodus, vulcanlogician
Reply
#79

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 03:07 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I thought the concept of species is just an opinion.
So I thought that was subjective.
Smile

We know the referent of "species" exists independent of the mind that vaguely perceives it. That makes it objective.
The following 1 user Likes exodus's post:
  • vulcanlogician
Reply
#80

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 03:28 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 03:07 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I thought the concept of species is just an opinion.
So I thought that was subjective.
Smile

We know the referent of "species" exists independent of the mind that vaguely perceives it. That makes it objective.

Seems like a human-conceived construct is by nature a bit imperfectly defined and fuzzy.  Is the referent "clumsy people" or "ugly people" similarly objective?
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Chas
Reply
#81

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 03:28 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 03:07 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I thought the concept of species is just an opinion.
So I thought that was subjective.
Smile

We know the referent of "species" exists independent of the mind that vaguely perceives it. That makes it objective.


I had to look up objective vs subjective again.
 
I still think:
"All of life" is objective.
"Species" is subjective.
Reply
#82

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 03:42 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Is the referent "clumsy people" or "ugly people" similarly objective?


I don't know, vagueness naturally results in ignorance Smile one must accept it.
Reply
#83

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 04:06 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 03:42 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Is the referent "clumsy people" or "ugly people" similarly objective?


I don't know, vagueness naturally results in ignorance Smile one must accept it.

I run from it but it tracks me down and tackles me. Weeping
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • exodus
Reply
#84

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 04:12 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 04:06 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 03:42 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Is the referent "clumsy people" or "ugly people" similarly objective?


I don't know, vagueness naturally results in ignorance Smile one must accept it.

I run from it but it tracks me down and tackles me. Weeping

Nah! you shouldn't run. It is a good friend. After all knowledge is possible because of ignorance.
Reply
#85

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 04:00 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I had to look up objective vs subjective again.
 
I still think:
"All of life" is objective.
"Species" is subjective.

"Life" is a controversial concept, it is indeed vague. Scholars have different views of what life is. If you consider "species" as subjective, the same reasoning should regard "life" as subjective also.

Quote:The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids. In the past, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" through obsolete concepts such as odic force, hylomorphism, spontaneous generation and vitalism, that have now been disproved by biological discoveries. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.
From the linked article.
The following 1 user Likes exodus's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#86

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 04:21 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 04:00 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I had to look up objective vs subjective again.
 
I still think:
"All of life" is objective.
"Species" is subjective.

"Life" is a controversial concept, it is indeed vague. Scholars have different views of what life is. If you consider "species" as subjective, the same reasoning should regard "life" as subjective also.

Quote:The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids. In the past, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" through obsolete concepts such as odic force, hylomorphism, spontaneous generation and vitalism, that have now been disproved by biological discoveries. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.
From the linked article.


We are the genes that are in the monkey, and the tree, and the banana.

Is the banana tree a highly evolved form of us?

  Big Grin
Reply
#87

Is Morality Objective?
(11-09-2018, 05:06 AM)exodus Wrote:
Quote:Instead of "more objective", how about "more common"? 
"more objective" says much more than "more common". "x is more objective than y" means there exists a relatively stronger justification for x compared to y, so in case they are mutually exclusive, it gives us a measure as which one is more reasonable to accept. Such a criterion is crucial to distinguish right from wrong within a moral framework. "x is more common than y" does not say anything about justifiability of x and y.

That wasn't at all what the point was - there was no discussion of justifiability.
Some traits are more common because they have an evolutionary basis; this does not justify them, it just makes them common.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
Reply
#88

Is Morality Objective?
(11-09-2018, 07:02 AM)SYZ Wrote:
(11-09-2018, 02:49 AM)Chas Wrote: Is a pH of 7.0 an improvement over a pH of 6.5?  Or 7.5?  How about mineral content?  Is distilled water an improvement over spring water?  Rain water?

People have different opinions of these things - it's a matter of taste, of preference.

No one is denying there are objective facts about reality, just that there are important things that are not objective facts or measures.

I have to disagree Chas.

The E. coli count in potable drinking water which makes it deadly or drinkable is not subjective.
It's an absolute value (ideally zero) and it's not a matter of "taste" or "preference".  (That's
shifting the goalposts anyway.)

And nobody has a different opinion about this.

Deadpan Coffee Drinker

You utterly missed my point.  There are some things that are objective and some that aren't.  The pH of the water is an objective fact, that is something independently verifiable.  But the appeal of the potable water, its flavor, is subjective.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
Reply
#89

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 03:28 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 03:07 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I thought the concept of species is just an opinion.
So I thought that was subjective.
Smile

We know the referent of "species" exists independent of the mind that vaguely perceives it. That makes it objective.

No, it doesn't.  "Species" is not a precise term and what one person considers the referent can differ from another's.  E.g., the genotype of E. coli bacteria is a cloud of different genotypes without precise boundaries.  This is true of all bacteria.  It is also true of dogs as was pointed out above.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Snoopy
Reply
#90

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 05:32 AM)Chas Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 03:28 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 03:07 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I thought the concept of species is just an opinion.
So I thought that was subjective.
Smile

We know the referent of "species" exists independent of the mind that vaguely perceives it. That makes it objective.

No, it doesn't.  "Species" is not a precise term and what one person considers the referent can differ from another's.  E.g., the genotype of E. coli bacteria is a cloud of different genotypes without precise boundaries.  This is true of all bacteria.  It is also true of dogs as was pointed out above.


I was wondering how species got into the Objective box.

I think species needs to go into the philosophy Subjective box or make another box for Vague.

Can put it next to the film based on a true story because there was a guy named Bill and he did have a car.

Thumbs Up
Reply
#91

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 06:08 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I was wondering how species got into the Objective box.

I think species needs to go into the philosophy Subjective box or make another box for Vague.

Can put it next to the film based on a true story because there was a guy named Bill and he did have a car.

Thumbs Up

But the question is, Snoopy, how does being vagueness make something nonobjective? It doesn't. Let's imagine that there are three people.

One person stands right in front of a big red barn. He can clearly see the barn, and we would all agree that the barn is "there" in an objective sense, right? The barn is not there in his opinion.

Now suppose another person stands a good distance away from the barn. He can't really tell if it's a barn or not. He thinks it may be a brick wall, or perhaps a red brick house. But the thing he sees (which is actually a barn) is still there, regardless of his inability to clearly resolve the image of it.

The third person stands even farther away. To him, the barn appears to be a faint red splotch among some trees. He has no idea what it is, and might not even notice it were it not pointed out to him. That still doesn't make the barn being there or not being there a matter of opinion. It's there, regardless of his inability to classify exactly what kind of object it is.

Biologists face a similar challenge when trying to classify different species. That doesn't mean that "species" isn't an objective determination. It just means there is vagueness involved.
The following 2 users Like vulcanlogician's post:
  • exodus, Alan V
Reply
#92

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 07:11 AM)vulcanlogician Wrote: Biologists face a similar challenge when trying to classify different species. That doesn't mean that "species" isn't an objective determination. It just means there is vagueness involved.

Species does not even have an agreed upon definition in biology.  Facepalm

But let's stipulate that there are statistical grouping that we can generally agree to conveniently call species.  How does this help us with the question of morality?
It doesn't.

Let's get back to the question of objective morality.  Provide a basis for it as no one has done so yet.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#93

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 07:11 AM)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 06:08 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I was wondering how species got into the Objective box.

I think species needs to go into the philosophy Subjective box or make another box for Vague.

Can put it next to the film based on a true story because there was a guy named Bill and he did have a car.

Thumbs Up

But the question is, Snoopy, how does being vagueness make something nonobjective? It doesn't. Let's imagine that there are three people.

One person stands right in front of a big red barn. He can clearly see the barn, and we would all agree that the barn is "there" in an objective sense, right? The barn is not there in his opinion.

Now suppose another person stands a good distance away from the barn. He can't really tell if it's a barn or not. He thinks it may be a brick wall, or perhaps a red brick house. But the thing he sees (which is actually a barn) is still there, regardless of his inability to clearly resolve the image of it.

The third person stands even farther away. To him, the barn appears to be a faint red splotch among some trees. He has no idea what it is, and might not even notice it were it not pointed out to him. That still doesn't make the barn being there or not being there a matter of opinion. It's there, regardless of his inability to classify exactly what kind of object it is.

Biologists face a similar challenge when trying to classify different species. That doesn't mean that "species" isn't an objective determination. It just means there is vagueness involved.

"In stories, newspapers, and the spoken word, people all over the world are trying to convince you to think as they do. They are bombarding you with facts and figures, opinions and projections. It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true, what could be true, and what is outright false. In order to do all this, you need to have a firm grip on what is objective and what is subjective.

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures."

http://www.differencebetween.net/languag...ubjective/
The following 1 user Likes Snoopy's post:
  • vulcanlogician
Reply
#94

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 05:32 AM)Chas Wrote: what one person considers the referent can differ from another's. 

That makes it vague, not subjective. As long as it is agreed upon that the referent exists objectively, the concept is also objective, no matter how vague it is.
The following 1 user Likes exodus's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#95

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 08:32 AM)Chas Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 07:11 AM)vulcanlogician Wrote: Biologists face a similar challenge when trying to classify different species. That doesn't mean that "species" isn't an objective determination. It just means there is vagueness involved.

Species does not even have an agreed upon definition in biology.  Facepalm

But let's stipulate that there are statistical grouping that we can generally agree to conveniently call species.  How does this help us with the question of morality?
It doesn't.

Let's get back to the question of objective morality.  Provide a basis for it as no one has done so yet.


How can morality be considered as objective if the survival of species is subjective? It can't.

But can morality for all of life be objective?

  Consider
Reply
#96

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 10:20 AM)Snoopy Wrote: I think species needs to go into the philosophy Subjective box or make another box for Vague.

Can put it next to the film based on a true story because there was a guy named Bill and he did have a car.

Thumbs Up


As I said the problem you are concerned about is vagueness and it is distinct from the problem of subjectivity. To illustrate further, the problem with "species" extends to many trivial concepts . Such as a "desk":

Remove small pieces of wood from your desk, until nothing remains of it, during the process people's opinion about the object being a desk or not will diverge . But they agree on one thing, whatever the "desk" is referring to, exists independently of the mind, therefore it is an objective concept.

Apply the same argument to all macroscopic objects. Does that mean all macroscopic objects are subjective? Obviously not, it simply means objects are vague.
Reply
#97

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 10:22 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 05:32 AM)Chas Wrote: what one person considers the referent can differ from another's. 

That makes it vague, not subjective. As long as it is agreed upon that the referent exists objectively, the concept is also objective, no matter how vague it is.

No, the referent does not exist - it is a matter of opinion.  
There is no objectively describable thing that is the species.  "Species" is a human construct, not a natural division.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#98

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 10:24 AM)Snoopy Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 08:32 AM)Chas Wrote:
(11-10-2018, 07:11 AM)vulcanlogician Wrote: Biologists face a similar challenge when trying to classify different species. That doesn't mean that "species" isn't an objective determination. It just means there is vagueness involved.

Species does not even have an agreed upon definition in biology.  Facepalm

But let's stipulate that there are statistical grouping that we can generally agree to conveniently call species.  How does this help us with the question of morality?
It doesn't.

Let's get back to the question of objective morality.  Provide a basis for it as no one has done so yet.


How can morality be considered as objective if the survival of species is subjective? It can't.

But can morality for all of life be objective?

  Consider

What might Escherichia ethics be?  Or mayfly mores? Are canids more caring than crocodiles?

Life has no morality.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
Reply
#99

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 10:41 AM)exodus Wrote: As I said the problem you are concerned about is vagueness and it is distinct from the problem of subjectivity. To illustrate further, the problem with "species" extends to many trivial concepts . Such as a "desk":

Remove small pieces of wood from your desk, until nothing remains of it, during the process people's opinion about the object being a desk or not will diverge . But they agree on one thing, whatever the "desk" is referring to, exists independently of the mind, therefore it is an objective concept.

The concept of "desk" exists only in the mind, it has no independent existence.  Your concept of desk probably shares many features with mine, but they are not the same concept.

Quote:Apply the same argument to all macroscopic objects. Does that mean all macroscopic objects are subjective? Obviously not, it simply means objects are vague.

Non sequitur.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-10-2018, 01:59 PM)Chas Wrote: The concept of "desk" exists only in the mind, it has no independent existence.  

You are assuming epistemological idealism. 

definition: Epistemological idealism is a subjectivist position in epistemology that holds that what one knows about an object exists only in one's mind

This makes further discussion on almost any issue unfeasible. Unless you are willing to follow the premise of realism, that objects exist independent of the mind.
The following 1 user Likes exodus's post:
  • Alan V
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)