[mikema63]

The forum is full of sad existentialists it seems.

[Potemkin]

The forum is full of sad existentialists it seems.

My own spiritual home is Communist existentialism, VS's spiritual home is Kierkegaardian Christian existentialism, and SolarCross's spiritual home is reactionary existentialism. No matter how much you meander around in the tributaries and streams of philosophy, you always find yourself returning to existentialism. It is the ground (Grundrisse) of modern thought.

[Pants-of-dog]

Any system of normative ethics that is grounded in rationality and derived from facts, reason, and evidence, is an objective morality. Most moral codes are, to one extent or another, grounded in facts about what is right and wrong for us as rational beings.

I would say that these types of moral systems are attempts to create an objective morality. Whether or not they are successful in doing so seems questionable.

To be clear, a moral system that was grounded in religion would not be an objective morality, correct?

You're confusing objective morality with moral realism. A good analogy for this distinction is found in mathematics in that even if numbers don't exist "out there" in some platonic sense, 2+2=4 is still an objective fact.

Can you give an example of a moral fact?

That's not just a subjective value, it's also a rational value. And it's rational for many reasons, not just because your well-being depends on your children's well-being.

Yes, things can be rational (in terms of self interest) and subjective.

Rationality is the objective, absolute, and universal justification for morality.

I do not think this is true.

All the moral progress we've made in the last 500 years, from democracy and civil rights to racial and gender equality to reproductive rights to LGBTQ rights, has all been due to evaluative rationality. We applied some critical thinking to the old ethical paradigms, found they didn't hold up to rational scrutiny, and replaced them with a more rationally enlightened ethics.

I do not think this is true.

If we look at any example of an egalitarian movement, we see that most of the work done (in terms of advancement of human rights) was done by whatever group was targeted for marginalisation and oppression, not by Enlightenment philosophers having critical discussions about social justice issues.

————————

The question demanded a fallacy, so of course not.

That would be like me asking you to smell the color nine and write a report on it.

As long as we agree that there is no evidence for an objective morality, but there is evidence for subjective ones.

Mind you, Sivad seems to think there is such evidence. It seems like the two of you have different ideas as to what objective morality is.

False. If they do so, they are involved in irrational behavior (as the behavior lacks justification).

I have provided examples that show this to be true.

But if such is subjective or arbitrarily chosen, then the authority likewise remains arbitrarily chosen and subjective and thus is, by definition, non-applicable to others.

Unless you demonstrate why EVERYONE should believe harm is bad, you have no moral authority (rationally speaking) to condemn harming others.

The subjective element remains the limiting factor in this case, if your belief that harm is bad is merely subjective (your personal preference), it does not matter what external factors you use to support your own preference, for such factors cannot raise that preference beyond being merely preference.

Thus;

I ask you to try again:

I do not believe that I need to have some sort of objective code in order to have the moral authority to condemn others.

And I have given examples of how we do this.

No, I am saying that if you purport to claim that an objective morality can in anyway be grounded, based-upon, or supported by an evidential claim in any manner except as a mere correlation to the action you already affirm (for other reasons) to be obligatory, then the fallacy would obtain.

You cannot say (without error) that because of (observed datum X) that we must (therefore, obligated act Y).

If this not what you are asking for when you request an empirical evidence for an objective morality, then what the fuck are you talking about?

Please do not get angry with yourself just because you are having trouble understanding.

When I asked for evidence, I was not asking for evidence that a moral claim must be followed. I was looking for evidence that an objective moral claim exists. This evidence could exist, as you put it, as a mere correlation to the action you already affirm (for other reasons) to be obligatory.

So then when you said this above, you actually may have meant:

"Attilla the Hun Loves Chocolate Cake?"

or

"I hate black people?"

because if logic is not objective, universal, or absolute, then there are no fixed identities, including the meaning of words in a conversation.

Hence, you lose all debates by default as, without logic being universal and objective, no meaning can be ascribed to anything at any given time and all words and points you make can all be dismissed as meaningless given your own worldview.

No, you do not need logic to be objective, universal, or absolute in order for language to work.

An objective morality can be demonstrated by logic.

I have no doubt you believe that.

But my point was that there is no scientific, empirical, or historical data pointing at an objective morality.

Subjective morality is not morality at all, as it has no rational justification for obligating anyone to do anything, which is the point of morality.

I mentioned a few. While I understand why you do not think they are rational justifications, they seem to work well enough for communities to have moral norms.

[mikema63]

My own spiritual home is Communist existentialism, VS's spiritual home is Kierkegaardian Christian existentialism, and SolarCross's spiritual home is reactionary existentialism. No matter how much you meander around in the tributaries and streams of philosophy, you always find yourself returning to existentialism. It is the ground (Grundrisse) of modern thought.

You made me google liberal existentialism to see if it was a thing lol. I found a crappy blogpost so I'm assuming it is the perfectly correct ideology. Though to be fair I haven't consulted my deep rationality on the issue.

[SolarCross]

My own spiritual home is Communist existentialism, VS's spiritual home is Kierkegaardian Christian existentialism, and SolarCross's spiritual home is reactionary existentialism. No matter how much you meander around in the tributaries and streams of philosophy, you always find yourself returning to existentialism. It is the ground (Grundrisse) of modern thought.

I am neither a reactionary nor an existentialist.

A reactionary is just a slur made by progs against anyone that is not into their same goofy cultism, but most progs are profoundly backward and confused about everything so even the most paleo of non-progs will tend to be more advanced in their thinking than any prog. I reject their stupid hypocritical insults.

From wiki an existentialist is:

In the view of the existentialist, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.

.. but I am not disorientated, confused or experiencing dread. The world doesn't strike me as meaningless or absurd either.

[Potemkin]

Existentialism, philosophically rather than culturally speaking, is simply the belief that existence precedes essence.

[Sivad]

Though to be fair I haven't consulted my deep rationality on the issue.

A Deeper Defense of the Deep Rationality Theory of Wisdom: A Reply to Fileva and Tresan

[SolarCross]

Existentialism, philosophically rather than culturally speaking, is simply the belief that existence precedes essence.

Well a I reckon a person is a constellation of a million different parts, most of that stuff is only borrowed temporarily the material parts particularly, but there is something that carries over from one life to the next. I suppose that something which carries over is somewhat analogous to a soul. That being the case that the soul, for want of a better word, carries over and that this something might be analogous to the "essence" your philosophers are talking about, then it would seem I believe "essence precedes existence"?

[Sivad]

Ultimately, our existences are largely pathetic and uninteresting.

Is that an objective fact?

Moreover, the universe itself doesn't really care about us either.

So your life is meaningless because gravity hasn't taken a personal interest in you?

We're largely an insignificant blip in the grand scheme of the universe.

That's just an ass-backwards way of looking at it. Conscious, self-aware beings like us give significance to the universe, we're the source of all value and significance.

[One Degree]

At my age, it is kind of hard not to see I spent my life finding ways to distract my mind from my irrelevance. We basically spend our lives distracting ourselves. The more faux importance we can apply to the distraction the better we can hide from our irrelevance.
I don’t mean this as pessimism, just we should accept only ‘our existence’ as of main importance. What we choose to use as distractions is of minor importance. This is what, imo, makes us all truly equal. It is why I think we should quit insisting our distractions be accepted by others as their distractions. They are just distractions.
I think our problem is we need to force others to accept our distractions as ‘truth’ to verify the legitimacy of our chosen distractions.
Hmmm, this is where one of you smart people need to translate my ramblings into something understandable.

[Rancid]

Is that an objective fact?



So your life is meaningless because gravity hasn't taken a personal interest in you?



That's just an ass-backwards way of looking at it. Conscious, self-aware beings like us give significance to the universe, we're the source of all value and significance.

cry me a river.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As long as we agree that there is no evidence for an objective morality, but there is evidence for subjective ones.

As long as we agree that you requested fallacious answers, and that I merely refused to accommodate such an invalid request.

Mind you, Sivad seems to think there is such evidence. It seems like the two of you have different ideas as to what objective morality is.

Though it may give you comfort to think that the reason everyone seems to be kicking your ass is because they are on a team, I assure you that Sivad's position is his own. This is not an argument and it is irrelevant.

I have provided examples that show this to be true.

No, you have given examples of people having subjective belief X and using an external criteria Y to lend comfort to their belief and execution of X. This does not lend any justification to the execution of X as being morality in any sense whatsoever. You have no given a rational justification for your own moral condemnations and actions, let alone that of anyone else. I'd worry about yourself.

I do not believe that I need to have some sort of objective code in order to have the moral authority to condemn others.

And I have given examples of how we do this.

Yes, you have given examples of people doing stuff. That is not morality, nor is that a rational justification. That is observation of human behavior and does not rationally justify any "ought" claims you make.

Your feelings that you do not need a rational justification to make moral condemnations are quite irrelevant. The reality is that you have no justification without some sort of objective grounds.

Think of it this way, if you want a moral requirement to apply to anyone beyond yourself, the authority or rationale for that requirement must come from beyond yourself as well. You cannot do this, thus you cannot obligate anyone beyond yourself, rationally speaking, on the basis of your very own claims.

Please do not get angry with yourself just because you are having trouble understanding.

When I asked for evidence, I was not asking for evidence that a moral claim must be followed. I was looking for evidence that an objective moral claim exists. This evidence could exist, as you put it, as a mere correlation to the action you already affirm (for other reasons) to be obligatory.

No, you do not need logic to be objective, universal, or absolute in order for language to work.

The section in bold is a distinction without a difference. that a moral claims must be followed is what makes it a moral claim in the first place.

Likewise, the empirical correlation to a subjective belief could not constitute as evidence for an objective morality. That amounts to nothing more than finding something in reality that comforts your own conscience as to your own arbitrary moral beliefs, which being mere preference, are no morality at all.

Regarding logic, human intelligibility, all of it, requires the presupposition of an objective, universal, and absolute logic.

If logic is not such, then there is no reason to assume the constancy of identity. Hence, if you say or refer to "Tree", if logic is not universal, then it may also mean "non-tree" to me and this would be how language could work, whatever you say may mean the opposite as no law of fixed identity were presupposed as universally binding.

Thus, if you believe logic is not universal, then you do believe it is universal, because if there is no universal law of contradiction, then there is. If you are right, then you are wrong. If that doesn't make sense, that is because you position is nonsensical.

I have no doubt you believe that.

But my point was that there is no scientific, empirical, or historical data pointing at an objective morality.

You cannot demand a universal be proven from a set of observed particulars, which is why that request is fallacious.

Please tell me about the smell of the color nine please.

Thanks.

I mentioned a few. While I understand why you do not think they are rational justifications, they seem to work well enough for communities to have moral norms.

"working well enough" for communities creating arbitrary and unjustifiable "norms" is irrelevant as to whether their norms or ethical claims are rationally consistent with their worldview.

Please provide a rational justification for your moral claims.

Thanks.

[Sivad]

At my age, it is kind of hard not to see I spent my life finding ways to distract my mind from my irrelevance. We basically spend our lives distracting ourselves. The more faux importance we can apply to the distraction the better we can hide from our irrelevance.

You really wasted your life trying to distract yourself from the fact that covariant quantum fields don't love you? You could have embraced your freedom and created your own meaning. Your life may have been meaningless but it didn't have to be, you just lived in bad faith.

[Victoribus Spolia]

VS's spiritual home is Kierkegaardian Christian existentialism

Why do you say that?

[Sivad]

Why do you say that?

Because he doesn't know what that is.

[Potemkin]

Why do you say that?

Because I'm a smartass. Lol.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Because I'm a smartass

No disagreement here.

[One Degree]

You really wasted your life trying to distract yourself from the fact that covariant quantum fields don't love you? You could have embraced your freedom and created your own meaning. Your life may have been meaningless but it didn't have to be, you just lived in bad faith.

What gave your life meaning that you did not decide for yourself?
You seem to misunderstand me. My life was meaningful because I recognized other’s ‘distractions’ need not be mine. I could be content that my distractions are just as valid as everyone else’s.

Edit: @Sivad
Let me explain it this way. Do you ever feel guilty about wasting time? I no longer do because one distraction is the same as another to me. It is very freeing.

[Sivad]

What gave your life meaning that you did not decide for yourself

I've found significance in many things -- personal achievements, interpersonal relationships, transpersonal experiences, actively participating in my time and place to effect positive change in the world -- that have given me a full and meaningful life and I'm grateful for the experience. It's not a waste of time, I'm not playing make-believe, it's real, I exist, and cosmic indifference doesn't negate any of that.

My life was meaningful because I recognized other’s ‘distractions’ need not be mine. I could be content that my distractions are just as valid as everyone else’s.

If something is meaningful it's not a distraction. Distractions are trivial.

[One Degree]

I've found significance in many things -- personal achievements, interpersonal relationships, transpersonal experiences, actively participating in my time and place to effect positive change in the world -- that have given me a full and meaningful life and I'm grateful for the experience. It's not a waste of time, I'm not playing make-believe, it's real, I exist, and cosmic indifference doesn't negate any of that.




If something is meaningful it's not a distraction. Distractions are trivial.

The difference between ‘meaningful’ and ‘trivial’ is just the unfounded belief your distractions are better than other’s distractions. I noticed you ignored my question if you worry about wasting time. Do you? If so, why?