Morality doesn't make sense.

[thebestofenergy]

Language is defined by the way people utilise the language,the more people that use it to convey ideas and concepts, the more valuable it is.

That's not true. Language is defined by grammar rules and what words objectively mean, not by what X person wants it to be used like.

Do you understand that words are not interchangeable, and grammar isn't up to you to modify it as you want it to be?

Just because language changes with time, doesn't make language non-prescriptive.

If something being a square means 'having the shape or approximate shape of a square', you can't change that to mean round, or you'd be factually and objectively wrong.

Anyways, when it comes down prescriptive phrases like "I ought go to the shops" and "I ought eat chocolate" - those statements, like morality, are completely based on human sentiment/desire and this is what points to language being purely descriptive in nature.

I've already said how something being based on desire, doesn't mean that something is non-prescriptive.

Everything we have built and created is built and created because of desire. Certainly you wouldn't believe everything we have built and created is defined by the current desire in X situation?

You keep repeating over and over that because X was built because of desire, then X is malleable according to the desire of the user/s.
It's a non-sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow.

Yes, certain sentences express what you should do, like 'I ought to eat chocolate'.
So what's your point? How is that meaning that language is inherently descriptive?
'I ought to eat chocolate' means exactly what it says. To what extent should you eat chocolate? It doesn't precise. What chocolate should you eat? It doesn't precise either. But the fact that you ought to eat chocolate isn't changing.

You could have an approach to math that makes it opinionated...

When somebody holds an opinion, they are making assumptions switch is itself a cognitive process. I'm not saying that language is based on cognitive processes, but rather seems like human sentiment which is descriptive and non-cognitive.

How is human sentiment descriptive? You mean it's individual-based?

You said descriptive linguistics is 'the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is actually used'.
How would you apply that to human sentiment, exactly?

Or are you using a different meaning now?

Also, a sentence being born out of sentiment doesn't mean that language would be modifiable based on the individual and its sentiments. I've already explained that many times.

You don't think language is based on cognitive process? Really?
Try to understand what that means.
There is no logic and reason to formulating a set of words that objectively mean something, following grammar rules?
Language is only usable after a cognitive process of formulating sentences according to a set of logical rules that must be followed to make any sense. That's as cognitive as cognitive gets.
You don't just follow your sentiment and blabber incomprehensible stuff, do you? You actually have to do a cognitive process to put your thought into comprehensible language.

And language itself is formed through a cognitive process. It certainly involves the processes of thinking and reasoning to create a language.
Do you think syntax and grammar are just a scribble born out of emotions?
Language doesn't work without them, they're a core part of language, and they're certainly created and used through a cognitive process.

People may use language one way or the other, but language isn't something different every time someone uses it...

I'm not talking about some private language that only the individual can understand. I mean if ALL English speakers desired to call a "car" a "tree", we would refer to cars as trees because we desired to call the car a tree. Full stop.

You're being arrogant, vague, and insistent on being wrong after being shown to be wrong. It's obnoxious.

And if we all changed the symbol '3' to mean 4, and vice versa, then that would be the new rule. Does that make math up to what people like to use?

It's in the sentence. It's a RULE. The meaning doesn't change. If the objective rule on what the symbol used to describe X meaning is changed, that doesn't make language descriptive. Because, again, it would be a term that would then be OUGHT TO BE USED to describe something. It's prescriptive.
The ability to change the SYMBOL/LETTER to describe something, doesn't make that descriptive.
You can also do that with physics, math, and any kind of system that you want.

Could we change 'kg' (kilogram) to mean G (gravitational constant)? Yes, of course we could. Does that make symbols used in physics non-prescriptive? NO.
If we objectively change the symbols to mean X to new symbols, then therein lies your answer - we then OUGHT to use the new symbols to mean X. But no matter what, we'll always ought to use something to mean X, or language will lose meaning.

Whatever language was built on, doesn't matter with what language is.

Yes it does matter.

Do you always make logically fallacious statements that are unsubstantiated, and then when told otherwise, you just repeat yourself?
Are you not capable of explaining why? Because you don't.

I can build a pile of shit based on the Taj Mahal.
Will my Taj Mahal pile of shit structure magically change accordingly to changes being done to the Taj Mahal?
No, it's irrelevant.
X being built on Y, doesn't inherently mean X will change according to Y, and even more-so doesn't mean X has the same properties as Y.
You're making no sense logically.

I'm holding the position that language and morality is based on non-cognitive attitudes like human sentiment and desire.

And you're holding a position that makes no sense - same as the example of people being moral subjectivists you gave.
What do you want me to say to this?

You could argue modern math was built on desire too. The desire to understand things better

We have desire to utilise the use of mathematics to understand things better, so desire does play a part but unlike language, mathematics is not based/originates from desire.

It was built because of desire. That's your entire point.
If we wanted to change the meaning of the symbol '3', we could. Remember what you said?
So, math is descriptive, according to your logic.

Linguistic rules originate from desire as much as mathematics do.
And words' definitions originate from desire as much as symbols assigned to numbers do.
And syntax and grammar originate from desire as much as the proper order in an equation and operational symbols do.

Through language we can express desires, but the definitions of words and the rules of language are as desire-based as mathematics.

Does that mean math changes with our desire to use it?

Mathematics is mind-independent.

Language is mind-dependent.

Another logically nonsensical unsubstantiated claim.

Mathematics is mind-dependant.

Language is mind-independant.

See how easy it is?

...because the rules are already established.

Unlike mathematics, humans who use language, established the rules. So it makes zero sense to compare something that is mind independent towards something that is mind dependent

Are you OK? You're actually saying humans didn't establish the rules for mathematics?
Who did? Aliens? God?

How do you think the word 3 means 3, if not for humans?

Why?

Because people use language to decide the best course of action, to do this language is based on descriptive human sentiments/desire. See, language is contingent upon human desires, because it is not mind-independent, if we didn't desire to use language it wouldn't exist.

Using language to decide the best course of action is ONE of language's many purposes, yes.
And then you again make a non-sequitur, that I've addressed more times than I can remember.

Once again, and hopefully for the last time, something being dependent on us to be put into practice doesn't make that something inherently descriptive.
The concepts used by language, the letters, and the rules of language, would still all be there even if tomorrow we disappeared. Dictionaries would still have the same stuff written on them, and so would children's books about how to properly use grammar. There just wouldn't be anyone left to use it.
Same for math.

The way an individual uses language is dependent on many factors, but that (like I explained above) doesn't mean language is malleable according to the person.

I never said that the idea of an individual having a private language makes any sense.

Then what do you think is the conclusion of language being non-prescriptive, exactly, if not people using words however they want?

The individual may be correct or wrong...

I'm not talking about the individual.

Of course you are. Your entire world view is based on the individual.
Language being descriptive obviously follows that it would be based on the individual interpretation (or certain groups).

Look at the definition you gave of descriptive. It literally says 'analyzing and describing how language is actually used'.
Actually used by who, if not the individual or a group of people?

You wouldn't change the entire mathematical system every time someone uses it with different rules

Stop comparing mathematics to language.

It's a perfectly valid comparison, and you've not shown me how it would be wrong.
Why would I stop using it?

Stop being an arrogant prick.

I think it's better if we first agreed upon the fact that suffering and happiness are predictable, quantifiable, and objective.

Because it can be empirically verifiable through past experience, suffering and happiness are predictable, quantifiable and scientifically objective. Yes I agree.

Kaz, you're dodging again. You're not answering the question, by changing it according to what you like.

Do you agree that suffering and happiness are predictable, quantifiable, and objective?

Not through past experience.
I didn't say that.

I went through the effort of giving you a lengthy explanation of why suffering and happiness are predictable, quantifiable, and objective, and NOT according to past experiences, BUT according to empirical evidence that can be obtained WITHOUT reliance on past experiences, but through observational methods instead.

Do you agree that they're predictable, quantifiable, and objective, based on empirical evidence, observation, and logic?

[Kaz1983]

That's not true. Language is defined by grammar rules and what words objectively mean, not by what X person wants it to be used like.

Communication involves using a recognisable mixture of questions and statements that are used in an identifiable and predictable way, this allows for the transfer of ideas and concepts within a linguistic community. As Wittgenstein said, this involves the desire for said community to play the language game in the first place, see he argued that a word or even a sentence has meaning only as a result of the "rule" of the "game" being played.

If something being a square means 'having the shape or approximate shape of a square', you can't change that to mean round, or you'd be factually and objectively wrong.

"Having the shape or approximate shape of a square" is an analytic statement which is true in virtue of the definitions of the language used alone. With analytic statements you don't need to look outside of the statement itself to verify that it is infact true. Take the statement "all batchelors are unmarried" is an analytic statement, because all batchelors are by definition unmarried and this verifiable by the definitions of the words that make up the statement - unlike an analytic statement, to confirm that a synthetic statement is true, you don't need to go into the external world to verify the truth of it.

No, I'm talking about synthetic statements not analytic statements which are contingent upon the external world for their confirmation of truth or falsity. On the other hand take an synthetic statement like "Bob drives a red car" well that's contingent upon "Bob" owning something called a car and that means it wouldn't be verified to be true in virtue of the definitions of the words that make up the statement. It's like how statements in mathematics are analytic (like 2+2=4 is an analytic), see unlike synthetic statements they are mind-independent because to verify them you don't need to venture out into the external world to verify them. I realise that there is a huge difference between synthetic and analytic statements but you seem to not understand the difference.

[thebestofenergy]

That's not true. Language is defined by grammar rules and what words objectively mean, not by what X person wants it to be used like.

Communication involves using a recognisable mixture of questions and statements that are used in an identifiable and predictable way, this allows for the transfer of ideas and concepts within a linguistic community. As Wittgenstein said, this involves the desire for said community to play the language game in the first place, see he argued that a word or even a sentence has meaning only as a result of the "rule" of the "game" being played.

Everything that you just said doesn't counter my point in the slightest.
It actually is a point for why language would be prescriptive.

You just said it yourself. The 'rule' of the 'game'

Rules are prescriptive. It's the reason why they're called rules.

If you see the language as a game, then the rules of the game are prescriptive like the rules of the language, or the game - and the language - can't be played anymore.

No, I'm talking about synthetic statements not analytic statements which are contingent upon the external world for their confirmation of truth or falsity. On the other hand take an synthetic statement like "Bob drives a red car" well that's contingent upon "Bob" owning something called a car and that means it wouldn't be verified to be true in virtue of the definitions of the words that make up the statement.

You're making a really stupid argument here. 'Bob drives a red car' can only mean ONE thing. That a person called Bob drives a car, and that the car is red. How do I know this? Thanks to the in inherent rules of language. If something called a 'car' is too vague for you, you ought to know better, or you ought to use a term that's more fitting for what you mean. It has absolutely nothing to do with language not being prescriptive.
Of course the statement isn't verifiably true without checking first, but why does that matter with prescriptiveness of the language.

You can easily, empirically and with certainty, verify that Bob has a car, and that it's red. By simply observing.
A car has an established definition. It's a rule of the 'game'. So is red. So is Bob. So is the verb to drive.
This is getting ridiculous.

So, if you were a cop and someone would tell you to chase the red car, would you tell them that you can't, because 'it wouldn't be verified to be true in virtue of the definitions of the words that make up the statement' and that because language is not prescriptive, you're not sure he would be using the same meanings as you?

It's really obvious you can verify it, and it's objective. Nothing that would go against language being prescriptive.

'All bachelors are unmarried', well that's something contingent on people being something called 'bachelors'. What if 'bachelors' meant something else in another culture?

'2+2=4' is contingent upon 2 meaning two, and not three.

Bob drives a red car is obviously a verifiable statement, just like 2+2=4 is.

It's like how statements in mathematics are analytic (like 2+2=4 is an analytic), see unlike synthetic statements they are mind-independent because to verify them you don't need to venture out into the external world to verify them. I realise that there is a huge difference between synthetic and analytic statements but you seem to not understand the difference.

You seem to not understand that the difference doesn't make one prescriptive and the other descriptive, whether for a lack of trying or for not having the capacity to understand after me and others explaining you so much I'm not sure.

'Sentences that are possibly true but not necessarily true are synthetic'
'attributing to a subject something determined by observation rather than analysis of the nature of the subject and not resulting in self-contradiction if negated'
'Synthetic truths are true both because of what they mean and because of the way the world is, whereas analytic truths are true in virtue of meaning alone'
That's what synthetic sentences are.

It's like you're not able to understand that the possibility of being mistaken doesn't make something subjective, or descriptive.
You can't get there, can you?
Something that you're not sure whether is true or false, is NOT something that's not verifiable with certainty. The truth is there, the meaning is clear, you can possibly be mistaken, but that's IRRELEVANT to the prescriptiveness of language.
You can be mistaken. NOT language.
Read your own definitions that you're using, and actually try to understand with a bit of humility what you're saying.

You're not explaining how you get from A (X being synthetic) to B (X being prescriptive), because if you did, it would be clear the logic would make no sense.
A synthetic sentence is still using prescriptive language.

So, for whether suffering and happiness are predictable, quantifiable, and objective, based on empirical evidence, observation, and logic.
Are you thinking about it and having to consider it further, or are you taking the fourth?

Same as a lot of my other questions. It's really putting you not in a good light to just skip them and ignore them. It tells you're either being willfully ignorant to not be proven wrong, or you're just willfully ignorant because you're too lazy.
Either isn't a good thing. Are you going to answer to the rest of my questions, or not?

[Kaz1983]

Everything that you just said doesn't counter my point in the slightest.
It actually is a point for why language would be prescriptive.

You just said it yourself. The 'rule' of the 'game'

Rules are prescriptive. It's the reason why they're called rules.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The reason why I say that is the rules of language (in question) cannot prescribe themselves because that would require them to precede themselves. You see now? A prescription is made in language and therefore the language requires rules. Now do you see that the rules for that language which are spoken the prescription needed to be expressed in another language which needed rules which themselves can only be expressed as a prescription in language?

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm curious what @teo123, as a linguist who has published many papers, thinks about Kaz's treatise on linguistics.
Is any form of prescription impossible in language due to infinite regress, thus validating humptydumptyism as no less credible than any use of language, or do languages evolve along with society and a shared understanding of what words should mean because of the context of their use and because of the utility in communication and understanding?

[brimstoneSalad]

Interesting, Kaz already has an open thread on this topic where he failed to follow through in the discussion.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5541

I thought I recognized that name. He didn't know what color was, and he doesn't believe science is objective because it relies at some point on human observation.

Like I said, hardcore moral relativists are always, ALWAYS ultimately factual relativists when you dig down deep enough.

[DaRock]

See I just don't understand how people (the same people who believe that reason is essential for morality that is cognitive to exist), I just don't get how they ground their morality. There must be something grounding morality, either it's reason itself but that doesn't make sense because it just leads to an infinite regress or alternatively it's a non-cognitive quality like desire. Man it's like the free will hypothetical, the one asking whether you would choose chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream. Like I said without going into an infinite regress, at the end of the day how can you grounds morality in anything other than a non-cognitive state like desire?

First assume a deterministic universe w/o free will, e.g. the one we probably already exist in.

Secondly take into account that sentient beings inherently have preferences for how they want to live (more happiness and less suffering, eg. positive well-being).

Next acknowledge that, excluding the unlikely potential existence of an omnipotent being, no one/thing can objectively determine the exact outcome of any action/behavior/law

Then acknowledge that certain actions/behaviors/laws enable existing sentient beings to live more preferable lives (certain actions/behaviors/laws lead to a universe filled with happiness/bliss/meaning and others lead to a universe filled with hatred/pain/torture/suffering)

If we then subjectively define morality as the science of finding those certain actions/behaviors/laws which are more likely to lead to a universe filled with happiness/bliss/meaning...

We can say that while such morality is ultimately based on our flawed and subjective experience of the universe, it is also the most useful in accomplishing the shared goal of increased positive well-being.

Just because it's not officially objective doesn't mean it's not the most useful. If anything acknowledging that killing another human being can be morally permissible given a unique set of circumstances makes this view of morality more in line with our own subjective experiences with morality. In this way this approach to morality helps avoid unnecessary suffering at old age by permitting euthanasia. This differs drastically from most claims to "objective morality" that religious doctrines claim to have which often cause unnecessary suffering for the sake of avoiding the "objectively wrong" choice to kill (euthanasia).

Good rules of thumb when making moral decisions include using the golden rule and the Mengzian extension.

I'd also highly recommend looking into the philosophy of Alex O'Connor, an Oxford University theological student who is also known also CosmicSkeptic on YouTube. I'll link a few relevant discussions/debates he has had on morality which I've found incredibly useful.

The good delusion: what's the closest thing we can get to objective ethics?
https://youtu.be/htdDaHAhR-s

Debate: Can atheism justify human rights?
https://youtu.be/fPkUE-6svVU

Peter Singer talks to cosmicskeptic about utilitarianism
https://youtu.be/tSEfiPm_YRE

[teo123]

Everything that you just said doesn't counter my point in the slightest.
It actually is a point for why language would be prescriptive.

You just said it yourself. The 'rule' of the 'game'

Rules are prescriptive. It's the reason why they're called rules.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The reason why I say that is the rules of language (in question) cannot prescribe themselves because that would require them to precede themselves. You see now? A prescription is made in language and therefore the language requires rules. Now do you see that the rules for that language which are spoken the prescription needed to be expressed in another language which needed rules which themselves can only be expressed as a prescription in language?

By that logic, C++ compilers can never be written in C++, right? Yet most widely-used C++ compilers (GCC, CLANG...) are indeed written in C++.

[teo123]

I'm curious what @teo123, as a linguist who has published many papers, thinks about Kaz's treatise on linguistics.
Is any form of prescription impossible in language due to infinite regress, thus validating humptydumptyism as no less credible than any use of language, or do languages evolve along with society and a shared understanding of what words should mean because of the context of their use and because of the utility in communication and understanding?

There is, as far as I know, relatively little research done on linguistics prescriptivism. Many, if not most, linguists seem to think prescriptive rules are always too simplistic to produce a useful language (See what Noam Chomsky says about Esperanto: "Esperanto is not a language, it's a grammar book and a dictionary.". I don't know if most linguists agree with him, or what he would think about more carefully constructed languages, such as Lojban.). Most linguists agree that they have little or no effect on the spoken language. A Croatian linguist Snježana Kordić famously argues attempts to preserve a language using prescriptive rules is not only not productive, but also counter-productive, because they make people less comfortable speaking their own language. But the claim that any form of prescription in language is impossible due to infinite regress is obviously absurd, by that logic, C++ compilers could never be written in C++ (yet most widely used C++ compilers are indeed written in C++: GCC, CLANG...).

[Kaz1983]

Interesting, Kaz already has an open thread on this topic where he failed to follow through in the discussion.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5541

I thought I recognized that name. He didn't know what color was, and he doesn't believe science is objective because it relies at some point on human observation.

Like I said, hardcore moral relativists are always, ALWAYS ultimately factual relativists when you dig down deep enough.

After reflecting on our discussions regarding colour, you actually changed my opinion on colour... see after our discussion on morality recently, you might think that I'm arrogant person, I get that. But, now I think colour is objective in the sense that to see colour isn't just experience (like before). So maybe it's neither? But I'm leaning to objective, anyways experienceplays a big part, sure but ultimately seeing colour is an objective feature of the world. I see that now and even if I disagree now that doesn't mean I'm not open to changing my opinion in the future. So yes, I was incorrect before.