Objective vs Subjective Morality

[Kaz1983]

I'm starting to think I might put this in a subjective framework. I've never been comfortable being a objectivist, anyways. I'm still going to base my morality/what's right and wrong on desire. The desire to seek pleasure and the desire to avoid pain.

Did you read the objective/subjective wiki article?
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/inde ... istinction

The value in objectivism is being able to make a case that appeals to reason rather than emotion.

It's like the sky being blue, is subjective - it's shared subjectivity, shared with every human on Earth and it is seen as an objective truth. But it's still subjective at the end of the day.

Just because something can be perceived by subjects doesn't make it subjective. The objective fact of the sky is the spectrum it's refracting, which is dominated by blue light as defined as a certain band in the spectrum. Whether to your eyes the qualia is one that to others seems red or green is irrelevant to the fact and its definition.

We have a thread on free will here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=4276

I will have a look at those links, thanks for posting them.

[Kaz1983]

Just because something can be perceived by subjects doesn't make it subjective. The objective fact of the sky is the spectrum it's refracting, which is dominated by blue light as defined as a certain band in the spectrum. Whether to your eyes the qualia is one that to others seems red or green is irrelevant to the fact and its definition.

The sky is not blue. But then, neither is the sun at the heart of Monet’s Impression, Sunrise orange; or the courts at Wimbledon green. Besides, to answer the question about the subjectivity of colours can only be answered by understanding how we see them in the first place...

The process of seeing colour begins with light rays hitting the objects around us and being reflected off their surfaces and into our eyes. We see different things as different colours because the surfaces of objects absorb some wavelengths of the visible spectrum and reflect others.

Monet’s orange sun, for example, is soaking up much of the short wavelengths (the violets, blues and greens) and reflecting some longer ones. This information is relayed to our brains where it is processed, allowing us to see those wavelengths as a colour: orange. But our brains are also altering the information they receive to help make sense of it and allow us to process it more quickly – and this is where the subjectivity comes in.


https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/article ... subjective

Anyways, is the noise of a tree falling in a forest, an objective fact -even if nobody hears it?

Just because gravity is reliable, it has proven to be.. does mean that there will be gravity tomorrow?

[brimstoneSalad]

The sky is not blue.

A thing is the color that it reflects, refracts, or emits. From Earth in the day the sky is usually blue unless it's hidden by clouds or smog. All that does is describe the hue balance or predominant wavelength that's coming from it.

But then, neither is the sun at the heart of Monet’s Impression, Sunrise orange; or the courts at Wimbledon green.

You're confusing the objective fact of color with qualia which is how those colors are understood and interpreted in a cognitive and emotional context.
The feeling of blue for one person isn't the same as the feeling of blue for another person, because we all have different ways of seeing things. But it is still objectively blue (as in the color it's reflecting, emitting, or refracting).

The process of seeing colour begins with light rays hitting the objects around us and being reflected off their surfaces and into our eyes.

The process of being a color involves that, or emitting, or refracting. It is relative in the sense that something isn't always the same color from every direction (there are many materials that spread different colors of light in different directions) or in every lighting condition, but relativity isn't subjectivity.

It's like how weight is relative to the gravity field you find yourself in (on the surface of the Earth, its moon, Mars, etc.) but weight is not an opinion. It is not subjective that item X has Y weight in Z location.

We see different things as different colours because the surfaces of objects absorb some wavelengths of the visible spectrum and reflect others.

Or refract (as in the case of the sky) or emit (as in the case of an original light source or fluorescence).

Monet’s orange sun, for example, is soaking up much of the short wavelengths (the violets, blues and greens) and reflecting some longer ones.

You don't need to explain preschool physics.

This information is relayed to our brains where it is processed, allowing us to see those wavelengths as a colour: orange. But our brains are also altering the information they receive to help make sense of it and allow us to process it more quickly – and this is where the subjectivity comes in.

People can see things incorrectly based on optical illusions and driven by expectation. This has to do with qualia, and doesn't change the color the thing actually is. Something that is actually white can have the feeling of being blue because it's next to something yellow. The fact that people can be mistaken about things in objective reality doesn't make those things then subjective. That's a preposterous argument.

The whole basis of the scientific method is eliminating personal bias and the observational error it can result in. This should be science 101: the whole purpose and epistemology behind science itself. If you don't know that, you literally don't know the first thing about science. It's not about looking at things and coming to conclusions, it's about controlling for the artifacts of human perception and delusion.

Anyways, is the noise of a tree falling in a forest, an objective fact -even if nobody hears it?

The sound vibrations are objective despite there being no accompanying qualia.

Just because gravity is reliable, it has proven to be.. does mean that there will be gravity tomorrow?

Kaz...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Seems like we need to start over with epistemology.

[Kaz1983]

The sky is not blue.

A thing is the color that it reflects, refracts, or emits. From Earth in the day the sky is usually blue unless it's hidden by clouds or smog. All that does is describe the hue balance or predominant wavelength that's coming from it.

But then, neither is the sun at the heart of Monet’s Impression, Sunrise orange; or the courts at Wimbledon green.

You're confusing the objective fact of color with qualia which is how those colors are understood and interpreted in a cognitive and emotional context.
The feeling of blue for one person isn't the same as the feeling of blue for another person, because we all have different ways of seeing things. But it is still objectively blue (as in the color it's reflecting, emitting, or refracting).

The process of seeing colour begins with light rays hitting the objects around us and being reflected off their surfaces and into our eyes.

The process of being a color involves that, or emitting, or refracting. It is relative in the sense that something isn't always the same color from every direction (there are many materials that spread different colors of light in different directions) or in every lighting condition, but relativity isn't subjectivity.

It's like how weight is relative to the gravity field you find yourself in (on the surface of the Earth, its moon, Mars, etc.) but weight is not an opinion. It is not subjective that item X has Y weight in Z location.

We see different things as different colours because the surfaces of objects absorb some wavelengths of the visible spectrum and reflect others.

Or refract (as in the case of the sky) or emit (as in the case of an original light source or fluorescence).

Monet’s orange sun, for example, is soaking up much of the short wavelengths (the violets, blues and greens) and reflecting some longer ones.

You don't need to explain preschool physics.

This information is relayed to our brains where it is processed, allowing us to see those wavelengths as a colour: orange. But our brains are also altering the information they receive to help make sense of it and allow us to process it more quickly – and this is where the subjectivity comes in.

People can see things incorrectly based on optical illusions and driven by expectation. This has to do with qualia, and doesn't change the color the thing actually is. Something that is actually white can have the feeling of being blue because it's next to something yellow. The fact that people can be mistaken about things in objective reality doesn't make those things then subjective. That's a preposterous argument.

The whole basis of the scientific method is eliminating personal bias and the observational error it can result in. This should be science 101: the whole purpose and epistemology behind science itself. If you don't know that, you literally don't know the first thing about science. It's not about looking at things and coming to conclusions, it's about controlling for the artifacts of human perception and delusion.

Anyways, is the noise of a tree falling in a forest, an objective fact -even if nobody hears it?

The sound vibrations are objective despite there being no accompanying qualia.

Just because gravity is reliable, it has proven to be.. does mean that there will be gravity tomorrow?

Kaz...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Seems like we need to start over with epistemology.

Regardless of the disagreement over the colour of sky and whether colours are subjective or not etc etc.. the information you have told me regarding this is interesting and worth looking into.. you know what your talking about when it comes to philosophy in general..

[Kaz1983]

A thing is the color that it reflects, refracts, or emits. From Earth in the day the sky is usually blue unless it's hidden by clouds or smog. All that does is describe the hue balance or predominant wavelength that's coming from it.

If everybody on Earth was blind, all 7 billion.

Would the sky still be blue or without the perception of it, would it just be sunlight that reflects, refracts, and/or emits?

How do we even know if it's our subjective experience of our interpretation of seeing colour, that turns the light into the colour blue (when we look at the sky)?

Is it because we have observed it?

You're confusing the objective fact of color with qualia which is how those colors are understood and interpreted in a cognitive and emotional context.
The feeling of blue for one person isn't the same as the feeling of blue for another person, because we all have different ways of seeing things. But it is still objectively blue (as in the color it's reflecting, emitting, or refracting).

Because colour is subjective.

I mean your right there are some truths to be known but colour is a perception not a fact. A perception is subjective, a fact objective.

Look we don't even know if what you call blue isn't red and if I don't see blue as yellow, like I said colour isn't free of subjectivity. The definition of subjective is here:

"Something that you consider as true might not necessarily be considered true by another person"

Mary's room explains it better:

https://youtu.be/mGYmiQkah4o

"Mary is a scientist who knows everything there is to know about the science of color, but has never experienced color....*

It's like how weight is relative to the gravity field you find yourself in (on the surface of the Earth, its moon, Mars, etc.) but weight is not an opinion. It is not subjective that item X has Y weight in Z location.

The weight of something isn't subjective, your right.

Why? Because it's not something that you consider to be true, that might be perceived differently by another person.

The reason weight is objectively true, is because it's veritable by another person and not open to opinion like colour is.

If there were nobody on earth, the rock would still weight the same as it does now? Right?

Yes colour admits certain properties but it's a subjective experience at the end of the day.. but like I said above - what is blue for me might be actually yellow and what is blue for you might be red, there is no way of telling -because it's a subjective experience.

Check out Mary's room thought experiment, I posted it above. Here you go: Mary's room explains it better:

https://youtu.be/mGYmiQkah4o

"Mary is a scientist who knows everything there is to know about the science of color, but has never experienced color....*

We see different things as different colours because the surfaces of objects absorb some wavelengths of the visible spectrum and reflect others.

Just replace the way a person experiences/takes in different colours, for the way a person experiences weight. It doesn't make sense, a person doesn't experience/take in the weight of an object.

See weight is always the same, regardless of whether a person is on earth or not unlike the perception of colour.

If nobody on Earth was alive and no human existed - would things still weigh the same?

[brimstoneSalad]

A thing is the color that it reflects, refracts, or emits. From Earth in the day the sky is usually blue unless it's hidden by clouds or smog. All that does is describe the hue balance or predominant wavelength that's coming from it.

If everybody on Earth was blind, all 7 billion.

Would the sky be blue or just sunlight that reflects, refracts, or emits?

If everybody went blind today it would still be blue tomorrow.
If nobody had ever seen then we probably wouldn't have the word "blue" but it would still be the same color just minus a word to describe it. It would still be what WE know of as blue.

How do we even know if it's our subjective experience of interpretation of like I said the sunlight that reflects, refracts, or emits?

You use the scientific method to separate subjective qualia from objective facts.
For example, the sky might look blue to us even if it were really just gray if other things around us were yellow. But pointing a camera at it would be able to give us the actual color.

Is because we can see it with our eyes? Objective science is still subjective at the end of the day.

Objective science is not subjective at the end of this or any day.
The nature of scientific methodology controls for human bias and artifacts of perception.

Consider this common length illusion explained here:
https://www.dynamicbrain.ca/long-short.html

Is length then subjective? NO, of course not. Our perception of length is just biased by context because of our monkey brains.
If you take an actual ruler to those to control for that illusion you will find the actual length of them.

You're confusing the subjectivity of very flawed and easily manipulated human perception with the subjectivity of actual fact when measured more reliably.

Colour isn't objective though

Color is objective. It is relative to circumstance, but it's objective. It's composed of different wavelengths of light (which is discussed in physics) giving us HUE. You can search "blue wavelength" and you'll get numerical answers. Then components of saturation and the total relative amount of light giving us lightness or brightness.
It's absolutely based on objective facts of the universe.
Hex code, RGB, and CMYK with standard outputs have only further cemented these definitions.

Now when we talk about specific color names like "coral" or "sea foam" or "eggshell" these things have far less precise definitions. That doesn't mean color as a whole is subjective. That doesn't mean blue is or could be red.

If you're arguing all of color is subjective because we have some more vague terms like "coral" where people might disagree and that don't have specific definitions, that's like saying because we have "arm's length" as a vague length people use sometimes that all length is subjective. It's absurd.

Human perception of color, which can be manipulated by illusions or biases and expectation, can be more subjective. The actual color something is is not subjective. The fact of the existence of more vague terms doesn't invalidate the objectivity of defined terms for colors.

You either completely misunderstand the physics of light and optics, or you're conflating two things.

We don't even know if what you call blue isn't red and if I don't see blue as yellow,

If you see light at 450 nanometers and you call it "red", you're simply wrong.
Like I said, you're confusing qualia and delusions with actual fact.

like I said the colour isn't free of subjectivity. The definition of subjective:

"Something that you consider as true might not necessarily be considered true by another person"

That's a crude definition of subjective, not used here or in philosophy generally.
People disagree on the fact of the shape of the Earth too, it doesn't make it subjective.
People can disagree on ANYTHING. People can think 1+1=4. People can think contradictions are true. People can think any kind of nonsense you can imagine.

When people disagree on something *objective* then one or both of them are wrong because there is a truth to the matter independent of their opinions or beliefs. When they disagree on something *subjective* then neither of them are wrong and they're just expressing their opinions or subjective perceptions on a matter. THAT is the difference between subjective and objective.

If you're claiming that anything anybody can disagree on must be subjective and defining subjective as such, you're just begging the question with a special definition.

The weight of something isn't subjective, your right.

Why? Because it's not something that you consider to be true might, that might be true to another person.

That's asinine.

People can easily disagree on the weights of things. You can also create illusions that make things *seem* to weigh more or less based on bulk, appearance, a shifting center of gravity, of leverage.

I could give you two carefully designed items that each weigh exactly 50 lb in this location and have you swear one weighs much less than another.

The reason weight isn't objective, is because it's veritable by another person and not open to opinion. If there were nobody on earth, the rock would still weight the same as it does not.

The exact same with color.

Colour is subjective tho, yes it admits properties but it's a subjective experience at the end of the day.. what is blue for me might be actually yellow and what it is blue for you might be red, there is no way of telling.

Again, that's qualia, not the actual fact of something's color. Color is not limited to a qualia, it involves defined colors with specific wavelength.

Check out Mary's room thought experiment, I posted it above.

Your'e talking about this:
http://www.philosophy-index.com/jackson/marys-room/

Even the person who made up the thought experiment eventually realized it was a poor argument and changed his mind on it:

It is important to note, though, that years later, Jackson reversed his stance on the argument, explaining that the knowledge argument and Mary’s Room are deeply rooted in our intuitions about the matter, but that science can offer other explanations for the apparent discrepancy.

It's rare to have an argument so bad even the original author comes to his or her senses.

Wikipedia goes into much more detail on the refutations...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
But it's not even an argument relevant to what you're trying to argue here. Mary's Room is an argument against the physicalism of QUALIA, not against the physicalism of color or against its objectivity outside ourselves. To the contrary, it maintains the fact of the objectivity of colors as scientifically knowable and only questions whether the experience of color can be accounted for by physical sciences.

AGAIN I tell you that you're confusing the qualia with the thing itself.

I'm not very keen on being sent on wild goose chases for a thought experiment which not only has nothing to do with your argument, but actually (if you look into it) casually contradicts your claims as part of its setup.

Just replace the way a person experiences/takes in different colours, for the way a person experiences weight. It does make sense, a person doesn't experience/take in the weight of an object. It weight the same, regardless of whether a person is on earth or not unlike the perception of colour.

No, that's mass. Do you not even know the difference between mass and weight?
You're wrong about everything. Please stop and take some time to do more reading and reconsider this issue.

[Kaz1983]

Objective science is not subjective at the end of this or any day.
The nature of scientific methodology controls for human bias and artifacts of perception.

Your right on that I admit.

is length then subjective? NO, of course not. Our perception of length is just biased by context because of our monkey brains.

Because we can touch it.

Human perception of color, which can be manipulated by illusions or biases and expectation, can be more subjective. The actual color something is is not subjective.

Maybe our definitions on what is objective and what is not, aren't the same.

If you see light at 450 nanometers and you call it "red", you're simply wrong.
Like I said, you're confusing qualia and delusions with actual fact.

like I said the colour isn't free of subjectivity. The definition of subjective:

"Something that you consider as true might not necessarily be considered true by another person"

That's a crude definition of subjective, not used here or in philosophy generally.
People disagree on the fact of the shape of the Earth too, it doesn't make it subjective.
People can disagree on ANYTHING. People can think 1+1=4. People can think contradictions are true. People can think any kind of nonsense you can imagine.

Mathematics is an objective truth.

No, that's mass. Do you not even know the difference between mass and weight?
You're wrong about everything. Please stop and take some time to do more reading and reconsider this issue.

I used weight as an example.

You're wrong about everything. Please stop and take some time to do more reading and reconsider this issue.

Just because somebody doesn't agree with you.

[Kaz1983]

I just asked somebody I know, he said colour is nether objective nor subjective. It's objective because it exsists independent of whether we experience it or not and it's subjective in the sense that everybody perceives colours differently unlike getting weighed on a scale.

You don't have to perceive weight, like you do colour.

But like weight it exsists independent of us - so you have a point but it's not completely objective.

All I'm saying is we all perceive colour differently and it only exsists as we see it because of that perception - it's not a fact that we interpretate/perceive colour like we do but it is a fact there is something there that is open to interpretation tho'

Colour is not completely objective and free of any subjectivity. For something to be completely objective.... IT NEEDS TO BE FREE OF ALL SUBJECTIVITY

In other words colour isn't completely objective, nor is it completely subjective. I never said there wasn't an element that is objective, what makes up the subjective experience of colour is out there - that is my point.

I just argued that's it's subjective in the way we perceive the "colour of the sky" for example but there is something there to perceive...

And–this is the hard part–colour is not a property of the thing that’s causing the sensation. In other words, grass is not green and the sky is not blue. Rather, they have physical properties that make you perceive green and blue..

Grass is not green and the sky is not blue.... In other words: there is no colour, if nobody's looking at it..

[Sunflowers]

I didn't deny that he's a popularizer - I said precisely that in this alone did his value reside. But as a work of ethical insight, 'the Moral Landscape' is a joke and those who read it looking for ethical insight are misguided and should have done a bit of due diligence on its author.

[Kaz1983]

I didn't deny that he's a popularizer - I said precisely that in this alone did his value reside. But as a work of ethical insight, 'the Moral Landscape' is a joke and those who read it looking for ethical insight are misguided and should have done a bit of due diligence on its author.

I wouldn't say in general that "The Moral Landscape" is a joke but I don't agree with it totally. I can see why a lot of people have had problems regarding things that have been said in that book. I still enjoyed reading the book tho

But, I've definitely changed my overall opinion on it.