Morality doesn't make sense.

[Kaz1983]

I know it is appealing to authority, even though you think I'm stupid I'm really not as stupid as you think.

I never said you're stupid, that's a conclusion you're drawing by yourself.
However, an appeal to authority fallacy is a stupid thing to do. And below, you do it again.

That said, plenty of philosophers that's a held in high regard for people studying philosophy at university, all knowledge may be derived purely from sensory experience.

And again, how is that saying anything about subjectivity?

You're not answering my questions. You're completely ignoring what I'm saying, I've addressed this more times than I can count. Go back and read my post.
Knowledge only being derivable from X subject through sensory experience =/= X subject being subjective.

So don't they play me that I am some idiot online to think something absurd, as I said lots of others question materialism too.

You're proving yourself to be one. You keep repeating yourself after I address what you say. You're going in circles.

You're proving yourself to be one because you're saying that knowledge maybe being able to be gained only through sensory experience would mean subjectivity on the matter, after I explained you more than once how the latter doesn't follow from the former, and that it's a non-sequitur.
Materialism also has nothing to do with this. I don't know what you're talking about.

You seem to not like me questioning materialism, or to put it into your words "me doing the crap job trying to question materialism" ..

What are you talking about. Have you lost the plot, or is your phone acting up again?
I didn't even mention materialism.

Maybe you ought to stop being lazy and actually write your responses properly, and take the time to read and address what I said/asked - clearly the way you're doing it now doesn't work.

look I'm not trying to win an argument by appealing to authority figures, you're right that would be a logical fallacy

You literally JUST said that you know what you did is an appeal to authority fallacy.
'Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.'

The fact that you keep going in circles, that you say sentences that don't make sense like me saying something about materialism, and you contradicting yourself multiple times. It begs one question. Are you trolling?

- nahh all I'm doing is pointing out that some authority figures held a similar position to myself

Which means nothing. You presented no evidence to support your claims. And you don't even address my questions - which is disrespectful and annoying.

You can't just let a person digest what your saying can you? You and others would prefer to ram it down a person throat.. just to get your point across .. jeez it's kinda annoying but regardless, rather than argue like a bunch of school girls over something stupid, let's be productive. For starters what are these questions? I know you ask them before but it was at the end of a paragraph, that was attacking my position - of course I'm actually gonna get defensive, that's a normal reaction .. anyways I'm not asking for a long ass paragraph with a question at the end but just the question itself.. anyways, if it's important that I answer your questions, which it seems that is; why don't you just clearly list the questions you want me to answer and I will answer them no problems.

[thebestofenergy]

You can't just let a person digest what your saying can you? You and others would prefer to ram it down a person throat.. just to get your point across .. jeez it's kinda annoying

Then take the time to? Nobody is forcing you to reply immediately.

How exactly am I not letting you the time to digest, when you can simply take the time to?
You're being very childish.

but regardless, rather than argue like a bunch of school girls over something stupid, let's be productive.

Not sure who's arguing like a bunch of schoolgirls over something stupid. Are you saying what you asked is stupid?
You can try to play it off all you want, but I was trying to have an honest discussion.

For starters what are these questions?

You can ctrl + F, and then type ? , and you'll see the ones you didn't answer.

of course I'm actually gonna get defensive, that's a normal reaction ..

Just because something is normal, doesn't mean it's OK. Eating meat is also normal.
You can feel defensive, sure, but acting defensive isn't the same thing.

anyways, if it's important that I answer your questions, which it seems that is; why don't you just clearly list the questions you want me to answer and I will answer them no problems.

Is it important that you answer and address others in a discussion? What do you think?
You can start answering that.

Why don't you clearly go through what I already asked, and put the effort like I did - because effort has to go both ways - and address my rebuttal of your claims rather than going in circles.
You said you were going to read through the old posts.

You're very demanding that others put the effort, while you do not do so yourself.

[Kaz1983]

I spent some time thinking about it today and realised that I shouldn't have used the word "subjective" or "subjectivity", that was an error on my part and then to defend something you don't believe was not smart to say the least. See I don't believe that science is purely subjective and besides, it doesn't seem as though science could be influenced by personal preferences or feelings. What I do believe is that we can't gain knowledge without sensory experience. That's the thing I said over and over again, is that "all knowledge is derived from sensory experience". Most likely I was repeating this over and over again. If you doubt me, just go read through my prior posts, never did I doubt the existence of an external world that's scientifically verifiable, even tho experience in the real world is necessary to scientifically verify something in the first place... I never said anything like the.. "if you were in a coma or dead, the Earth would definitely stop existing".… nor do I believe in solipsism, as somebody pointed out. What I do believe is that "all knowledge comes from sensory experience" - see we are not born with preconceived ideas of the world that we could use pure reason to attain.. there is no knowledge that can be gained through reason alone (Plato's theroy of the forms springs to mind but there are others). To make it clear for everybody, I'm just talking about how our senses can fail us/do fail us and how "sensory experience" applies to human knowledge and the sciences not anything about science being subjective, that doesn't make any sense for reasons that have been pointed out to me. What I said before was flawed, mainly due to an accurate usage of language which deffo was an issue on my part. I have hopefully cleared up a lot of the misunderstanding here.

[thebestofenergy]

@Kaz1983 yes, you have cleared up most of what you actually thought.

If knowledge can only be had through sensory experience, like you said, there's a margin of error that can be had - and as with all science, that possibility of error is always accounted for.
But that's why we try to use more and more precise methods, reasonings and calculations, and more observers - to avoid mistakes as much as possible, and sometimes the chance of error becomes so small it's negligible.
While someone might be hallucinating that the sun comes up because of brain cancer, it's unlikely two people would imagine the same thing at the same time, and absurdly unlikely one thousand people would imagine the same thing at the same time.

If you want, you can start a thread about whether knowledge can only be gained from sensory experience. It might be an interesting topic.

Do you understand why the evidence would be objective now? Do you understand the concept that whether we understand something or not, the truth is there even if we can't reach it (i.e. the dice roll has an objective outcome even if we don't see the result)?

[Kaz1983]

Do you understand why the evidence would be objective now? Do you understand the concept that whether we understand something or not, the truth is there even if we can't reach it (i.e. the dice roll has an objective outcome even if we don't see the result)?

Yes I understand that especially the hard sciences are objectively verifiable to be either true or false. Many people are correct, they are not open to interpretation. I think I've got it into my head, even if it wasn't happen to convince me - as I didn't hold that is science is an illusion or anything but I get your point.

Mostly importantly tho is that I understand the difference between; "having knowledge of the truth" and "not having knowledge of the truth". If you don't have knowledge of something, it doesn't mean that there is no truth of the matter and there is a huge difference between something being influenced by our feelings, beliefs, attitudes - compared to talking about how our senses always can and do fail us, it's reminiscent of the Rene Descartes famous thought experiment.

It's kinda ironic because the whole; "all knowledge is gained through sensory experience" from what I know is actually how scientific knowledge is acquired. I'm not talking about the end result but more the process in which scientific knowledge is acquired.

[Porphyry]

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?

Just like David Hume said;

"Reason is the slave to the passions"

I think that there may be a misunderstanding regarding infinite regresses. An infinite regress is not necessarily a fallacy or a contradiction. There are numerous examples of infinite regresses that are coherent. Some are used in mathematics; for example in recurring mathematical procedures or arguments that generate either infinitely repeating decimals or irrational numbers. Structurally, these recurrences are the same as arguments based on an infinite regress.

For an infinite regress to be invalid it must be a vicious regress, not simply a regress. An example of a vicious argument happens when we analyze a statement like 'I always lie'. If the statement is true, then it is false. If the statement is false, then it is true, etc. It is not always clear whether an argument contains a statement that is vicious.

Non-vicious arguments that contain, or imply, an infinite regress do not contain such self-referential, or recursive, statements. An example is arguing for the infinite causal past of the cosmos. In ancient philosophy this was sometimes rejected on the grounds that it generated an infinite regress; but there is no contradiction nor self-referential, self-destroying, recurrence. The idea of an infinitely existing causal cosmos may or may not be true, but it is not invalid due to it generating an infinite regress.

Most proposed grounds for morality are not exclusively based on reason; they may be based on revelation (the ten commandments), or they may be causally connected to a religious goal as when Buddhist morality is seen as conducive to attaining nirvana. I don't see a regress, or recursive procedures, in either of these examples.

[teo123]

Do you understand why the evidence would be objective now? Do you understand the concept that whether we understand something or not, the truth is there even if we can't reach it (i.e. the dice roll has an objective outcome even if we don't see the result)?

Yes I understand that especially the hard sciences are objectively verifiable to be either true or false. Many people are correct, they are not open to interpretation. I think I've got it into my head, even if it wasn't happen to convince me - as I didn't hold that is science is an illusion or anything but I get your point.

Mostly importantly tho is that I understand the difference between; "having knowledge of the truth" and "not having knowledge of the truth". If you don't have knowledge of something, it doesn't mean that there is no truth of the matter and there is a huge difference between something being influenced by our feelings, beliefs, attitudes - compared to talking about how our senses always can and do fail us, it's reminiscent of the Rene Descartes famous thought experiment.

It's kinda ironic because the whole; "all knowledge is gained through sensory experience" from what I know is actually how scientific knowledge is acquired. I'm not talking about the end result but more the process in which scientific knowledge is acquired.

Why would all knowledge be gained from sensory experience? Knowledge of mathematics is not gained through sensory experience, it's true no matter what exists anywhere in the universe (except for the Euclid's Fifth Postulate, but, even then, the Pythagorean Theorem can be stated as "If the Euclid's Fifth Postulate is true, then...", again true in every possible universe). The basics of the scientific method also aren't based on experience.

[teo123]

So if you do values the non aggression principle, this would mean that if you had the choice to initiate violence upon 1 person to save 99 people from being burnt alive. because you hold that the NAP is true, you would be acting objectively immorally by initiating that violence upon the 1 person to save the 99 people being burnt alive. You agree with this position?

Basically, yes, because in no real-world situation you can know with reasonable certainty that if you kill one person you will save 99 people.

[Kaz1983]

So if you do values the non aggression principle, this would mean that if you had the choice to initiate violence upon 1 person to save 99 people from being burnt alive. because you hold that the NAP is true, you would be acting objectively immorally by initiating that violence upon the 1 person to save the 99 people being burnt alive. You agree with this position?

Basically, yes, because in no real-world situation you can know with reasonable certainty that if you kill one person you will save 99 people.

That's not really true tho, ever watched one of the Saw films? If you want to, I'm sure holding 100 people hostage would be possible. I mean you could force a person (that you are holding hostage) to decide whether to kill one person and save 99 or refused to kill one person and instead watch them all die. Then if you hold the position, that you are morally obligated to watch 100 people die rather than just kill one person. So I gave you a real-world situation where the above is more than possible, so don't go tell me that " but, but in the real world you could never.."

Do you understand why the evidence would be objective now? Do you understand the concept that whether we understand something or not, the truth is there even if we can't reach it (i.e. the dice roll has an objective outcome even if we don't see the result)?

Yes I understand that especially the hard sciences are objectively verifiable to be either true or false. Many people are correct, they are not open to interpretation. I think I've got it into my head, even if it wasn't happen to convince me - as I didn't hold that is science is an illusion or anything but I get your point.

Mostly importantly tho is that I understand the difference between; "having knowledge of the truth" and "not having knowledge of the truth". If you don't have knowledge of something, it doesn't mean that there is no truth of the matter and there is a huge difference between something being influenced by our feelings, beliefs, attitudes - compared to talking about how our senses always can and do fail us, it's reminiscent of the Rene Descartes famous thought experiment.

It's kinda ironic because the whole; "all knowledge is gained through sensory experience" from what I know is actually how scientific knowledge is acquired. I'm not talking about the end result but more the process in which scientific knowledge is acquired.

Why would all knowledge be gained from sensory experience? Knowledge of mathematics is not gained through sensory experience, it's true no matter what exists anywhere in the universe (except for the Euclid's Fifth Postulate, but, even then, the Pythagorean Theorem can be stated as "If the Euclid's Fifth Postulate is true, then...", again true in every possible universe). The basics of the scientific method also aren't based on experience.

I'm not doubting that two + two = four, of course it does. The answer will always be four. I'm not saying that if you do not have knowledge of something, that it does not exist. The answer is four everytime and it doesn't need a human to gain knowledge of the answer for it to be true. Can a human being gain knowledge of 2 + 2 = 4 without experience tho?

It seems that you believe that experience does not play a part in the acquiring of scientific knowledge. Even tho empirical research, involves doing various different experiments to prove the hypothesis true and in the process verifying that the "something" is true. This is very important element of the scientific method which you could say is the core building block when it comes to science in general.

[teo123]

ever watched one of the Saw films

No. Why is that relevant?

I'm sure holding 100 people hostage would be possible

Sure, if you have a lot of help. And then, if you have a lot of help, killing just you probably isn't enough to save all the people you are holding hostage. Do you think that, if prisons exist, killing the guards is a good thing? Do you think that killing Hitler would have saved all the people his army killed?

Can a human being gain knowledge of 2 + 2 = 4 without experience tho?

Why not? You think the only way of knowing 100x100=10'000 is by counting?