Morality doesn't make sense.

[brimstoneSalad]

Thus, you are wrong about everything you're asserting here. Q.E.D.

In your opinion.

Logic is not an opinion. If you think it is then you do not belong on this forum. See the forum rules. It is not productive to derail discussions into questions of whether logic itself has objective validity every time you're demonstrated to be wrong by contradiction.

I demonstrated that we're only going from one ought to another, and you admitted to the former ought. End of discussion.

I agree communication and understanding is key to people conveying their ideas from one person to another but these ideas did not arise because we all came to a consensus that language plays a very important role in our development of a society,

It's not relevant how it "arose". We weren't created by a god either. You admitted it is prescriptive, period. Valid prescriptivity doesn't require an infinite regress of purpose back to a creator god. A prescriptive concept can arise from emergent application or even randomly; it merely needs be prescriptive.

If you're claiming it does need an infinite regress then you need to take back your admission that it's prescriptive and you need to provide a valid deductive argument proving that. Thus far no theist has been able to do so (and that would be the holy grail of apologetics) so you're probably not going to be able to either.
If you're not going to provide such an argument then you need to shut up because you have been proved wrong to a moral certainty. The fact that logic can not be proved without logic doesn't invalidate logic and if you think it does AGAIN you do not belong here.

David Hume was quoted as saying “reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions”

Again, you do not belong here if you're going to assert things like that to contradict logic. This is a place of reasoned discussion and if you're only going to claim everything is emotional and reason has no providence then you have no place in engaging in such discussions and you do not belong here.

I've said it many times in the past and I'll say it again (with this being a good example), moral subjectivists are ultimately factual subjectivists and subjectivists about logic itself; otherwise they're pretty easy to correct when it comes to moral minimalism because it's so obvious if you accept logic.

There are some very interesting discussions to have about robust moral realism and those discussions are very much welcome, but failure to assent to minimal realism is a non-starter.

For a hardcore subjectivist (even denying minimalism) their claims ALWAYS reduce to a denial of logic. Such people are not welcome here because they do not accept the basic principles of logic and reason upon which debate here is based.

Subjectivists are welcome only until they show their true colors as deniers of the objectivity of logic. See the forum rules (which you are currently in violation of): viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2115

The above is similar to how a human takes a dog for a walk. The dog is the slave, just like how reason is the slave to our desires and emotions.

I'm aware of the argument, although you have made it poorly I have read better versions of it.
If you don't think that dog can turn around and bite the owner on occasion to break free, and you're not willing to let that happen for your attempt to reason here, then you have no place here. We're not going to humor an argument with pretenses at reason aimed at debunking reason and you are not welcome here if you will not at least for the sake of argument accept reason and logic as objective. Accepting logic is the basic requirement for participating in discussion here and this isn't up for debate, you're just going to end up getting banned for forum rule violation.

If you don't accept logic then you can stay and talk about your feelings in relevant threads and what food/movies you like, but you need to stay out of real philosophical discussions.

See I do believe that we try to perform the task of reasoning between the two options (what ever they are) but it’s not very effective tho cos our desires and emotions win out every single time.

This kind of argument is asinine because the desire to be reasonable/logical can and does exist in many people and can trump other desires. It's not always possible for people to rationalize direct contradictions when laid bare in order to reconcile that desire with another.

If you are not a person with a desire to be reasonable/logical, or you are one of those very *special* people (dialetheists) who has no problem rationalizing direct contradictions then you are not welcome here (at least in real discussions). Simple as that.

I'm not contesting that language can be used as a very effective tool used for communicating our ideas and concepts to other people. I don't get how language could be based on reason though,

If you have a purpose, then there are qualities that serve that purpose better or worse than others; that is objective. If you think sense data is the inherent "subjective" limiting factor there then you have not heard of science. Science is not a subjective process (again revealing your factual relativism), measurement in science is subject to error and uncertainty but is not a mere opinion. You're clearly too ignorant to participate in these discussions. You can come back after you've taken physics 101. Have the professor explain to you why science is better than a random opinion.

When it comes to the words that come out of our mouth, they don't express the reason why we choose to do action X but the underlying desire behind the decision to choose X over Y for example, this thought process leads to other questions like the investigation into whether we want to experience this desire again or not?

The words I'm forming here are expressing fact claims. My reasons for bothering to type them are my own and have nothing to do with the meanings of the words which derive from objective prescriptive criterion having only to do with the essential purposes of communication and understanding. That is to say it is incorrect for somebody to twist the meanings of words themselves for other personal motives; cat doesn't start meaning dog because I want cat lovers to be dog lovers.

If the answer to the question is yes, then you've got to pick the best course of action that will result in the fulfillments of said desires.

You do not get to pick special personal definitions to words to suit your agenda, no. If you are doing so then again you do not belong here because this is also a violation of forum rules.

1. Content of Posts
This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.
Discussion is also founded upon correct usage of words. The forum language is English, and while it's fine to discuss definitions, assertively twisting words beyond their reasonable definition to troll, like saying "Saliva is an animal product, if you swallow your own saliva you're not vegan!" is not acceptable.

This will involve ought's, sure but just because you use this terminology that doesn't make you a hypocrite if you deem that morality is not-cognitive

It puts you in violation of forum rules both in terms of rejection of logic and dishonestly twisting the meanings of words to suit your agenda rather than using correct definitions.

and does not possess any truth value - which you seem to be suggesting.

Precise moral claims are fact claims that have a quality of accuracy and can be true or false.

Vague moral claims are sometimes hard to parse in the same way vague scientific claims are, e.g. "if you drop a rock it will fall faster" faster than what? Where is it being dropped? vs. "If you remove the normal force from a rock in a gravitational field it will accelerate toward the center of mass in that field". The difficulty of parsing vague statements does not invalidate moral realism or substantiate error theory.

No, it's a fact and expression of annoyance at you being childish about me not responding fast enough.

This is just your opinion, which holds no more weight than some idiot in the room yelling “I see dead people”

Your childish behavior was noted by another in the thread as well. If enough people claim to see the same ghost I would start to wonder if there's something there despite my original skepticism. Do we need to take a poll?

[Kaz1983]

Logic is not an opinion. If you think it is then you do not belong on this forum. See the forum rules. It is not productive to derail discussions into questions of whether logic itself has objective validity every time you're demonstrated to be wrong by contradiction.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I never questioned whether logic itself has objective validity or not.. no, that is an assumption on your part and has nothing to do with logic but everything to do with your own personal opinion and this opinion is just an assumption based on your understanding of what I said. The reason that I will cut you some slag is because for all I know, you might be a decent person in real life but when it comes to the internet, you're acting like a bit of a dick.

Again, you do not belong here if you're going to assert things like that to contradict logic.

Are you saying that David Hume quote about the passions, contradicts logic?

We weren't created by a god either.

Your claiming that morality is based on reason, something that you have done over and over again - without proving it to be true. It's just like the existence of god, morality can neither be true or false. Just like the atheist, I'm not making a positive claim. Your claiming to know who parked the red car, but I acknowledge a car exist but I cannot prove it to be true nor can I prove it to be false. No morality is based on desire/human sentiment not reason, desire/human sentiment!is self-evident and most importantly falsifiable. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

You admitted it is prescriptive, period.

What I said is that just like hard determinism we use language in a similar way, in both cases we talk as language being solely prescriptive but this is not the case - I use the example about eating chocolate before, just the word ought is used that doesn't mean the conclusion isn't based on a descriptive desire - in this case "I desire to eat chocolate" ... see the way that the ordinary speaker uses a language, is interpreted in prescriptive but this is partly true and something being partly true isn't same has been completely true. Or the hard determinist will still use statements like "I choose the coffee over the tea" in an everyday sense but on play more detached, reflective sense they will realise they are in error when it comes to that statement. And besides, just because we all come to a consensus on something that does not make it objectively true?

If you're not going to provide such an argument then you need to shut up..

Please don't tell me to shut up, there's no need to name call each other. Show a bit of self control man, besides there's really no need to start throwing around insults anyways. You agree?

... if you're only going to claim everything is emotional...

I no you're trying to painting out to be something irrational person it tonight everything from the empirical sciences to logic and mathematics, but I never said that everything is based on emotion, and that reason play no part in anything... With that being said, apart from logic, mathematics and the empirical sciences - reason takes a back seat to human sentiment and you go on to admit this but make sure that you add the caveat that some desires are objectively true. Reason for me is contingent upon human sentiment. If you don't desire to do X, the reason you ought do Y disappears.

There are some very interesting discussions to have about robust moral realism and those discussions are very much welcome, but failure to assent to minimal realism is a non-starter.

It seems you don't like people who hold contrasting ideas to yourself, why is that? Look I prefer to have conversations with people who hold opposing veiw points to myself and rather than someone just agreeing with you, that doesn't really make you question your beliefs but people who do hold opposing years to yourself do challenge your ideas and you can learn new things.

Subjectivists are welcome only until they show their true colors as deniers of the objectivity of logic.

I don't believe that subjectivism makes a lot of sense either, we agree on that but I don't agree with you that subjective morality is self-defeating because subjectivism logic of follows to fall into the trap of being empirical nihilism - which you seem to be claiming. If moral statements are based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions - the statements cannot be verifiable and therefore are meaningless.

If you don't think that dog can turn around and bite the owner on occasion to break free. Idea of being a rational human being is contention upon human sentiment.

The dog may feel as tho as a choice in the matter but the dog would turn around and bite the owner because of desire not reason.

If you don't accept logic then you can stay and talk about your feelings in relevant threads.

This is a very relevant thread, at the moment there are probably no other threads that are more relevant.. If you cared to refresh yourself the opening post is about how moral statements are based on reason and where can "reason" originate if not from a non-cognitive state like human sentiment or more commonly known as desires lot emotions..that's a good question and a valid one at that too.

This kind of argument is asinine because the desire to be reasonable/logical can and does exist in many people and can trump other desires.

So your agree - we are born without any innate ideas/concepts or as has been said "humans are born as a blank slate", see it makes sense that we learn solely from experience and from this experience we develop unconscious desires and this is what reason is based on... in your book some desires are stronger than other but it seems you believe that humans are born with the concept/idea (of the importance) of being a reasonable person and this is the basis for morality being objective.

[thebestofenergy]

Logic is not an opinion. If you think it is then you do not belong on this forum. See the forum rules. It is not productive to derail discussions into questions of whether logic itself has objective validity every time you're demonstrated to be wrong by contradiction.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I never questioned whether logic itself has objective validity or not.. no, that is an assumption on your part and has nothing to do with logic but everything to do with your own personal opinion.

Thus, you are wrong about everything you're asserting here. Q.E.D.

In your opinion.

?
Either you're wrong, or you're not. Why are you framing it like it's opinion based?

You admitted it is prescriptive, period.

I did not admit that language is prescriptive, full stop

I'm not saying that the way we approach the use of language is not in some way prescriptive

Something either is prescriptive or it isn't.

Do you think language is somewhat prescriptive? What would that even mean?

Without the desire to act morally in X situation, the reason for doing Y completely disappears.

Why would it completely disappear?
So if the agent in a certain situation is a psychopath, there's no moral relevance whatsoever in the universe anymore?

There's still a reason to do Y (whatever that would be), because it would reduce suffering/increase happiness.
Just because someone doesn't want to do something, doesn't mean the reason for doing it goes away. The reason is still there, the person simply doesn't care anymore.
Something doesn't just disappear because you stop caring about it.

It goes back to objective truth, and you not-seeing-it not meaning that it doesn't exist. It does.
Except this time you switched 'seeing it' with 'caring for it/wanting it'.

Even if I don't want to pursue the path to the best moral outcome, the path to the best moral outcome is still the same. The suffering of sentient beings is still affected the same way, to the same extent, no matter the wishes of the person acting.

[Kaz1983]

?
Either you're wrong, or you're not. Why are you framing it like it's opinion based?

You can have the opinion that somebody is wrong too, you do realise that? See most claims don't have any substance to them and are just mere opinions. Besides at the end of the day, I'm not framing this claim as opinion based - he's doing it for me haha.... why? Because so far, he has not giving me anything more than just his opinion. He has not given me a simple (not a wall of words..), clear and concise reason why I am objectively wrong.

Something either is prescriptive or it isn't.

"Black & White Thinking - the fallacy of leaping from the falsity (or undesirability) of one proposition to the truth (or desirability) of an extreme opposite - is identical in its basic logical structure to False Dichotomy"
https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompso ... 0Dichotomy.

Do you think language is somewhat prescriptive? What would that even mean?

We can and do, regularly hold false beliefs. Within philosophical circles, language is not prescriptive (ultimately it's either one or the other, your right) but in an every day sense we are in error because we do mostly use language in a prescriptive way and language ultimately isn't prescriptive. But regardless, we can and regularly do hold false beliefs... just like how people believed that when it came to the error theory, ordinary person without realising spoke about morality as if it's objective but when asked held preposition that it's subjective. They were in error when it came to morality.

There's still a reason to do Y (whatever that would be), because it would reduce suffering/increase happiness.

Can you please answer this question; how did you arrive at the conclusion that it would reduce suffering and increase happiness?

[thebestofenergy]

You can have the opinion that somebody is wrong too, you do realise that?

And your opinion that someone is wrong will either be correct or wrong, you do realize that?

See most claims don't have any substance to them and are just mere opinions.

His claim that you're wrong is not just a mere opinion, it's the exact opposite.

Because so far, he has not giving me anything more than just his opinion. He has not given me a simple (not a wall of words..), clear and concise reason why I am objectively wrong.

He has explained you, actually. You just don't seem to be able to grasp why the 'wall of words' would mean you're wrong.

Something either is prescriptive or it isn't.

"Black & White Thinking - the fallacy of leaping from the falsity (or undesirability) of one proposition to the truth (or desirability) of an extreme opposite - is identical in its basic logical structure to False Dichotomy"
https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompso ... 0Dichotomy.

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
'A situation in which two alternative points of view are presented as the only options, when others are available.'
What I said isn't a false dichotomy. What other option/s are available, besides being prescriptive or non-prescriptive?

We can and do, regularly hold false beliefs.

How does that matter with language being prescriptive or not?

Within philosophical circles, language is not prescriptive (ultimately it's either one or the other, your right)

You literally just contradicted yourself with the false dichotomy claim, do you see that?
This is just one of your many contradictions. It seems like you're more confused than not.

How do you not realize you're contradicting yourself in the span of two sentences?

There's still a reason to do Y (whatever that would be), because it would reduce suffering/increase happiness.

Can you please answer this question; how did you arrive at the conclusion that it would reduce suffering and increase happiness?

Sure thing. I'll give you an example.
Suffering: 'the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship'

You can see exactly how much and with what intensity a sentient being is suffering by observing empirical data you can gather from brain activity - the more advanced the science, the more precise the data.
You can do so by having knowledge of what neurons are and do, and observing which ones are firing, and with what intensity and in which quantity.

You now know how much X sentient being is suffering, and have a way to quantify it.

You can then understand that dropping a rock from a highway bridge onto the highway would have X% chance of injuring someone with Y% damage, and Z% chance of killing someone. You can do so by observing basic physics (weight of the stone, height of the drop), and seeing how many cars are passing by on average on the highway, calculating the chance that a stone would either hit a person directly or disrupt the direction of the vehicle.

You can then calculate the suffering by applying the average amount a human would suffer from the incident, with the average chance that a stone would injure/kill someone, and the average family size and the amount they'd suffer considering the chance that their relative would be injured/killed.

Of course, it's not an easy calculation to do, and variables are hard to obtain.
But therein lies how it is - it's hard to obtain, not impossible.

With advanced enough scientific equipment and data, you'd be able to perfectly tell and predict the objective expected amount of suffering after dropping a stone that weighs X amount from Y height from the bridge above the Z highway, at 10:00 PM.

It's a matter of mathematics, not opinion. We probably can't reach the truth yet on exactly how much suffering it's going to cause, because we don't have the means to do so, but it's definitely possible - and it's objective.

And we can certainly conclude that, even though we don't know it with absolute precision yet, the moral outcome of dropping a stone from a highway would be an objectively net negative moral outcome, even if you enjoy throwing stones.

Just like we can certainly conclude that throwing a 92-faced dice with wind and uneven terrain has objectively a higher chance of resulting in not-92 than 92 - even though we don't know precisely the chance yet (because of not-yet-calculable physics factors like how the strength of the throw, the wind, and the uneven terrain will affect the result), one outcome is obviously objectively much more likely than the other.
Just like the net negative of throwing a stone from a highway bridge.

[Kaz1983]

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
'A situation in which two alternative points of view are presented as the only options, when others are available.'
What I said isn't a false dichotomy. What other option/s are available, besides being prescriptive or non-prescriptive?

Your proposing that there are two options, either language is "prescriptive or non-prescriptive" - tbh the way language is used it's neither, all you given me is ultimately two options, the first being language is solely objectively prescriptive or the second option is language is solely descriptive. The thing is, it's more complex than that and this what I've tried to explain - as humans we use language is prescriptive ways but without the descriptive desire to do X, the prescriptive ought disappears and this means that language is used in prescriptive ways but for language to be meaningful it's contingent on the descriptive desires.

We can and do, regularly hold false beliefs.

How does that matter with language being prescriptive or not?

When it comes to describing ordinary moral thought and discourse it defiantly matters.

Sure thing. I'll give you an example.
Suffering: 'the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship'

You can see exactly how much and with what intensity a sentient being is suffering by observing empirical data you can gather from brain activity - the more advanced the science, the more precise the data.
You can do so by having knowledge of what neurons are and do, and observing which ones are firing, and with what intensity and in which quantity.

It sounds like I'm talking to a Sam Harris fan. But seriously, your telling me that good/moral equals positive well-being and bad/immoral equals negative well-being. The problem I have is that if you don't desire to value well-being, having your morality based on well-being just won't work.. with that being said, maybe you could be born with concept of automatically valuing the well-being of humanity but that is very problematic too. Which do you believe is true? It seems your argument goes as follows..

Human beings value not suffering.
Killing a human being causes suffering.
Therefore, you ought not kill a human being.

At first glance that looks fine, but looking a bit harder just like Sam's moral framework it runs into the is/ought problem.

[thebestofenergy]

Your proposing that there are two options, either language is "prescriptive or non-prescriptive" - tbh the way language is used it's neither, all you given me is ultimately two options, the first being language is solely objectively prescriptive or the second option is language is solely descriptive.

No, I haven't. That's a strawman. Why do you change what I said?
I didn't say solely objectively prescriptive or solely descriptive, I said prescriptive or non-prescriptive.
If you think prescriptive or non-prescriptive would be the same as prescriptive or descriptive, you're yourself admitting there's only two options.
If X and non-X are equal to X and Y, then there's only X and Y that are possible.

And again, prescriptive vs non-prescriptive is not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy requires it to be false.
You've not shown me how language can be something else other than prescriptive or non-prescriptive.

And of course, you just ignore the fact that you contradicted yourself. Why would you not ignore it, right? When it's much easier for you to do.

Something either is prescriptive or it isn't.

"Black & White Thinking - the fallacy of leaping from the falsity (or undesirability) of one proposition to the truth (or desirability) of an extreme opposite - is identical in its basic logical structure to False Dichotomy"
https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompso ... 0Dichotomy.

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
'A situation in which two alternative points of view are presented as the only options, when others are available.'
What I said isn't a false dichotomy. What other option/s are available, besides being prescriptive or non-prescriptive?

Within philosophical circles, language is not prescriptive (ultimately it's either one or the other, your right)

You literally just contradicted yourself with the false dichotomy claim, do you see that?
This is just one of your many contradictions. It seems like you're more confused than not.

How do you not realize you're contradicting yourself in the span of two sentences?

Do I really have to keep quoting you contradicting yourself until you pick a side?

You said ultimately it's either one or the other. So which is it?

The thing is, it's more complex than that and this what I've tried to explain...

Can you tell me the definition of prescriptive you're using?
Because just like with the definition of subjective, there are multiple ones, and I want to make sure we're on the same page.

as humans we use language is prescriptive ways but without the descriptive desire to do X, the prescriptive ought disappears and this means that language is used in prescriptive ways but for language to be meaningful it's contingent on the descriptive desires.

Just because our desires are different one from the other, doesn't mean language is not prescriptive. It's a non-sequitur.
Whether we desire something or not, doesn't change the inherent way language works.

We can and do, regularly hold false beliefs.

How does that matter with language being prescriptive or not?

When it comes to describing ordinary moral thought and discourse it defiantly matters.

OK, can you answer my question now?

If I ask you how X matters, and in response you say X definitely matters, that really doesn't do much.
I've asked you how does holding possibly false beliefs matter with whether language is prescriptive or not. Why.

Sure thing. I'll give you an example.
Suffering: 'the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship'

You can see exactly how much and with what intensity a sentient being is suffering by observing empirical data you can gather from brain activity - the more advanced the science, the more precise the data.
You can do so by having knowledge of what neurons are and do, and observing which ones are firing, and with what intensity and in which quantity.

It sounds like I'm talking to a Sam Harris fan. But seriously, your telling me that good/moral equals positive well-being and bad/immoral equals negative well-being. The problem I have is that if you don't desire to value well-being, having your morality based on well-being just won't work.. with that being said, maybe you could be born with concept of automatically valuing the well-being of humanity but that is very problematic too. Which do you believe is true? It seems your argument goes as follows..

Human beings value not suffering.
Killing a human being causes suffering.
Therefore, you ought not kill a human being.

At first glance that looks fine, but looking a bit harder just like Sam's moral framework it runs into the is/ought problem.

What are you on about? I'm not telling you what equals what, I've given you an example to show you how to understand the quantity of suffering.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... an-Fallacy
Please, take a moment to read that.

You asked me to show you how to determine the amount of suffering. I have done that.
What does that matter with Sam Harris.

Do you accept that the amount of suffering is predictable and quantifiable, and objective?
That's the first step.

[Kaz1983]

You said ultimately it's either one or the other. So which is it?

I'm not talking about how language is interpreted within philosophical circles, I deliberately pointed this out but no, I'm talking about how your average person approaches the use of language in a everyday sense and not a detached, reflective sense that happens within philosophical circles.

Can you tell me the definition of prescriptive you're using?

"prescriptive linguistics is a set of rules about language based on how people think language should be used"

That is what I've gone by.. ohh and when I talk about language/linguistics "descriptive" - this is what I am talking about;

"the study of descriptive linguistics is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is actually used"

Whether we desire something or not, doesn't change the inherent way language works.

Language as built on desire, without the desire for the need to communicate and express ideas to one another - language wouldn't exist.

OK, can you answer my question now?

If I ask you how X matters, and in response you say X definitely matters, that really doesn't do much.
I've asked you how does holding possibly false beliefs matter with whether language is prescriptive or not. Why.

Because ordinary linguistic discourse involves error on the part of the individual, this is because we hold the false belief that language is prescriptive when in fact prescriptive language relies fundamentally on descriptive language. I have explained this before regarding the "desire to eat chocolate" - just like morality, the ordinary persons moral language and discourse talks about being objectively wrong - take rape, many, many people would say that it is always wrong for everybody to commit rape but the funny thing is that at the same time these people believe that morality is subjective, imo this makes zero sense and just shows that moral language and discourse - is in fundamental error, these people hold false the belief that morality is subjective and tal objective at the same time. Look I believe a lot of what you're saying, just that prescriptive language relies on descriptive reports of what is the case and without them language would not function.

You asked me to show you how to determine the amount of suffering. I have done that.

I was just logically unpacking, the placing value on well-being which you seem to be doing. It seems you hold the believe that morality is objective based on the well-being of the individual. See we are not born with the idea/concept of rationality, this is something that is learnt over time is through non-cognitive behaviours and human sentiment. You must desire to maximize the well-being of other people for this to work and if everybody desires to maximize the world being of others morality become redundant. Unless there are some mind independent properties and facts, that suggest that we ought value well-being. Without the desire for an individual to value something, the reason for the individual (in that moment) to do said action that maximizes that desire disappears. Just like how without the desire to value language, the reason for using language disappears.

[thebestofenergy]

I'm not talking about how language is interpreted within philosophical circles, I deliberately pointed this out but no, I'm talking about how your average person approaches the use of language in a everyday sense and not a detached, reflective sense that happens within philosophical circles.

OK, but the average person's approach to language doesn't define what language is.

You could have an approach to math that makes it opinionated. Maybe 2 + 2 = 5, because you like the roundness of 5 more than the rough angles of the number 4.
But math isn't opinionated, even if you were to use it as such.
People may use language one way or the other, but language isn't something different every time someone uses it as something different at the core.
Just like definitions of words don't mean something different when you use them as such.

You could say 'the apple is square', because you use square to mean round. But you'd be using the word incorrectly.
Language doesn't shape itself to the whim of the user, just like math doesn't.

Whether we desire something or not, doesn't change the inherent way language works.

Language as built on desire, without the desire for the need to communicate and express ideas to one another - language wouldn't exist.

I guess you mean 'language IS built on desire'?

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

You could argue modern math was built on desire too. The desire to understand things better, and have things be done in a more practical way.

Does that mean math changes with our desire to use it?
Math still works the same and with the same rules, no matter what or how or why we want to use it. Same for language. It's a set of rules.

Words mean something already, and ought, therefore, to be used for that meaning. Not only using language up to interpretation or up to the current trend wouldn't work because it would be a very bad everchanging communication system, but it doesn't logically make sense - because the rules are already established.

OK, can you answer my question now?

If I ask you how X matters, and in response you say X definitely matters, that really doesn't do much.
I've asked you how does holding possibly false beliefs matter with whether language is prescriptive or not. Why.

Because ordinary linguistic discourse involves error on the part of the individual, this is because we hold the false belief that language is prescriptive when in fact prescriptive language relies fundamentally on descriptive language.

That, again, doesn't answer my question. You're repeating that possibly being mistaken would be in favor of language being non-prescriptive. Why?

You can possibly be mistaken while doing math, or while observing the evidence for something, or while following a logical process.
Being mistaken doesn't matter with the objectivity or the prescriptiveness of things.

talks about being objectively wrong - take rape, many, many people would say that it is always wrong for everybody to commit rape but the funny thing is that at the same time these people believe that morality is subjective, imo this makes zero sense and just shows that moral language and discourse - is in fundamental error, these people hold false the belief that morality is subjective and tal objective at the same time.

Yes, you're correct that they make no sense.
Being a moral subjectivist, technically you can't say anything is wrong.

However, just because those people don't have any clue what they're talking about, doesn't mean the language is in fundamental error.
They're simply using it inappropriately, and they are in error in their thinking.
You can actually determine they make no sense precisely because language is prescriptive, and you know how it should be used. Otherwise you wouldn't have a clue if what they said would make any sense.

Look I believe a lot of what you're saying, just that prescriptive language relies on descriptive reports of what is the case and without them language would not function.

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.
The individual may be correct or wrong, he might make sense or not while using his language, but that has no bearing on how words should be used.
Words' meanings don't rely on descriptive reports, words have already their established meaning. If someone uses them incorrectly, that's their fault for doing so. You wouldn't change the entire mathematical system every time someone uses it with different rules, or changing 3 to mean 4, and 4 to mean 3, would you? That's just them being wrong and using it incorrectly.

You asked me to show you how to determine the amount of suffering. I have done that.

I was just logically unpacking, the placing value on well-being which you seem to be doing...

I think it's better if we first agreed upon the fact that suffering and happiness are predictable, quantifiable, and objective.
Because that's the basis of everything morality based.

Once we establish these properties regarding suffering and happiness, we can move forward.

Do you agree they're predictable, quantifiable, and objective?

[Kaz1983]

I'm not talking about how language is interpreted within philosophical circles, I deliberately pointed this out but no, I'm talking about how your average person approaches the use of language in a everyday sense and not a detached, reflective sense that happens within philosophical circles.

OK, but the average person's approach to language doesn't define what language is.

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. 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. It's just that the ordinary person (mistakenly..) interpretes, conveys and understands language as having a prescriptive element the way it's used, when it does not.

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.

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.

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

Yes it does matter.

It's like how it's very important question to find out where human consciousness originates from/what it's based on. So just like consciousness, it's important to figure out where language originates from/what it's based on it's an important question what is it based on and where did it originate. I'm holding the position that language and morality is based on non-cognitive attitudes like human sentiment and desire.

It's like the whole debate over free will, it doesn't matter whether you're hard determinist or a compatibilist. Both of them are saying.. this;

IT DOESN'T MATTER what human thought and action is based on it/originates from. Of course it matters.

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.

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

Mathematics is mind-independent.

Language is mind-dependent.

...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

Why?

Because people use language to attain what attain what they desire in the first place, 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.

Yes, you're correct that they make no sense.
Being a moral subjectivist, technically you can't say anything is wrong.

We agree. That is good.

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 an individual having a private language makes any sense.

The individual may be correct or wrong...

I'm not talking about the individual.

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

Stop comparing mathematics to language.

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.