I disagree, we always want doctors to be aware of possible negative effects of any drugs they prescribe. Telling doctors this drug usually saves lives when a person has such and such symptoms, therefore always prescribe it when a person has those symptoms, is wrong, and not he way doctors are actually trained. They are trained to be aware of, and look for possible complications — Metaphysician Undercover

That also isn't what is happening in my hypothetical. The situation I presented was that of a patient in a time-sensitive situation where spending time investigating rare conditions may result in their death, drug X is the most effective drug for the condition and has the least general risk associated with it, and the patients does not present any signs in either their behaviour, symptoms, or available medical history that would suggest they have the rare condition that would make the proscribing of drug X the wrong choice.

Right, that's what I am talking about. Training is not simply about teaching general rules (prescribe X drug when a patient has such and such symptoms), it's also about culturing good intuition, which is reading the peculiarities of the unique circumstances. Doctors need this just as much as firefighters do.

You are wrong to say no such sign is present in this case. If I remember the example correctly, the sign is explicit, and tattooed right on the foot of the patient. The doctor might be aware of a trend to make such a tattoo, or some other factor learned might subconsciously incline the doctor to check the foot. And in real life cases there are often indications that a doctor might look for, just like a firefighter. Intuition is a factor which gives the expert an edge over others. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, they might be aware of that if such a trend existed, but it doesn't. It's just this fellow doing it in this case. There are not indications that the doctor can see or notice without checking the patient's foot.

You might presume this, but if it were true, it would deny the possibility of free will. As I explained if it was an objective truth that a person desires X, then the person would have to seek X and would not be free to do otherwise. — Metaphysician Undercover

That isn't what it means for something to be objectively true at all. It is presumably objectively true that I want some ice cream. That doesn't mean I have to seek ice cream. I might change my mind and stop desiring it, or indeed act contrary to that desire (perhaps in pursuit of some other desire, or perhaps for some other reason). Just because I want something doesn't mean I have to keep wanting it or indeed have to pursue it. The reason I suggest that presumably there is an objective truth to the matter is that presumably we can be wrong about what we desire. We can think we desire one thing, but in fact we don't (this is different from desiring something and then, once we get it, we decide we don't really like it after all).

This is nonsense. No moral philosophy claims to state objective facts about the way people ought to act. We might make a general statement like "a person ought to do what is good", but since "good" is such a general term, this sort of statement says noting about any specific "way" that a person ought to be. Even Kant's presumed categorical imperative doesn't state a way that people should live. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are badly mistaken. Kant's categorical imperative absolutely does say how people should act. Specifically, that they must always act according to maxims that they can at the same time will to be universal law, that they must always treat humanity whether they find it in themselves or in others as an end unto itself and never as a mere means only, etc.

Not all adherents to normative theories have the same metaethical commitments, which is what will determine whether they think that their theory is aiming at objective moral truths or something else, but normative theories very much are aiming at figuring out how persons ought to be or act. Kant is one example, but certainly not the only one. For another, the classical utilitarian would say the way you should act is in the way that maximizes utility (usually understood as happiness - unhappiness).

You are wrong. As I demonstrated already, "the sort" you are interested in, is not a sort of morality at all. You pretty much accepted this already when you told me that you didn't agree with any traditional moral principles. So it's just like my example. If a person came up with a bunch of axioms which are completely inconsistent with traditional mathematics, and said "this is the sort of mathematics I'm interested in", we'd have to say that is not mathematic at all. And to take the analogy further, if someone proposed "a sort" of logic which was completely inconsistent with traditional logic, we'd designate it as illogical. Likewise, your "sort" is immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

You haven't demonstrated anything but a complete lack of understanding of the subject of moral philosophy. I recommend reading any introductory ethics textbook. The elements of moral philosophy by Rachels and Rachels might be a good place to start.

I'm starting to see that your form of "objectivism" is actually inconsistent with free will. This makes it inconsistent with moral theory, therefore immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn't inconsistent with free will in the least. That being said, many moral philosophers seem to think free will is not necessary for moral theory (especially not of the strong, incompatibilist sort). I disagree with them on this point, but again, you appear to be demonstrating a lack of understanding of the landscape of moral philosophy.

You are demonstrating a very low level degree of education in moral philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

I mean, I'm not. You are making massive claims about the discipline that are just incorrect. What you percieve as a lack of education is actually just you being wrong about the thing we are discussing.

Different "formulations" is the key thing here. The problem for Kant is that there are two distinct universals to deal with, every situation, and every human being. Due to the incompatibility between these two universals, there cannot be one law for both, every human being in every situation. Kant thought there ought to be one overarching categorical imperative so he tried to determine it.

However, his attempt breaks down, such that we can either have distinct laws for each situation, which apply to all people, or we can have distinct laws for each person which apply in all situations. Either way ends up with a multitude of categorical imperatives, either a distinct imperative for each situation, or a distinct imperative for each person, and there cannot be one categorical imperative which determines them all because there are two distinct types. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't really know what this means. I don't know what it means that "every person" and "every situation" is a "universal". I don't really know what your criticism of Kant is here. And I don't know if you are claiming that Kant thinking there are multiple formulations of the categorical imperative is something to do with this point you are making and, if so, what you are saying the one has to do with the other.

Take Kant's for example. He starts from the personal believe, a subjective opinion, that there ought to be one categorical imperative. That is a subjective opinion. No matter how you look at it, you cannot get away from the subjectivity of moral philosophy.

You like to think that moral philosophy can start in objectivity, but that's your subjective opinion, and as Kant's effort demonstrates the quest for objectivity is doomed to failure. Therefore every successful (i.e. influential) moral philosophy in the past, begins with the subject. You can show me as many proposals for moral philosophy, as you like, which begin in objectivity, and I will show you how each fails. And, since they are all inconsistent with true, accepted, conventional, and influential moral philosophy, it's best to describe them as immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

He doesn't start with a subjective opinion, but a believe about the objective. Also, whether or not Kant succeeds does not demonstrate that the goal he is aiming at is doomed to failure. Also, if you are calling a moral philosophy successful based on how influential is has been, then objectivity is very much the name of the game. Kant is one of the most influential moral philosophers of all times. Jeremy Bentham also begins with objective assumptions, such as it being irrational and impermissible to make an exception of oneself, such that if one values one's own happines, one ought to value others'. I mean, arguably the most influential moral tradition in the western world is the Christian tradition. It's vague, awful, and badly wrong, but it's certainly influential, and I think you'll find that the Christians are definitely aiming at objectivity.

On a different note, being accepted and convential is not the same as being true.

Unless you can provide the reasons, there is no abductive reasoning here at all, and your claim of what provides the best candidate for moral value is arbitrary.

I've provided good reason why "desire" grounds "value" in what is desirable. This is because desire is what shapes and guides our decisions. We choose things which we desire, and that is a natural fact. So we ground "value" in how it is naturally grounded. Notice, this is not proposed as "objective fact", it is a natural inclination. Since free will allows us to create structures of value not grounded in natural inclinations, such as what you propose, we cannot say that it is an objective fact that value must be grounded this way. It is a choice to be made, ground value in the natural way or not, just like the choice to be moral or immoral. We cannot say that it is an objective fact that we must behave morally, because that would be denying our freedom of choice to act immorally.. Such proposals, being inconsistent with what is natural, ought to be rejected as immoral, but I cannot say it's an objective fact that they must be rejected.. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wouldn't say must I would say should. I think you'll find I did provide the reasons why this was the best candidate for moral value, I'm fairly certain I did so both in the initial primer and then again in response to your posts. Also, why should we assume that what we value and what is morally valuable are the same? Also, you appear to be committing a naturalistic fallacy towards the end there, suggesting that what is natural is moral etc.

I explained to you how this idea is very faulty. So it's definitely not an assumption I am making. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know what you mean by this. It doesn't appear to relate to what I said though.

I don't see the contradiction. You simply demonstrate your lack of understanding of predication.
P1 predicates of the subject MU, the belief that truth is subjective.
P2 predicates of the subject Dan, the belief that truth is objective.
There is nothing more than this, and no incompatibility nor contradiction, different beliefs are predicated of different subjects.

It is only if you add a further premise, P3 "truth is subjective", that the appearance of contradiction arises. However, the appearance of contradiction is due to the way "truth is subjective" is interpreted by you. You interpret "truth is subjective" as an objective truth. And of course, if you interpret the proposition "truth is subjective": as an objective truth, contradiction is implicit within your interpretation, and so absurdity appears.

The issue therefore, is that since you believe truth is objective (P2), then if you judge P3 "truth is subjective" as true you create a contradiction. Therefore to judge P3 as true you need to be a different person than the Dan mentioned. Then you will not judge P3 "truth is subjective" through an interpretation of this as an objective truth, you will judge it as true in the only way that it could truly be judged as true, a subjective truth (you simply believe it), and then there is no contradiction and no absurdities. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you say something is true, do you just mean that you believe it? There is nothing more to it than that? I want to be clear on what untennable position it is that you hold here.

No, I didn't imply any objective truth. I said that if two premises contradict each other, and we accept one as correct, then we must reject the other as wrong. There is no implied "objective truth" just adherence to the law of noncontradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, but why do we need to abide by the law of noncontradiction if it is not true? What if you don't believe in the law of noncontradiction?

That also isn't what is happening in my hypothetical. The situation I presented was that of a patient in a time-sensitive situation where spending time investigating rare conditions may result in their death, drug X is the most effective drug for the condition and has the least general risk associated with it, and the patients does not present any signs in either their behaviour, symptoms, or available medical history that would suggest they have the rare condition that would make the proscribing of drug X the wrong choice. — Dan

There is nothing in this example to indicate that the wrong choice was made. There is only indication that the right choice was made. Therefore we ought to conclude that the right choice was made. Furthermore, if a patient does dies from that "rare condition", it is the rare condition which causes the patient's death, not the doctor's actions, and we still cannot conclude that the doctor's actions were wrong.

It is presumably objectively true that I want some ice cream. That doesn't mean I have to seek ice cream. — Dan

You are speaking nonsense again. If it is objectively true that you desire ice cream then it is objectively true that your are seeking it. How could it possibly be an objective truth that you desire ice cream unless you were seeking it? What produces the objective conclusion is the fact that you are seeking it. If you say "I feel like I want ice cream, but I am not seeking it", then you refer to subjective feelings, and it's not an objective truth, it's subjective. You, the subject are interpreting your own feelings as a desire for ice cream, and this means it's a subjective conclusion.

The reason I suggest that presumably there is an objective truth to the matter is that presumably we can be wrong about what we desire. We can think we desire one thing, but in fact we don't (this is different from desiring something and then, once we get it, we decide we don't really like it after all). — Dan

Right, and that's one example of why there is no such thing as objective truth about such feelings. They are what defines "subjective", feelings of the subject. You propose "that presumably there is an objective truth to the matter", but as I've explained to you, this would exclude the possibility of free will. If there was objective truth in the matter, desires, and the actions which we say are caused by desires, would be one and the same. That is what is required to make the desire objectifiable. Conventionally we hold the desire as separate as separate from the action, because the causal connection is not necessary (free choice being intermediary), and the desire is of the subject, not observed, therefore subjective.

What I've been telling you, your presumption, "presumably there is an objective truth to the matter", is nothing but a fiction, a fantasy of your imagination, which is demonstrably incoherent. You presume this because it provides some support to your consequentialist morals. In reality though, if what you presume was true, it would deny the possibility of free will, and all types of moral philosophy. Therefore if you keep supporting your so-called moral philosophy on such presumptions, you render what you propose as something other than moral philosophy. I've been calling it "immoral", but I now see it's better called "amoral", because your principles put what you propose right outside the field of moral philosophy, so that it cannot be judged by the principles of moral philosophy to be immoral. What you propose is simply not relevant to moral philosophy, therefore amoral.

You are badly mistaken. Kant's categorical imperative absolutely does say how people should act. Specifically, that they must always act according to maxims... — Dan

You don't seem to understand the meaning of what you are saying here. If the imperative states "act according to maxims", that imperative is not telling anyone "how to act". It is telling them that there is a maxim which will tell them how to act. Then there needs to be a different maxim for every different situation to tell a person how to act in that situation. This proposed categorical imperative tells everyone that they must act according to a maxim which is applicable to each particular situation one finds oneself in, but that says nothing about how one should act in any situation.

Therefore it truly says nothing about how one should act. It just states a general principle of what one should consider before acting. And if we say that deciding how to act is itself an action, and this is the action which that categorical imperative refers to, then the imperative becomes incoherent. The imperative "how to act" must be understood before it can be followed in an act. If, "act" also refers to understanding it is impossible that one could apply the imperative to the act of understanding the imperative.

Your claim demonstrates the same type of category mistake you make when you say that "the world is changing" makes a statement about the way that the world is. "Changing" signifies something mutually exclusive from what "what is" signifies. The two were demonstrated by Aristotle to be incompatible. So when you predicate "is changing" of "the world" you create the illusion that "changing" is compatible with "what is". That is a sophistic trick exposed by Socrates and Plato thousands of years ago. You employ another version of the same type of sophistic trick when you claim that "one imperative which states that you must act according to many imperatives", means that there is one imperative which tells you how to act. Really, what this means is that there is one imperative which tells you that there are many imperatives which tell you how to act.

For another, the classical utilitarian would say the way you should act is in the way that maximizes utility (usually understood as happiness - unhappiness). — Dan

Again, all this says is that there is a different way to act for every different situation, which is the best way according to the situation. It is not one rule which tells you how to act in all situations.

It isn't inconsistent with free will in the least. That being said, many moral philosophers seem to think free will is not necessary for moral theory (especially not of the strong, incompatibilist sort). I disagree with them on this point, but again, you appear to be demonstrating a lack of understanding of the landscape of moral philosophy. — Dan

Yes, this is really the issue we have now. Since it is very clear that moral theory is inherently subjective, moral philosophers can produce all sorts of different moral theories. That is evident from the abundance and variety of moral theories which avail us. Some are quite absurd. However, some, like Platonic moral theory for example, get accepted, conventionalized, and become quite influential, through a sort of intersubjectivity.

On the other hand, there are some people who do not like the idea that moral theory is inherently subjective. They believe that the reality of a multitude of moral theories which is enabled by free will, freedom of choice in thinking, and the inherent subjectivity of moral theory, is for some reason a defect to moral theory, which ought to be corrected. So these people, like Kant, like yourself, and many others, ignore the lessons of history which teach us the reality about moral theories, and they produce further subjective theories, which propose objective principles as the foundation for their subjective theories.

Of course we can reject these as being inherently self-defeating, untrue in the sense of dishonesty, subjective theories which claim to be objective. Further, since their basic principles miss the true essence of a moral theory, a subjective theory which is agreeable, and likely to be accepted, and conventionalized in an intersubjective way, we can dismiss these proposals as outside the category of what constitutes a "moral theory".

He doesn't start with a subjective opinion, but a believe about the objective. — Dan

Any "belief about the objective" very clearly is a subjective opinion. If you understood metaphysics and ontology, you'd see this very clearly. Our beliefs about "the objective" are all subjective opinions.

Also, whether or not Kant succeeds does not demonstrate that the goal he is aiming at is doomed to failure. — Dan

The problems which he encounters which I explained, but you didn't understand demonstrates that his goal is doomed to failure. Maybe you'll understand better from what I said in this post, concerning the "one imperative", which dictates that a vast multitude of imperatives tells us what to do. Making an imperative which dictates that many imperatives are required, does not constitute demonstrating that one imperative will suffice. It actually demonstrates that the opposite is probable.

Kant is one of the most influential moral philosophers of all times. — Dan

I don't think so. Christianity is based in Platonist moral theory. It held sway in the western world for many hundreds of years. Kant pales in comparison. In fact Kant as a moralist, is more often than not, criticized and rejected, as insufficient. Where is the supposed "influence"?

I think you'll find that the Christians are definitely aiming at objectivity. — Dan

This demonstrates the same misunderstanding of the Platonic/Christian tradition you showed earlier. If you read Plato's Republic, you will see that each individual person has one's own place within the state, with ones own desires and goals. "The good" refers to what is desired by the individual, as the motivation for activity, and this is not one common, objective goal which we all seek. The idea of one common goal, validated by the divinity, is the idea which is shown to be incoherent in The Euthyphro.

On a different note, being accepted and convential is not the same as being true. — Dan

The goal of moral philosophy is not to be "true" in the "objective" way that you understand this word. That shows your attempt to conflate is and ought. The goal is to be "true to oneself", honest. And when an individual moral philosopher is honest in this way, the principles will be espoused by others. "Truth" in the way you use that word is irrelevant and outside of moral philosophy.

Also, why should we assume that what we value and what is morally valuable are the same? — Dan

How would you get anyone to accept your moral philosophy if you put forth a system where what is proposed as "valuable" is not actually valued by anyone? How is that coherent?

Also, you appear to be committing a naturalistic fallacy towards the end there, suggesting that what is natural is moral etc. — Dan

No, I'm not suggesting any such equivalence. I am suggesting that moral philosophy must be based in something real, and what we have as "real" in relation to the acts of beings, is what is natural. That doesn't say that what is natural and what is moral are equivalent. Basing moral philosophy in some fictional fantasy of what is "objectively" true or right, provides no traction.

When you say something is true, do you just mean that you believe it? — Dan

Yes, when I say "X is true", it means that I honestly believe X. You know, like when someone says "tell the truth", and in court when they say "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", it means what you honestly believe. How could there be anything more to "is true" than this?

Okay, but why do we need to abide by the law of noncontradiction if it is not true? What if you don't believe in the law of noncontradiction? — Dan

The law of noncontradiction is a rule I believe in because of its usefulness. Depending on one's attitude toward the law of identity, the applicability of the law of noncontradiction may be accepted or rejected. Hegel rejected the law of identity as a useless tautology. But then some who follow him, like dialetheists and dialectical materialists, also reject the law of noncontradiction, as inapplicable in cases where identity is inapplicable. They do not believe in the law of noncontradiction.

There is nothing in this example to indicate that the wrong choice was made. There is only indication that the right choice was made. Therefore we ought to conclude that the right choice was made. Furthermore, if a patient does dies from that "rare condition", it is the rare condition which causes the patient's death, not the doctor's actions, and we still cannot conclude that the doctor's actions were wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

The rare condition in this case causes drug X to be lethal, so the doctor's actions did kill them, which from an actual-value consequentialism perspective, does make them wrong inasmuch as the doctor could have acted differently and their action caused worse consequences than had they done so.

You are speaking nonsense again. If it is objectively true that you desire ice cream then it is objectively true that your are seeking it. How could it possibly be an objective truth that you desire ice cream unless you were seeking it? What produces the objective conclusion is the fact that you are seeking it. If you say "I feel like I want ice cream, but I am not seeking it", then you refer to subjective feelings, and it's not an objective truth, it's subjective. You, the subject are interpreting your own feelings as a desire for ice cream, and this means it's a subjective conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

The rest of what I said here I think explains what I mean.

Right, and that's one example of why there is no such thing as objective truth about such feelings. They are what defines "subjective", feelings of the subject. You propose "that presumably there is an objective truth to the matter", but as I've explained to you, this would exclude the possibility of free will. If there was objective truth in the matter, desires, and the actions which we say are caused by desires, would be one and the same. That is what is required to make the desire objectifiable. Conventionally we hold the desire as separate as separate from the action, because the causal connection is not necessary (free choice being intermediary), and the desire is of the subject, not observed, therefore subjective.

What I've been telling you, your presumption, "presumably there is an objective truth to the matter", is nothing but a fiction, a fantasy of your imagination, which is demonstrably incoherent. You presume this because it provides some support to your consequentialist morals. In reality though, if what you presume was true, it would deny the possibility of free will, and all types of moral philosophy. Therefore if you keep supporting your so-called moral philosophy on such presumptions, you render what you propose as something other than moral philosophy. I've been calling it "immoral", but I now see it's better called "amoral", because your principles put what you propose right outside the field of moral philosophy, so that it cannot be judged by the principles of moral philosophy to be immoral. What you propose is simply not relevant to moral philosophy, therefore amoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have just asserted that if there was an objective truth about the matter, this would make free will impossible, but there is no reason to think this. You are asserting that it can't be the case that it is objectively true that I desire ice cream but I am not seeking it, but there is no reason to think this is the case. Desires are indeed different from the actions one takes in pursuit of them.

The reason I think that truth is objective has nothing to do with consequentialism. The truth is objective, believing so is really the only viable option, as I've explained before. It is a necessary assumption to have any discussion of anything worth discussing.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of what you are saying here. If the imperative states "act according to maxims", that imperative is not telling anyone "how to act". It is telling them that there is a maxim which will tell them how to act. Then there needs to be a different maxim for every different situation to tell a person how to act in that situation. This proposed categorical imperative tells everyone that they must act according to a maxim which is applicable to each particular situation one finds oneself in, but that says nothing about how one should act in any situation. — Metaphysician Undercover

I mean, it says rather a lot more than "act according to maxims". It specifically says what kind of maxims it is rational (according to Kant) and therefor moral (according to Kant) to act in accordance with. It is very much telling you how to act.

And if we say that deciding how to act is itself an action, and this is the action which that categorical imperative refers to, then the imperative becomes incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's also not true, as presumably Kant would presumably say that the categorical imperative is consistent with itself so considering how one should act is an action that is in accordance with the formualtion of universalizability.

You employ another version of the same type of sophistic trick when you claim that "one imperative which states that you must act according to many imperatives", means that there is one imperative which tells you how to act. Really, what this means is that there is one imperative which tells you that there are many imperatives which tell you how to act. — Metaphysician Undercover

I mean, I would say Kant does propose multiple rules for action, rather than just one, though he would surely disagree. Either way, they definitely are rules for acting. They don't spawn many imperatives, but rather limit the maxims we can justifably (according to Kant) act in accordance with, the actions we can justifiably take.

Again, all this says is that there is a different way to act for every different situation, which is the best way according to the situation. It is not one rule which tells you how to act in all situations. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is one rule which tells you how to act in all situations. Specifically, in the way that produces the most utility. Yes, that will certainly be different based on the situation, but it is clearly action-guiding.

Yes, this is really the issue we have now. Since it is very clear that moral theory is inherently subjective, moral philosophers can produce all sorts of different moral theories. That is evident from the abundance and variety of moral theories which avail us. Some are quite absurd. However, some, like Platonic moral theory for example, get accepted, conventionalized, and become quite influential, through a sort of intersubjectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn't inherently subjective. But people are wrong a lot, and not clarifying their starting assumptions is a big part of this.

On the other hand, there are some people who do not like the idea that moral theory is inherently subjective. They believe that the reality of a multitude of moral theories which is enabled by free will, freedom of choice in thinking, and the inherent subjectivity of moral theory, is for some reason a defect to moral theory, which ought to be corrected. So these people, like Kant, like yourself, and many others, ignore the lessons of history which teach us the reality about moral theories, and they produce further subjective theories, which propose objective principles as the foundation for their subjective theories. — Metaphysician Undercover

That isn't what Kant or I do. Morality isn't subjective. People all believing different things about morality is a result of some (or all) of them being wrong.

Of course we can reject these as being inherently self-defeating, untrue in the sense of dishonesty, subjective theories which claim to be objective. Further, since their basic principles miss the true essence of a moral theory, a subjective theory which is agreeable, and likely to be accepted, and conventionalized in an intersubjective way, we can dismiss these proposals as outside the category of what constitutes a "moral theory". — Metaphysician Undercover

No idea who "we" is in this context as I'm fairly sure that moral objectivism is the majority view, but even if it weren't, we have good reason to think it is the correct view. Although, if I am right that objectivism is the majority view, this also means that objective theories are more likely to be accepted.

Any "belief about the objective" very clearly is a subjective opinion. If you understood metaphysics and ontology, you'd see this very clearly. Our beliefs about "the objective" are all subjective opinions. — Metaphysician Undercover

No it isn't. When we hold beliefs about objective reality, those are not the same as subjective opinions about, for example, matters of taste. One set can be correct or incorrect, the other set, not so much.

The problems which he encounters which I explained, but you didn't understand demonstrates that his goal is doomed to failure. Maybe you'll understand better from what I said in this post, concerning the "one imperative", which dictates that a vast multitude of imperatives tells us what to do. Making an imperative which dictates that many imperatives are required, does not constitute demonstrating that one imperative will suffice. It actually demonstrates that the opposite is probable. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, I didn't understand it because it didn't make sense. What you said in this post showed wrongheaded thinking about what constitutes action-guidingness in moral theories.

I don't think so. Christianity is based in Platonist moral theory. It held sway in the western world for many hundreds of years. Kant pales in comparison. In fact Kant as a moralist, is more often than not, criticized and rejected, as insufficient. Where is the supposed "influence"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry, why do you think that Christianity is based on Plato?

This demonstrates the same misunderstanding of the Platonic/Christian tradition you showed earlier. If you read Plato's Republic, you will see that each individual person has one's own place within the state, with ones own desires and goals. "The good" refers to what is desired by the individual, as the motivation for activity, and this is not one common, objective goal which we all seek. The idea of one common goal, validated by the divinity, is the idea which is shown to be incoherent in The Euthyphro. — Metaphysician Undercover

Euthyphro shows nothing of the sort. Also, Plato and Christianity aren't the same thing. Also, Plato at least seemed to think there was a form of the good which all good things participated in. Given that this form is supposed to exist in the same realm of the forms as things like mathematical objects, presumably he thinks that this is an objective property things can have.

The goal of moral philosophy is not to be "true" in the "objective" way that you understand this word. That shows your attempt to conflate is and ought. The goal is to be "true to oneself", honest. And when an individual moral philosopher is honest in this way, the principles will be espoused by others. "Truth" in the way you use that word is irrelevant and outside of moral philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

Truth is very much the goal of moral philosophy, certainly any moral philosophy worthy of discussion.

How would you get anyone to accept your moral philosophy if you put forth a system where what is proposed as "valuable" is not actually valued by anyone? How is that coherent? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because it is morally valuable. It is coherent because moral value and being valued by someone aren't the same thing. Further, how to make a theory persuasive is a different question to whether it is correct. As to why anyone might care, I think that a reasonable number of people do want to do the right thing, which is a good piece of luck for persauding them to do so.

No, I'm not suggesting any such equivalence. I am suggesting that moral philosophy must be based in something real, and what we have as "real" in relation to the acts of beings, is what is natural. That doesn't say that what is natural and what is moral are equivalent. Basing moral philosophy in some fictional fantasy of what is "objectively" true or right, provides no traction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Objective truth is not a fiction or a fantasy. It is in fact quite the opposite.

Yes, when I say "X is true", it means that I honestly believe X. You know, like when someone says "tell the truth", and in court when they say "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", it means what you honestly believe. How could there be anything more to "is true" than this? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because people can be wrong.

The law of noncontradiction is a rule I believe in because of its usefulness. Depending on one's attitude toward the law of identity, the applicability of the law of noncontradiction may be accepted or rejected. Hegel rejected the law of identity as a useless tautology. But then some who follow him, like dialetheists and dialectical materialists, also reject the law of noncontradiction, as inapplicable in cases where identity is inapplicable. They do not believe in the law of noncontradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Usefulness in what sense? I don't know how any laws of logic or rules of theory selection in, for example, science can be useful if you think that whatever you believe is true. There's no fail-state, so there's no need for any of these rules. You can just believe any old nonsense and hold that it's true, no need to evaluate your beliefs for consistency or consider whether they match reality at all.

The rare condition in this case causes drug X to be lethal, so the doctor's actions did kill them, which from an actual-value consequentialism perspective, does make them wrong inasmuch as the doctor could have acted differently and their action caused worse consequences than had they done so. — Dan

I don't think so. As you state, the rare condition "causes drug X to be lethal". The act of administering the drug is not a lethal act, as indicated by all the other instances. Therefore the rare condition is the cause of death, not the doctor's action, which you mistakenly judge as wrong.

You have just asserted that if there was an objective truth about the matter, this would make free will impossible, but there is no reason to think this. You are asserting that it can't be the case that it is objectively true that I desire ice cream but I am not seeking it, but there is no reason to think this is the case. — Dan

I explained the reasons. It seems you didn't pay attention, maybe you didn't understand, or just ignored.

.

Desires are indeed different from the actions one takes in pursuit of them. — Dan

Sure they are different, when the desire is understood as subjective, and the action is understood as objective. But the issue is how could both the action and the desire be objective without them being one and the same. "Objective" implies observable by someone other than the subject. No part of the desire is observable except the actions associated with it. Therefore the proposed "objective desire" and the action which demonstrates it, would be one and

And the reason why objectivity of desire is incompatible with free will is that if there was objective fact about what I desired, then I, the subject could not use my will power to overcome that desire. In other words, I could not choose to desire something contrary to what I objectively desired, because a person could not deliberate, i.e. having incompatible desires. Take your shirt buying example as proof that desires cannot be objective. The stated desire is to buy a shirt only if it is 100% cotton, yet somehow an incompatible desire caused the act. How could two incompatible desires both be objectively true at the same time? Yet two incompatible desires coexist when we deliberate.

I mean, it says rather a lot more than "act according to maxims". It specifically says what kind of maxims it is rational (according to Kant) and therefor moral (according to Kant) to act in accordance with. It is very much telling you how to act. — Dan

The categorical imperative says what kind of maxims tell one how to act. It does not "tell you how to act". It tells you what kind of maxims tell you how to act. This is another good example of the same type of category mistake you make when you say "the world is changing" says something about the way that the world is. In this case, since there is one maxim which says that there are many maxims required to tell you how to act, you conclude that there is one maxim which tells you how to act. In the other case, "the world is changing" tells you that there are many ways which "the world is" and you conclude that it states that there is one way that the world is.

I mean, I would say Kant does propose multiple rules for action, rather than just one, though he would surely disagree. — Dan

This is the problem. What Kant did, is not the same as what he said he did. What he said he was doing (his goal or intention) doesn't pan out in what he did. This is because what he was trying to do, base moral philosophy in one objective principle was impossible, so his endeavour was doomed to failure. So when we state what he did, he would disagree and say that's not what I was doing.

This is what happens when you seek to base moral philosophy in some fictional, fantasy "objective truth". You produce an unobtainable goal for your moral philosophy, an ideal (sort of perfection) which is unrealistic, such that the philosophy itself, which is intended to support that goal cannot do what you need it to do.

That isn't what Kant or I do. Morality isn't subjective. People all believing different things about morality is a result of some (or all) of them being wrong. — Dan

OK, and what do you base your claim that they are wrong on, other than insisting that your morality is right? These statements of yours are useless.

No idea who "we" is in this context as I'm fairly sure that moral objectivism is the majority view, but even if it weren't, we have good reason to think it is the correct view. Although, if I am right that objectivism is the majority view, this also means that objective theories are more likely to be accepted. — Dan

Ha ha, that's funny. You have good reason to think that objectivism is the correct view, because objectivism states its position to be objective, therefore impossible to be wrong. Oh, that's actually begging the question, and truly a very bad reason. "I hold the correct view, because I assert that it is impossible for me to be wrong."

And then you make a meaningless, unsupported assertion about objectivism being the majority view, when such a thing would be completely irrelevant to objectivism.

No it isn't. When we hold beliefs about objective reality, those are not the same as subjective opinions about, for example, matters of taste. — Dan

Beliefs about "objective reality" are metaphysical speculations which are subjective opinions, "matters of taste". This is one's attitude toward reality, what you prefer to believe, just like your attitude toward ice cream flavours.

Sorry, why do you think that Christianity is based on Plato? — Dan

To start with, I've read Plato, and I've also read St Augustine, a Church Father. Augustine claimed to base many of his ideas in Plato, and I've corroborated that claim through my own comparison. I've also read other Christian theologians, and have seen how they were influenced by reading Plato. We could discuss this, but you already demonstrated a strong aversion to theology.

Euthyphro shows nothing of the sort. — Dan

With the dilemma illustrated in Euthyphro, it is shown that it is neither the case that the pious is called "pious" because it refers to what is loved by the gods or God, nor is it the case that the gods, or God loving the pious is what causes it to be called "pious". And in the context of the discussion, court trials about impiety, it is demonstrate that in our world of existence, "pious" is what human beings determine it to be. So the idea of one common, independent "good", validated by divinity, is demonstrated as false, and "good" is what human beings determine.

Because it is morally valuable. It is coherent because moral value and being valued by someone aren't the same thing. — Dan

You have not demonstrated how something which is not valued by anyone could be valuable. If you are the one assigning "value" to it, then it is valuable to you. But that is clearly subjective.

Objective truth is not a fiction or a fantasy. It is in fact quite the opposite. — Dan

Thanks for letting me in on your subjective opinion. Not that it does you any good.

Because people can be wrong. — Dan

Right, now you're catching on. When someone says "tell the truth", and you tell the truth, you do actually tell the truth, even if you are wrong. That is the nature of human fallibility. Even when we tell the truth there is a possibility that "the truth" which is told, might still be wrong. That is what constitutes "an honest mistake".

If you insist that "the truth" must exclude the possibility of being wrong, you place 'truth" right outside the world of human existence, and human activity. This is the interaction problem of Platonic realism. Your proposed "objective truth" is a fantasy, a product of your imagination which has no bearing on the existence, and actions of human beings, unless these human beings are willing to accept this ideal (imaginary perfection), and allow it into their lives. Then it becomes a divinity, like God, something we accept, believe in, and have faith in.

Usefulness in what sense? I don't know how any laws of logic or rules of theory selection in, for example, science can be useful if you think that whatever you believe is true. There's no fail-state, so there's no need for any of these rules. You can just believe any old nonsense and hold that it's true, no need to evaluate your beliefs for consistency or consider whether they match reality at all. — Dan

Believing and doing are distinct things. If a person could sit in meditation, without doing anything, they could believe "any old nonsense, and believe it's true" as you say. However, life requires action or we die. When we move to act, our beliefs are tested for usefulness. Ones which do not produce success are forgotten, and no longer is it possible that a person believes any old nonsense. Beliefs of "any old nonsense" die with those who hold them. And "rules" which prove to be useful prevail over our activities.