So?

[zefreak]

Not metaphysical, empirical.

[AuthoritarianCommerc]

Not metaphysical, empirical.

I would say that to associate any particular theory of the physical sciences with consciousness is empirical, though to call this ‘speculation’ seems as unfair as to call relativity ‘speculation’; whatever inadequacies may exist with the theory it is not substantively comparable to idle proposition mongering of the sort one would associate with those who blame Hitler’s anti-semitism on some experience of his childhood.

However, as to the proposition that human existence is necessarily material, and qua material necessarily deterministic, is no ‘speculation’ at all, though it be metaphysical indeed, it is a necessary consequence of ‘existence’ itself and to deny this is to not be speaking of ‘reality’ at all; and to have moved outside the boundaries of logic, proposition and thought altogether.

[Truth_and_Liberty]

@wilderness

@trulib

I have been asking you about your theory on the nature of ethical statements - namely, are they objective or subjective. Now, in your response to me and to others, you’ve said some things that make me think you are an objective ethicist and some things that make me think you are subjective ethicist.

Very perceptive. The objective/subjective is a false dichotomy… I can use both terms without conflict because the way I define the terms is in a complimentary way.

Well this is the heart of where we are misunderstanding each other then! Do you not recognise that there is a difference between the way you decide what flavor ice cream you like best, and the way you decide whether you think the Earth is round or flat? The former is a subjective subject, based on your preferences alone. The latter is an objective subject, based on your assessment of objective evidence. This is a real dichotomy.

@wilderness

@trulib

You are expressing a preference with regards to the content of ethical statements. To me, a natural law theorist is something much more than a libertarian, it is someone who believes that ethics is an objective discipline and that libertarian ethical statements are correct.

I believe my preference is correct.

Do you believe your preference for ice cream flavor is correct in the same sense? If yes, then the above is a trivial statement. If no, then you are implying that ethics is different to picking ice cream flavors, in a way that makes it possible to talk about correctness and incorrectness in ethics.

@wilderness

@trulib

(1)subjective physicist

When I read that all I see is a physicist who is using his own individual means to study physics. Subjective in this sense means individual.

No. A subjective physicist would argue (in a debate with a physicist who disagreed with him over the content of a physics claim) that we should all adapt his preferred physics theory, because it is “cool” or “fashionable”, or will bring good consequences, or because it appeals to our inner-sense of what physics statements are preferable. “Support the Round Earth theory! All the cool kids are doing it! Don’t be a square and go around saying the Earth is flat!”

Such a physicist would be laughed out of town, even though the content of what he is saying - that the Earth is round - is actually a good theory for us to adopt. He is supporting it - and arguing why we should support it - for all the wrong reasons. He has mistaken physics for a subjective subject, where there is no correct and incorrect, just preferences.

@wilderness

@trulib

(2)or an objective film critic.

When I read that all I see is a film critic who has made their knowledge about a film certain.

No. An objective film critic would claim that anyone who disagrees with his assessment of how good a given film is simply incorrect. He will claim to have an objective way of measuring the quality of a film, so that he can provide evidence or proof that one film is better than the other. Again, a film critic claiming to be objective would be laughed out of town. He would be mistaking film criticism for an objective subject.

A normal film critic could make objective statements like “this film has 500 special effects shots”, “this film got 5 stars in Empire magazine”, “this film is directed by an Oscar-winning director”, but it is clear that these are just pushing the subjectivity back a step. They are saying if you like lots of special effects shots then this film may appeal to you. They are not bridging the is-ought gap and saying you ought to like films with lots of special effects shots.

This parallels subjective ethicist arguments, in that they say (merely) if you want a wealthy/peaceful society then you ought to adopt the libertarian ethic and oppose the State. Objective ethicists go further and say we ought to adopt the libertarian ethic because ethics is objective and the libertarian ethic is correct (and all other ethics are incorrect). Hoppe claims that his argumentation ethics is the proof of this.

@wilderness

Some philosophers have choosen to use terms to get around this subjective/objective haggling by using other terms such as: agent-relative, agent-neutral, and ontological realism.

If you are happier using these terms, then we can. You can replace all my previous utterances of subjective with ‘agent-relative’ and objective with ‘agent-neutral’. To me, the pairs of terms are equivalent.

So the question is: Is ethics an agent-relative subject like picking ice cream flavors or an agent-neutral subject like the shape of the Earth?

I think we should focus on this one issue for now, so we are not talking past each other. My responses to your other paragraphs depend on us having a mutual understanding that a dichotomy exists here.