That's still not the point. The entire bundle still isn't Objective Morality, because the entire bundle is still insie one person's head. Objective morality is what all ideal agents would converge on.
Okay. That is clearly a word problem, and you are arguing my definition.
The way you have expressed this is contradiictory. You said "it is moral", simpliciter, rather than, it is moral-for-A, but immora-for-B. Although to do that would have made ii obvious you are talking about subjective morality. And no, it isn't the universes fault fault. The universe allows agents to have contradictory and incompatible impulses, but it is you choice to call those implulses "moral" despite the fact that they don't resole conflicts, or take others' interestes into account. I wouldn't call them that. I think the contraiction means at least one of the agent's I-think-this-is-moral beliefs is wrong
You assumed I was being deliberately sophistic and creating confusion on purpose. After I explicitly requested twice that things be interpreted the other way around where possible. I thought that it was very clear from context that what I meant was that:
IFF It is moral-A that A kills B
&& It is moral-B that B is not killed by A
&& There are no other factors influencing moral-A or moral-B
THEN:
It is moral for A that A kills B and it is likewise moral for B to not be killed by A. Let the fight begin.
(( Pulling out a dictionary on me to pointlessly argue about my words while framing this as an argument about the facts my words try to refer to. ))
Really? You're going there?
If you allow indiiviudal drivers to choose which side of the road to drive on, you have a uselessly subjective system of traffic law.
Please stop this. I'm seeing more and more evidence that you're deliberately ignoring my arguments and what I'm trying to say, and that you're just equating everything I say with "This is not a perfect system of normative ethics, therefore it is worthless".
I have a hard time even inferring what you mean by this rather irrelevant-seeming metaphor. I'm not talking about laws and saying "The law should only punish those that act against their intuitions of morality, oh derp!" -- I'm not even talking about justice or legal systems or ideal societies at all! Have I somewhere accidentally made the claim that we should just let every single human build their own model of their own system of morality with incomplete information and let chaos ensue?
Their own something. I don't think you are going to convince an error theorist that morality exists by showing them brain scans. And the terms "consicience" and "superego" cover internal regulation of behaviour without prejudice to the philosophical issues.
Yes. And in case that wasn't painfully obvious yet, this "something" of their own is exactly what I mean to say when I use the word "morality"!
I'm not attempting to convince anyone that "morality" "exists". To engage further on this point I would necessitate those two to be tabooed, because I honestly have no idea what you're getting at or what you even mean by that sentence or the one after it.
Has no bearing on the philosophy, again. All you have their is the intersection of a set of tablets.
Yup. If I agree to use your words, then yes. There's an intersection of a set of tablets. These tablets give us some slightly iffy commandments that even the owner of the tablet would want to fix. The counterfactual edited version of the tablet after the owner has made the fixes, checked again to see if they want to fix anything, and are happy with the result, is exactly what I am pointing at here. I've used the words "objective morality" and "true moral preferences" and "moral algorithms" before, and all of those were pointing exactly at this. Yes, I claim that there's nothing else here, move along.
If you want to have something more, some Objective Morality (in the sense you seem to be using that term) from somewhere else, humans are going to have to invent it. And either it's going to be based on an intersection of edited tablets, or a lot of people are going to be really unhappy.
That is clearly a word problem, and you are arguing my definition.
I can see that it is a word problem, and I woud argue that anyone would be hard pressed to guess what you meant by "objective moral facts".
It is moral for A that A kills B and it is likewise moral for B to not be killed by A. Let the fight begin.
What fight? You have added the "for A" and "for B" clauses that were missing last time. Are you hilding me to blame for taking you at your word?
Really? You're going there?
You claimed a distinction in meaning b...
I think there’s a confusion in our discussions of deontology and consequentialism. I’m writing this post to try to clear up that confusion. First let me say that this post is not about any territorial facts. The issue here is how we use the philosophical terms of art ‘consequentialism’ and ‘deontology’.
The confusion is often stated thusly: “deontological theories are full of injunctions like ‘do not kill’, but they generally provide no (or no interesting) explanations for these injunctions.” There is of course an equivalently confused, though much less common, complaint about consequentialism.
This is confused because the term ‘deontology’ in philosophical jargon picks out a normative ethical theory, while the question ‘how do we know that it is wrong to kill?’ is not a normative but a meta-ethical question. Similarly, consequentialism contains in itself no explanation for why pleasure or utility are morally good, or why consequences should matter to morality at all. Nor does consequentialism/deontology make any claims about how we know moral facts (if there are any). That is also a meta-ethical question.
Some consequentialists and deontologists are also moral realists. Some are not. Some believe in divine commands, some are hedonists. Consequentialists and deontologists in practice always also subscribe to some meta-ethical theory which purports to explain the value of consequences or the source of injunctions. But consequentialism and deontology as such do not. In order to avoid strawmaning either the consequentialist or the deontologist, it’s important to either discuss the comprehensive views of particular ethicists, or to carefully leave aside meta-ethical issues.
This Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article provides a helpful overview of the issues in the consequentialist-deontologist debate, and is careful to distinguish between ethical and meta-ethical concerns.
SEP article on Deontology