What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

Peter Holmes is trapped inside the Philosophical Realism Silo, thus not able to understand reality in relation to intersubjective consensus at the meta-level. This is why he is unable to understand the secular objective absolute moral laws that are derived and justified from empirical evidence of human nature and nature.

You mean he can't accept your bullshit and so you are trying to recruit me to your ridiculous ideas.
No thanks.
He's way ahead of you, matey.

My point was merely referencing to the principles of intersubjective consensus with reference to Science.

May I remind you of this bit of flim fflam? "This is why he is unable to understand the secular objective absolute moral laws that are derived and justified from empirical evidence of human nature and nature.", as if such a thing is meaningful?? Or are you now disowning this construction?

You are overrating yourself.

Pure projection.

I have no such intention re morality since you are so dogmatic and a lost cause re my views on morality. Note I have not responded to you on this subject where morality is concerned.

Says the man who made this statement??? "This is why he is unable to understand the secular objective absolute moral laws that are derived and justified from empirical evidence of human nature and nature.", as if such a thing is meaningful??

[henry quirk]

you dumb naive realist: hey, that's me

I got no clue what Pete is, but direct realist he ain't

It's exactly what he is.

Then naive realist says: Facts exist.
The duplicit naive realist says: Facts exist. Except moral facts.

The distinction cannot be justified/explained, which is a form of special pleading.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote in response to my support for the subjective:

Nope. Objectivity is necessary for understanding. If Lou has nuthin' solid and real to gauge things against all he can do is hide from shadows (lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!). He's a puppet to fear, a receptacle for superstition, a point of discharge for the codified opinion of the majority.

The subject's own experience is what is solid and real to the subject. True, second hand knowledge is good for the subject, and it's even better when the subject has been taught how to assess which second hand sources can be trusted. This is a harsh world and urban predators abound. The man who can rely on his own experience and discernment has the best base from which to discover what if anything is objectively true.

I got no clue what you're sayin', B.

Simply, no matter what my opinion is of fire, no matter what I've been told about fire, if I don't recognize fire burns I'm in for a world of hurt.

My take on things, my opinion, my subjective view, must align with what is (what is real [objective]) or I may end up as dead meat well before my time.

[Belinda]

I wrote "The man who can rely on his own experience and discernment has the best base from which to discover what if anything is objectively true." So Henry and I agree about the primacy of the subject's own experience.

What is real is not the same as what is objectively true. My experience is real even if I am dreaming or hallucinating, but it's not objectively true there are aliens coming for me.

[Peter Holmes]

All you do is complain, complain and complain but [you are] unable to provide sound arguments to counter my views.

Here are your proposals.

1 We must adopt a code of absolute moral rules, but only as an ideal guide, and never to be imposed on anyone.

2 Those rules must be based on evidence and reached through critical thinking – not authority, least of all a supposed divine authority.

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the rules – to get closer to the ideal – they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

One question to start with - and let's do one at a time, to help each other out.

Are the above supposed to be commands, factual assertions with truth-value, or expressions of opinion - and if so, whose opinion?

(If they're none of these options, please explain their linguistic function.)

[RCSaunders]

My experience is real even if I am dreaming or hallucinating, but it's not objectively true there are aliens coming for me.

How do you know the difference?

I'm sure you do, by the way. It's how you know the difference that is how you know the difference between objective and subjective experience.

[henry quirk]

I wrote "The man who can rely on his own experience and discernment has the best base from which to discover what if anything is objectively true." So Henry and I agree about the primacy of the subject's own experience.

What is real is not the same as what is objectively true. My experience is real even if I am dreaming or hallucinating, but it's not objectively true there are aliens coming for me.

Yeah, since I can't de-cypher what you're jibber-jabberin' about, I can't say for certain if that's true.

If... My take on things, my opinion, my subjective view, must align with what is (what is real [objective]) or I may end up as dead meat well before my time. ...is what you mean, then -- yeah -- we agree.

[Belinda]

Henry I said 'real' and 'objective' do not mean the same.

" The Earth is flat" may be a reality for some people but it is not objectively true.

[henry quirk]

Henry I said 'real' and 'objective' do not mean the same.

"The Earth is flat" may be a reality for some people but it is not objectively true.

Yeah, what you said is What is real is not the same as what is objectively true. which is nonsense. If sumthin' is real then it's objectively true. The flat earther doesn't have his own objective truth or reality. He has a belief (or a delusion). Wanna flummox him? Ask him where the edge is.

[Belinda]

When you are asleep and dreaming your dreams are reality for you.

[henry quirk]

When you are asleep and dreaming your dreams are reality for you.

No, they seem real, then I wake up.

What you're sayin' is, Gary believes fire freezes, that's his reality. What happens when Gary shoves his hand into the flame?

No, Gary believes sumthin', B, and because his belief is misaligned with what is, Gary is gonna get burned.

[RCSaunders]

When you are asleep and dreaming your dreams are reality for you.

Do you not see any difference between your sleep experience and your experience when you are awake? If you don't see any difference how do you know when you are awake?

I'm asking because I really don't know. I'm a lucid dreamer. I know when I'm dreaming and to some degree can control what I dream, so I really don't know what the experience of dreaming and not knowing it is. My wife is not a lucid dreamer, but if she has a disturbing dream and I wake her, she immediately know she was only dreaming.

If you don't mind, I'd also be interested in what you mean by, "reality."

[Veritas Aequitas]

All you do is complain, complain and complain but [you are] unable to provide sound arguments to counter my views.

Here are your proposals.

1 We must adopt a code of absolute moral rules, but only as an ideal guide, and never to be imposed on anyone.

2 Those rules must be based on evidence and reached through critical thinking – not authority, least of all a supposed divine authority.

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the rules – to get closer to the ideal – they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

One question to start with - and let's do one at a time, to help each other out.

Are the above supposed to be

• A. commands,
  B. factual assertions with truth-value, or
  C. expressions of opinion - and if so, whose opinion?

(If they're none of these options, please explain their linguistic function.)

A. Point 1 above stated they are not commands to be imposed nor enforced on anyone.


B. Note point 2.
These secular objective absolute moral laws MUST be justified with empirical evidences and reasoned to justify absoluteness.

They are factual moral assertions with truth-value as justified within the Moral Framework and System.

Note "Truth" is never absolutely absolute but always relative/subject to a qualified Framework of human activities and knowledge.
As stated the Scientific Framework provide the most credible knowledge due to its objectivity that any human can test the theory and get the same results.
There are other Framework of human activities and knowledge with their own specific qualified truth, e.g. legal, mathematical, geometry, economics, etc.

• • For example it is true X [a US citizen] is a convicted murder, but that its truth-value is only valid within the US Legal Framework and System, but it cannot be held a truth outside the US.

Do you get the above point?
Truth is never absolutely absolute but relative to some specific Framework of human activities and knowledge.
I don't think you will ever agree to this point because you are dogmatically stuck with Philosophical Realism which itself is not realistic.
You need to justify how Philosophical Realism is realistic.

C. Opinions?
Note the definition of opinions I have provided my times.

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

As demonstrated in B above, the secular objective moral laws are justified moral facts/knowledge based on empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
Therefore they cannot be "opinions" as defined above.

[Peter Holmes]

All you do is complain, complain and complain but [you are] unable to provide sound arguments to counter my views.

Here are your proposals.

1 We must adopt a code of absolute moral rules, but only as an ideal guide, and never to be imposed on anyone.

2 Those rules must be based on evidence and reached through critical thinking – not authority, least of all a supposed divine authority.

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the rules – to get closer to the ideal – they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

One question to start with - and let's do one at a time, to help each other out.

Are the above supposed to be

• A. commands,
  B. factual assertions with truth-value, or
  C. expressions of opinion - and if so, whose opinion?

(If they're none of these options, please explain their linguistic function.)

A. Point 1 above stated they are not commands to be imposed nor enforced on anyone.


B. Note point 2.
These secular objective absolute moral laws MUST be justified with empirical evidences and reasoned to justify absoluteness.

They are factual moral assertions with truth-value as justified within the Moral Framework and System.

Note "Truth" is never absolutely absolute but always relative/subject to a qualified Framework of human activities and knowledge.
As stated the Scientific Framework provide the most credible knowledge due to its objectivity that any human can test the theory and get the same results.
There are other Framework of human activities and knowledge with their own specific qualified truth, e.g. legal, mathematical, geometry, economics, etc.

• • For example it is true X [a US citizen] is a convicted murder, but that its truth-value is only valid within the US Legal Framework and System, but it cannot be held a truth outside the US.

Do you get the above point?
Truth is never absolutely absolute but relative to some specific Framework of human activities and knowledge.
I don't think you will ever agree to this point because you are dogmatically stuck with Philosophical Realism which itself is not realistic.
You need to justify how Philosophical Realism is realistic.

C. Opinions?
Note the definition of opinions I have provided my times.

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

As demonstrated in B above, the secular objective moral laws are justified moral facts/knowledge based on empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
Therefore they cannot be "opinions" as defined above.

Thanks. There's no need to repeat whole chunks of your argument. Save time and effort by just answering each question.

So, you think your proposals are factual assertions with truth-value - given that what we call truth is always contextual and 'given the way we use the signs involved'.

You think those factual assertions are true.

And you think they're neither commands - which have no truth-value anyway - nor expressions of opinion - which can have only trivial truth-value, in that 'my opinion is x' is true if x is my opinion, and not true if x isn't my opinion.

Is that a fair summary of your position? (A simple answer will do. I just don't want to move on before we're clear.)

[Belinda]

RCSaunders wrote:

If you don't mind, I'd also be interested in what you mean by, "reality."

I believe absolute reality exists despite lack of evidence for it. Absolute reality is sometimes conflated with God but not of course the popular personal God of Christianity, more like the impersonal Allah.Absolute reality is indefinable.

I understand your subjective reality, and Henry's, because we share the English language and probably to a large extent the same world view, and some experiences. I have even heard and read about lucid dreaming. I do of course know your definition of reality, and Henry's , is the usual everyday usage of 'reality'. I would not think to argue with somebody I meet casually that reality does not refer to sane waking commonsense reality.

But sane waking commonsense reality is insufficient when for the sake of forging a moral code we need to ask what human beings are, and how humans should live their lives. My life experience is different enough from many others' life experiences that I need to know how to be fair to those whose realities include being bombed from aeroplanes, being beaten by lovers, being homeless, being very rich, and so forth.