What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

The problem with your view is simply the idea of objectivity - independence from opinion.

Peter, that's not our view. That's your view.

150 pages "to death" (as you say) - people are trying to convince you that you have been projecting your mis-understanding of "objectivity" onto them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I suggest you publish your Framework of Morality, and wait for the plaudits.

Good idea. As long as my arguments are sound [with appropriate qualifications] - not God commanded ontological oughts, it should be agreeable at least in theory. Btw, it is already done in practice crudely but not organized and systematic.

I agree. You're proposing that we formalise what we actually do anyway - and have been doing, progressively, for millennia. No argument there. The problem with your view is simply the idea of objectivity - independence from opinion. But we've done this to death.

Yes, that is your problem of not understanding what is 'objectivity' and 'opinion'.
Suggest you do more research and reflections on them.

Without a claim of an objective God independent of human knowledge and opinion, the only 'objectivity' is "intersubjectivity" i.e. meta-subjectivity.

The best example is 'scientific knowledge as objective' i.e. independent of anyone's opinion, i.e. it is open for any one to test the theory with a promise same results.
Scientific knowledge is fundamentally based on intersubjective consensus conditioned a human established Scientific Framework, peer reviews, etc. Thus it can NEVER be independent of the necessary human elements [note not individual's opinion].

"That ALL humans ought to breathe" a biological fact justified as a moral fact is definitely objective and independent of any one's opinion. Which human can dispute this with his mere opinion [crude claims].

It is the same for all other secular moral oughts that must be justified and thus independent of anyone's opinion. These are moral facts no one can dispute with reason nor its related empirical evidences.

Btw, above are my just saying them.
I don't want to go into any prolonged 'till the cows come home' saga as previously.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas

Look at your two claims:

1 'The only 'objectivity' is "intersubjectivity" '

2 'The best example is 'scientific knowledge as objective' i.e. independent of anyone's opinion...'

Do you see the contradiction? Objectivity can't be both a matter of everyone's opinion and independent from anyone's opinion. Intersubjectivity is just a fancy name for collective opinion, which obviously isn't independent from opinion.

And you say this:

'Scientific knowledge is fundamentally based on intersubjective consensus.'

So, if the intersubjective consensus opinion is that the earth is flat, then the earth is flat. And if a dissenting view is that the earth is an oblate spheroid, then the earth is still flat. And if the consensus is that there are unicorns, then there are unicorns. And so on. The point is: how we arrive at knowledge and what we call truth - true factual assertions - has no bearing on their actual truth. That's why science works.

As for morality, your misunderstanding remains staggering and, obviously, incorrigible - as the following demonstrates.

' "That ALL humans ought to breathe" a biological fact justified as a moral fact is definitely objective and independent of any one's opinion. Which human can dispute this with his mere opinion [crude claims].'

That all humans need to breathe is indeed a fact - nothing to do with intersubjective consensus. But to call this a 'moral fact' is ridiculous, and merely begs the question. That all humans should or ought to be allowed to breathe is a moral judgement, belief or opinion. And if our collective opinion is that they should, that is nothing more than collective consensus opinion.

I don't want to pursue this either, because I'm wasting my time repeating the same things to no effect.

[Belinda]

' "That ALL humans ought to breathe" a biological fact justified as a moral fact is definitely objective and independent of any one's opinion. Which human can dispute this with his mere opinion [crude claims].'

That all humans need to breathe is indeed a fact - nothing to do with intersubjective consensus. But to call this a 'moral fact' is ridiculous, and merely begs the question. That all humans should or ought to be allowed to breathe is a moral judgement, belief or opinion. And if our collective opinion is that they should, that is nothing more than collective consensus opinion.

Quoted by Peter Homes from Veritas Aequitas.

V A implies nature is the only and ultimate criterion of what is the case. While I agree with V A that nature is the only and ultimate criterion of right and wrong, I agree only with the proviso opinion is subjective on the matter of ultimate criteria .

[Peter Holmes]

...nature is the only and ultimate criterion of what is the case...nature is the only and ultimate criterion of right and wrong...

What is the case (nature) and what is morally right and wrong are completely different and separate things. It makes no sense to say a physical fact - humans must breathe - is a moral fact - humans must be allowed to breathe. Those two assertions have completely different linguistic functions, and the one doesn't in any way entail the other. The belief that it does is a moral opinion.

And aliens wanting to wipe humans out and settle on earth would have a different moral opinion derived from exactly the same fact.

'Animals must breathe' is also a fact (let's say). But 'animals must be allowed to breathe (until they die naturally) is a vegan moral opinion. Meat eaters don't have that moral opinion. Facts don't and can't entail moral opinions.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes, if nature is good and nature is what is the case, then nature is good, and harmony with nature is the proper criterion of relatively good or relatively bad.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes, if nature is good and nature is what is the case, then nature is good, and harmony with nature is the proper criterion of relatively good or relatively bad.

That nature is good is an opinion. Talk to those who care for children dying from cancer about the goodness of nature. Or ask a gazelle being torn to pieces by lions how it feels about the goodness of nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas

Look at your two claims:

1 'The only 'objectivity' is "intersubjectivity" '

2 'The best example is 'scientific knowledge as objective' i.e. independent of anyone's opinion...'

Do you see the contradiction? Objectivity can't be both a matter of everyone's opinion and independent from anyone's opinion. Intersubjectivity is just a fancy name for collective opinion, which obviously isn't independent from opinion.

And you say this:

'Scientific knowledge is fundamentally based on intersubjective consensus.'

So, if the intersubjective consensus opinion is that the earth is flat, then the earth is flat. And if a dissenting view is that the earth is an oblate spheroid, then the earth is still flat. And if the consensus is that there are unicorns, then there are unicorns. And so on. The point is: how we arrive at knowledge and what we call truth - true factual assertions - has no bearing on their actual truth. That's why science works.

As for morality, your misunderstanding remains staggering and, obviously, incorrigible - as the following demonstrates.

' "That ALL humans ought to breathe" a biological fact justified as a moral fact is definitely objective and independent of any one's opinion. Which human can dispute this with his mere opinion [crude claims].'

That all humans need to breathe is indeed a fact - nothing to do with intersubjective consensus. But to call this a 'moral fact' is ridiculous, and merely begs the question. That all humans should or ought to be allowed to breathe is a moral judgement, belief or opinion. And if our collective opinion is that they should, that is nothing more than collective consensus opinion.

I don't want to pursue this either, because I'm wasting my time repeating the same things to no effect.

But you forget I have mentioned;
Objectivity is intersubjectivity at the meta-level but of course with justification via a credible Framework of Knowledge, e.g. the Scientific Method and peer review.
There is no claim 'the Earth is flat' by scientists conditioned upon the Scientific Framework of Knowledge with its Scientific Methods and peer review.
You seem to have missed this critical point and went rhetorical.

Note I also stated,
1. That all human must breathe is a biological fact [proven],
2. or else the human species will be exterminated is a logical fact,
and
3. that all human ought to breathe is a moral fact.

3 followed from 2 and 1 deductively.
so where is the problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...nature is the only and ultimate criterion of what is the case...nature is the only and ultimate criterion of right and wrong...

What is the case (nature) and what is morally right and wrong are completely different and separate things. It makes no sense to say a physical fact - humans must breathe - is a moral fact - humans must be allowed to breathe. Those two assertions have completely different linguistic functions, and the one doesn't in any way entail the other. The belief that it does is a moral opinion.

And aliens wanting to wipe humans out and settle on earth would have a different moral opinion derived from exactly the same fact.

'Animals must breathe' is also a fact (let's say). But 'animals must be allowed to breathe (until they die naturally) is a vegan moral opinion. Meat eaters don't have that moral opinion. Facts don't and can't entail moral opinions.

You are getting rhetorical again.
The Philosophy of Morality is only applicable to humans, not to non-humans.

This is why the absolute moral law is 'No human ought kill another human'.
It is only applicable to humans.

Aliens are not humans so not relevant.

If I stated, 'no human can kill' i.e. any living things, that would be ridiculous and not rational because in this case, humans cannot kill other animals which is necessary for their survival or even bacteria and viruses.
In this case, the vegans' claims are irrelevant.

You are still stuck with 'opinions' - check the dictionary again.
My moral facts are deducted from justified biological facts and other empirical possibilities.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes, if nature is good and nature is what is the case, then nature is good, and harmony with nature is the proper criterion of relatively good or relatively bad.

That nature is good is an opinion. Talk to those who care for children dying from cancer about the goodness of nature. Or ask a gazelle being torn to pieces by lions how it feels about the goodness of nature.

True and your point merits a lot of attention.

When I said 'Nature" I referred to the way events necessarily happen regardless of what you and I would prefer.

You might now accuse me of fatalism, but I'm not a fatalist. Nature is red in tooth and claw is a fact. The fatalist gives in to what they think must be. The free person finds the least bad choice aided by reason and knowledge. Morality can never be totally objective and the next best thing is to try to outwit what we find to be bad about nature. Personally, I'd rather do so via science than via religion.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes, if nature is good and nature is what is the case, then nature is good, and harmony with nature is the proper criterion of relatively good or relatively bad.

That nature is good is an opinion. Talk to those who care for children dying from cancer about the goodness of nature. Or ask a gazelle being torn to pieces by lions how it feels about the goodness of nature.

True and your point merits a lot of attention.

When I said 'Nature" I referred to the way events necessarily happen regardless of what you and I would prefer.

You might now accuse me of fatalism, but I'm not a fatalist. Nature is red in tooth and claw is a fact. The fatalist gives in to what they think must be. The free person finds the least bad choice aided by reason and knowledge. Morality can never be totally objective and the next best thing is to try to outwit what we find to be bad about nature. Personally, I'd rather do so via science than via religion.

Okay. but now you seem to be saying: 'the way events necessarily happen regardless of what you and I would prefer' is 'the proper criterion of relatively good or relatively bad'. Sorry if I misunderstand your view. But if not, I disagree fundamentally. Any appeal to 'nature' - a notoriously slippery concept anyway - for moral criteria is easily refuted.

[Belinda]

Peter, I have not made my idea clear enough and don't know how to express it better. Sorry!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality can never be totally objective and the next best thing is to try to outwit what we find to be bad about nature. Personally, I'd rather do so via science than via religion.

Objectivity cannot be totally objective nor absolutely nor independently objective.
What is objective is always meta-subjectivity.

What is objective is always conditioned upon a human established Framework and System of knowledge [justified true belief].
Because it is based on a collective effort of humans [subjects], whatever is objective is fundamentally meta-subjective, i.e. inter-subjective.
As such there is no objectivity without subjects, thus subjectivity [meta-level].

• One good example is scientific truths which are recognized as objective but they are conditioned upon the Scientific Method established by humans [subject] and their consensus.
  Who can deny this?

But if not, I disagree fundamentally. Any appeal to 'nature' - a notoriously slippery concept anyway - for moral criteria is easily refuted.

We can establish secular objective absolute moral principles [laws, rule, maxims] but it has to be qualified [like Science] to a Framework of Morality and Ethics.
Like Science, these objective secular moral principles MUST be justified from the empirical evidences of nature.
In the above posts, I have justified secular objective absolute moral principles within my proposed Framework of Morality and Ethics with justified knowledge [biological fact] from Science and further justifications with logic and reasons to a secular objective ought as a moral fact.

Note its secular, not a God commanded divine ontological ought.

[Peter Holmes]

Morality can never be totally objective and the next best thing is to try to outwit what we find to be bad about nature. Personally, I'd rather do so via science than via religion.

Objectivity cannot be totally objective nor absolutely nor independently objective.
What is objective is always meta-subjectivity.

What is objective is always conditioned upon a human established Framework and System of knowledge [justified true belief].
Because it is based on a collective effort of humans [subjects], whatever is objective is fundamentally meta-subjective, i.e. inter-subjective.
As such there is no objectivity without subjects, thus subjectivity [meta-level].

• One good example is scientific truths which are recognized as objective but they are conditioned upon the Scientific Method established by humans [subject] and their consensus.
  Who can deny this?

But if not, I disagree fundamentally. Any appeal to 'nature' - a notoriously slippery concept anyway - for moral criteria is easily refuted.

We can establish secular objective absolute moral principles [laws, rule, maxims] but it has to be qualified [like Science] to a Framework of Morality and Ethics.
Like Science, these objective secular moral principles MUST be justified from the empirical evidences of nature.
In the above posts, I have justified secular objective absolute moral principles within my proposed Framework of Morality and Ethics with justified knowledge [biological fact] from Science and further justifications with logic and reasons to a secular objective ought as a moral fact.

Note its secular, not a God commanded divine ontological ought.

You're wrong, and you'll remain wrong how ever many times you repeat your argument. Facts don't and can't entail moral opionions, as your 'humans must breathe' example demonstrates. You simply refuse to recognise your unjustified leap from 'humans must breathe' to 'humans must be allowed to breathe'. You just state it as a deduction, and it's not, and can't be. Instead, the assertion 'humans must be allowed to breathe' expresses a moral judgement, belief or opinion, which is subjective. That's just the way it is.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

You're wrong, and you'll remain wrong how ever many times you repeat your argument. Facts don't and can't entail moral opionions, as your 'humans must breathe' example demonstrates. You simply refuse to recognise your unjustified leap from 'humans must breathe' to 'humans must be allowed to breathe'. You just state it as a deduction, and it's not, and can't be. Instead, the assertion 'humans must be allowed to breathe' expresses a moral judgement, belief or opinion, which is subjective. That's just the way it is.

If , and please not the "IF" , God is taken to be a fact then God is the ground of objective truth. God is no longer accepted as as ground for objective truth. Nature as investigated by science is widely accepted as a ground for objective truth however we can never know what the workings of nature totally are because we are inescapably subjective beings.