What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

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.

You can take God (with capital G) as the ground of objective truth.
You can take Nature (with capital N) as the ground of objective truth.
You can take Reality (with capital R) as the ground of objective truth.

Quine would simply point out that if God, Nature and Reality are grounds for objective truth, they they are all cognitively synonymous. Those three different words mean exactly the same thing.

They are epistemically equivalent: we can no more know Reality or Nature than we can know God. That is not at all the issue at hand. The issue is the pitfall of all dualisms - categories. By drawing the subjective/objective distinction humans keep forgetting that the distinction is subjective.

Everything that humans have labeled "subjective" is still objective. The subject is still an object from God/Reality/Nature's viewpoint.

Objectively, you and everything about you exists in Reality.
Objectively, the subjective/objective distinction exists in Reality (as part of you)
Objectively, Human values exist in Reality.

This is ontologically true. The rest is the politics (under the guise of philosophy) of attempting to answer the question "Who draws this distinction and why?"

This touches on your point:

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

Peter knows this very well, but it is not in his interest (while defending his view) to admit this. You have expressed your view perfectly fine - it is Peter who is failing to evaluate your expression. He is doing it intentionally - because Philosophy.

He is being intentionally disruptive. In a court room you could call that "malicious". Alas, Peter's intentions aside he is committing the McNamare fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy

The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.

Objective moral value exist. They can neither be defined nor accurately measured, but if they didn't exist - we would be dead by now. Long extinct paralysed by indecision.

[Age]

The answer to the question is: Agreement and acceptance by all.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

The expression 'ground for objective truth' can be confusing, in my opinion. Objectivity is just the independence from opinion of a factual assertion, which can be about anything, including nature or gods. We could say a feature of reality (nature) is the 'ground' for the truth of a factual assertion asserting it - but then we're assuming a correspondence theory of truth - and all of those are misleading.

And the existence of a god, or a god itself, can never be the 'ground for objective truth'. That claim makes no sense at all, in my opinion. (I'd be interested if you can briefly show why it does.)

[Skepdick]

Objectivity is just the independence from opinion of a factual assertion, which can be about anything, including nature or gods.

If a factual assertion can be about anything then they can be about the nature of moral values.

If you mean to say that factual assertion can be about anything EXCEPT moral values, then the burden is on you to recognise and rectify your double-think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception). This is the application of a double standard.

How you say this...

You're wrong, and you'll remain wrong how ever many times you repeat your argument.

[Peter Holmes]

Just to clarify something. A factual assertion can be about anything, including the nature of moral values - what they are, why people have them, and so on. But a factual assertion about moral values isn't, for that reason, a moral assertion. The assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' isn't an assertion about the nature of moral value. It's an assertion of a moral value. It expresses a moral value-judgement. That's why it isn't factual.

[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.

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.

That the way you want it to be without any justified argument from you.

You are rhetorical again your twisting my point to 'humans must be allowed to breathe' imply some kind of enforcement.

My statement of moral fact is;
It is 'ALL humans ought to breathe' is an objective moral fact which is meta-subjective, i.e. intersubjective, it is not a personal subjective opinion.
which I have deducted from a biological fact which is proven.
Most critical, this moral ought is NEVER enforced.
Show me where my deduction do not follow and is false?

You just cannot get out out your dogmatism, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Quine would simply point out that if God, Nature and Reality are grounds for objective truth, they they are all cognitively synonymous. Those three different words mean exactly the same thing.

They are epistemically equivalent: we can no more know Reality or Nature than we can know God. That is not at all the issue at hand. The issue is the pitfall of all dualisms - categories. By drawing the subjective/objective distinction humans keep forgetting that the distinction is subjective.

Everything that humans have labeled "subjective" is still objective. The subject is still an object from God/Reality/Nature's viewpoint.

How come you are so dumb?

What is objective is based on a Framework of Epistemology and Realization via intersubjective consensus with recognized participants of the Framework.

It is up to the specific Framework to assess the truth of Nature, Reality and God.

The quality and reliability of truth from each Framework will depend on their competence in term of producing Justified True Beliefs.

To date, Science has the highest rating in terms of knowledge, truths and justified true beliefs. This is based on its features of observation of empirical evidence, verification, testing and the expectation of a repeated results, i.e. objectivity.

Science having the highest rating of knowledge and truths has so demonstrated the reality of Nature and reality within its reputable Framework of Knowledge.

The Framework of Theology has so far been not able to provide any justified true beliefs on their claim 'God exists as real' empirically and philosophically.
Theology is grounded on faith, i.e. no proofs nor sound reason.

Thus where did you get the idea that Science [JTB] and Theology [Faith] are comparable in their justification of Nature and Reality?

Would you accept the jihadists' call to kill you because their Allah-as-real* commanded them to kill non-Muslims [presume you are one].
* because you claim God is real in reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectivity is just the independence from opinion of a factual assertion, which can be about anything, including nature or gods.
...

Your point above is very confusing;

Objectivity is intersubjective consensus of a fact by peers [subjects] within an established framework of knowledge, truth and reality.

This objectivity, i.e. meta-subjectivity is independent of the personal opinion of any member within the Framework and any individual or group outside the framework.

Therefore when the Scientific Framework conclude the Earth revolves around the Sun [heliocentric] that is an objective fact, but only a scientific fact.
This objective fact is independent of anyone's opinion or beliefs.

• To be more precise and pedantic;
  Note, even if Einstein had declared E=MC2 by himself, that is his personal belief [btw not opinion], thus subjective and not objective.
  
  However if Einstein stated Science [not himself] has declared E=MC2, that would be objective because this objectivity is grounded on the Scientific Framework and inter-agreement by all the recognized peers based on tested and confirmed results.
  See the nuance in the above??

But the Scientific Framework is grounded on inter-agreement by the recognized peers who are subjects.
Therefore the Scientific Framework is grounded on subjectivity, thus meta-subjectivity.
Can you dispute this?

This Science analogy is the same principles on how I arrived at the secular objective moral oughts as moral facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just to clarify something. A factual assertion can be about anything, including the nature of moral values - what they are, why people have them, and so on. But a factual assertion about moral values isn't, for that reason, a moral assertion. The assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' isn't an assertion about the nature of moral value. It's an assertion of a moral value. It expresses a moral value-judgement. That's why it isn't factual.

You are conflating and equivocating difference senses, in this case, Science, psychology and Morality.

There is the scientific and psychological fact, slavery [chattel] generate terrible sufferings [physical, mental, psychology] to the individual slave.
Such sufferings can be confirmed by Science [neuroscience], psychology and psychiatry within their specific framework of knowledge and truth.

Morality has its specific framework and truths and thus its qualified objectivity.
Morality borrows from this scientific and psychological fact and deduced its justified moral fact as objective.
So what is wrong with this?

Note Morality is not about 'values' but morality deal with objective moral laws/facts.
To be precise, moral values [albeit used often] has no real place with Morality [as defined for this purpose].

It is only Ethics that deals with 'values'.

• Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics.
  -wiki

Perhaps you are ignorant of this?

So you are wrong is accusing factual assertions [Science and others?] are conflated with moral values.

You have committed the fallacy of equivocation in the above.

[Skepdick]

Quine would simply point out that if God, Nature and Reality are grounds for objective truth, they they are all cognitively synonymous. Those three different words mean exactly the same thing.

They are epistemically equivalent: we can no more know Reality or Nature than we can know God. That is not at all the issue at hand. The issue is the pitfall of all dualisms - categories. By drawing the subjective/objective distinction humans keep forgetting that the distinction is subjective.

Everything that humans have labeled "subjective" is still objective. The subject is still an object from God/Reality/Nature's viewpoint.

How come you are so dumb?

What is objective is based on a Framework of Epistemology and Realization via intersubjective consensus with recognized participants of the Framework.

It is up to the specific Framework to assess the truth of Nature, Reality and God.

The quality and reliability of truth from each Framework will depend on their competence in term of producing Justified True Beliefs.

To date, Science has the highest rating in terms of knowledge, truths and justified true beliefs. This is based on its features of observation of empirical evidence, verification, testing and the expectation of a repeated results, i.e. objectivity.

Science having the highest rating of knowledge and truths has so demonstrated the reality of Nature and reality within its reputable Framework of Knowledge.

The Framework of Theology has so far been not able to provide any justified true beliefs on their claim 'God exists as real' empirically and philosophically.
Theology is grounded on faith, i.e. no proofs nor sound reason.

Thus where did you get the idea that Science [JTB] and Theology [Faith] are comparable in their justification of Nature and Reality?

Would you accept the jihadists' call to kill you because their Allah-as-real* commanded them to kill non-Muslims [presume you are one].
* because you claim God is real in reality.

Idiot. All you ever do is argue against strawmen.

The ontological concepts of Nature, Reality and God are cognitively synonymous.

They are three different words/concepts for one and the same referent. Abstractly it corresponds to The set of ALL sets.

You are still playing dumb language games, like the dumb philosopher you are.

ALL of science is Justified Belief. Pragmatism. Science doesn't give a shit about truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Quine would simply point out that if God, Nature and Reality are grounds for objective truth, they they are all cognitively synonymous. Those three different words mean exactly the same thing.

They are epistemically equivalent: we can no more know Reality or Nature than we can know God. That is not at all the issue at hand. The issue is the pitfall of all dualisms - categories. By drawing the subjective/objective distinction humans keep forgetting that the distinction is subjective.

Everything that humans have labeled "subjective" is still objective. The subject is still an object from God/Reality/Nature's viewpoint.

How come you are so dumb?

What is objective is based on a Framework of Epistemology and Realization via intersubjective consensus with recognized participants of the Framework.

It is up to the specific Framework to assess the truth of Nature, Reality and God.

The quality and reliability of truth from each Framework will depend on their competence in term of producing Justified True Beliefs.

To date, Science has the highest rating in terms of knowledge, truths and justified true beliefs. This is based on its features of observation of empirical evidence, verification, testing and the expectation of a repeated results, i.e. objectivity.

Science having the highest rating of knowledge and truths has so demonstrated the reality of Nature and reality within its reputable Framework of Knowledge.

The Framework of Theology has so far been not able to provide any justified true beliefs on their claim 'God exists as real' empirically and philosophically.
Theology is grounded on faith, i.e. no proofs nor sound reason.

Thus where did you get the idea that Science [JTB] and Theology [Faith] are comparable in their justification of Nature and Reality?

Would you accept the jihadists' call to kill you because their Allah-as-real* commanded them to kill non-Muslims [presume you are one].
* because you claim God is real in reality.

Idiot. All you ever do is argue against strawmen.

The ontological concepts of Nature, Reality and God are cognitively synonymous.

They are three different words/concepts for one and the same referent. Abstractly it corresponds to The set of ALL sets.

You are still playing dumb language games, like the dumb philosopher you are.

ALL of science is Justified Belief. Pragmatism. Science doesn't give a shit about truth.

Stupid idiot.

What is truth is justified true beliefs as conditioned upon a specific framework of knowledge and truth.
Scientific truths are truths conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and its conditions.

Note this example and justification;

Science is the search for truth and knowledge
https://elephantinthelab.org/science-is ... knowledge/

Popper did assert scientific theories are polished conjectures in one perspective, but that does not exclude scientific theories are framework-dependent-truths from another relevant perspective.

Show me where there is any absolute ontological knowledge or truth independent of any human made framework of knowledge and truth.

[Skepdick]

How come you are so dumb?

What is objective is based on a Framework of Epistemology and Realization via intersubjective consensus with recognized participants of the Framework.

It is up to the specific Framework to assess the truth of Nature, Reality and God.

The quality and reliability of truth from each Framework will depend on their competence in term of producing Justified True Beliefs.

To date, Science has the highest rating in terms of knowledge, truths and justified true beliefs. This is based on its features of observation of empirical evidence, verification, testing and the expectation of a repeated results, i.e. objectivity.

Science having the highest rating of knowledge and truths has so demonstrated the reality of Nature and reality within its reputable Framework of Knowledge.

The Framework of Theology has so far been not able to provide any justified true beliefs on their claim 'God exists as real' empirically and philosophically.
Theology is grounded on faith, i.e. no proofs nor sound reason.

Thus where did you get the idea that Science [JTB] and Theology [Faith] are comparable in their justification of Nature and Reality?

Would you accept the jihadists' call to kill you because their Allah-as-real* commanded them to kill non-Muslims [presume you are one].
* because you claim God is real in reality.

Idiot. All you ever do is argue against strawmen.

The ontological concepts of Nature, Reality and God are cognitively synonymous.

They are three different words/concepts for one and the same referent. Abstractly it corresponds to The set of ALL sets.

You are still playing dumb language games, like the dumb philosopher you are.

ALL of science is Justified Belief. Pragmatism. Science doesn't give a shit about truth.

Stupid idiot.

What is truth is justified true beliefs as conditioned upon a specific framework of knowledge and truth.
Scientific truths are truths conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and its conditions.

Note this example and justification;

Science is the search for truth and knowledge
https://elephantinthelab.org/science-is ... knowledge/

Popper did assert scientific theories are polished conjectures in one perspective, but that will not exclude scientific theories are framework-dependent-truths from any relevant perspective.

Show me where there is any absolute knowledge independent of any framework of knowledge and truth.

Dumb philosopher. "truth is justified true beliefs" is a circular definition

Science doesn't produce truth. Science produces models which are suitable for a particular use.

All models are wrong, some are useful

[Veritas Aequitas]

Idiot. All you ever do is argue against strawmen.

The ontological concepts of Nature, Reality and God are cognitively synonymous.

They are three different words/concepts for one and the same referent. Abstractly it corresponds to The set of ALL sets.

You are still playing dumb language games, like the dumb philosopher you are.

ALL of science is Justified Belief. Pragmatism. Science doesn't give a shit about truth.

Stupid idiot.

What is truth is justified true beliefs as conditioned upon a specific framework of knowledge and truth.
Scientific truths are truths conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and its conditions.

Note this example and justification;

Science is the search for truth and knowledge
https://elephantinthelab.org/science-is ... knowledge/

Popper did assert scientific theories are polished conjectures in one perspective, but that will not exclude scientific theories are framework-dependent-truths from any relevant perspective.

Show me where there is any absolute knowledge independent of any framework of knowledge and truth.

Dumb philosopher. "truth is justified true beliefs" is a circular definition

Science doesn't produce truth. Science produces models which are suitable for a particular use.

All models are wrong, some are useful

Stupid and dumb again.

When truth is divorced from Science, the context is such truths are ontological truths, i.e. independent of any framework of knowledge.

I asked, show me a truth that is absolute and independent of any framework of knowledge.

Note the definition of 'truth' in general.

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.

Scientific theories are truths [as defined above], i.e. they are in accord with fact or reality to some standard as assumed.
Are you implying scientific theories are not in accord with fact or reality?

[Skepdick]

Stupid and dumb again.

When truth is divorced from Science, the context is such truths are ontological truths, i.e. independent of any framework of knowledge.

I asked, show me a truth that is absolute and independent of any framework of knowledge.

Idiot, I have no idea what "truth" is. How can I show it to you?

You don't have an idea what truth is either! You can't even define truth, so you keep falling into circularities.

Note the definition of 'truth' in general.

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.

Scientific theories are truths [as defined above], i.e. they are in accord with fact or reality to some standard as assumed.
Are you implying scientific theories are not in accord with fact or reality?

Q.E.D You claim to be an anti-realist, but you are appealing to reality to justify your "truth" definition.

I am implying that scientific theories either work, or they don't. Science is pragmatism/instrumentalism.
To speak of " fidelity to an original or standard." is to speak of models, not truth. Some models have higher fidelity - some have lower fidelity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelity# ... simulation

Facts, reality, truth - this is the vocabulary used by dumb philosophers. Such as yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Stupid and dumb again.

When truth is divorced from Science, the context is such truths are ontological truths, i.e. independent of any framework of knowledge.

I asked, show me a truth that is absolute and independent of any framework of knowledge.

Idiot, I have no idea what "truth" is. How can I show it to you?

You don't have an idea what truth is either! You can't even define truth, so you keep falling into circularities.

Note the general definition from Wiki which is similar elsewhere.

Note the definition of 'truth' in general.

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.

Scientific theories are truths [as defined above], i.e. they are in accord with fact or reality to some standard as assumed.
Are you implying scientific theories are not in accord with fact or reality?

Q.E.D You claim to be an anti-realist, but you are appealing to reality to justify your "truth" definition.

You forgot? I argued Philosophical Realism is not realistic and do not represent 'reality-as-it-is' but rather philosophical realists claim of reality [independent of human conditions] is an illusion.

Whatever knowledge and truths proclaimed by Science are justified truths in alignment with the philosophical anti-realists' reality. [note Kant in my case].

I am implying that scientific theories either work, or they don't. Science is pragmatism/instrumentalism.
To speak of " fidelity to an original or standard." is to speak of models, not truth. Some models have higher fidelity - some have lower fidelity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelity# ... simulation

How can you be so ignorant.

Science relies on model to establish scientific truths.
That the Earth orbit the Sun is not a model but a scientific truth abstracted from a scientific model, i.e. the Scientific Method.

Facts, reality, truth - this is the vocabulary used by dumb philosophers. Such as yourself.

The above are generally accepted philosophical terms.
If you do not accept the above terms, you are a philosophical bastard and what the hell are you doing in a proper philosophical forum like this?