What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

SNB

Still not bothering.

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

Me transmisi sursum, Caledoni.

Mecca lecca hi, mecca hiney ho

[Peter Holmes]

And the claim that I refuse to accept any demonstration is a lie.

Great! What will you accept?

We await your demonstration that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. And the claim that I refuse to accept any demonstration is a lie.

You offered 'incest is morally wrong' as a gotcha moral fact, and I showed you why it isn't a fact - and wouldn't be a fact even if incest were contrary to the actual will of a god that actually exists.

And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

[Skepdick]

And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

"Moral subjectivity" is an oxymoron.

Either morality exists, or it doesn't.

If morality doesn't exist, then you are a nihilist.
If morality does exists - then subjective/objective distinction is superfluous.

What's pathetic is holding onto moral subjectivism when it's been shown over and over again that it has absolutely no moral worth.

Prediction: Peter will refuse to answer the question "Does morality exist?"

[Belinda]

And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

"Moral subjectivity" is an oxymoron.

Either morality exists, or it doesn't.

If morality doesn't exist, then you are a nihilist.
If morality does exists - then subjective/objective distinction is superfluous.

What's pathetic is holding onto moral subjectivism when it's been shown over and over again that it has absolutely no moral worth.

Prediction: Peter will refuse to answer the question "Does morality exist?"

To say "either morality exists or it doesn't" implies morality if it exists is natural.We look to social sciences, history, and the arts to see what men do in the way of social duties.
"Moral subjectivity" implies social duties are not revealed by God or nature but are man made.

Thus " moral subjectivism" and morality as a human social behaviour are both true.

[Skepdick]

To say "either morality exists or it doesn't" implies morality if it exists is natural.

Sure. Everything that exists is "natural" (or "objective" or whatever other label we pin on it - it doesn't matter). That's the premise.

We look to social sciences, history, and the arts to see what men do in the way of social duties.
"Moral subjectivity" implies social duties are not revealed by God or nature but are man made.

If you accept the premise, then drawing the natural/unnatural distinction results in a contradiction.

Everything that exists is natural.
Cars exist.
Cars are natural.

To insist that cars exist but aren't natural is not about cars, humans or naturally - it's about the fundamental problem with ALL distinctions.

And when you corner a philosopher into justifying how/why they draw distinctions, they fall flat on their face.

Thus " moral subjectivism" and morality as a human social behaviour are both true.

Which renders the objectivism/subjectivism distinction superfluous.

[Belinda]

To say "either morality exists or it doesn't" implies morality if it exists is natural.

Sure. Everything that exists is "natural" (or "objective" or whatever other label we pin on it - it doesn't matter). That's the premise.

We look to social sciences, history, and the arts to see what men do in the way of social duties.
"Moral subjectivity" implies social duties are not revealed by God or nature but are man made.

If you accept the premise, then drawing the natural/unnatural distinction results in a contradiction.

Everything that exists is natural.
Cars exist.
Cars are natural.

To insist that cars exist but aren't natural is not about cars, humans or naturally - it's about the fundamental problem with ALL distinctions.

And when you corner a philosopher into justifying how/why they draw distinctions, they fall flat on their face.

Thus " moral subjectivism" and morality as a human social behaviour are both true.

Which renders the objectivism/subjectivism distinction superfluous.

Everything that exists is natural.
Cars exist.
Cars are natural.

That's valid. It's also true cars are natural as long as 'natural' is taken to mean not -supernatural.

In real life it's unlikely anyone would say "cars are natural" . The everyday social use of 'natural' is usually polemical as in "eating meat is natural".

The objectivism/subjectivism debate is superfluous but justifiable for reasons of justifying left wing or right wing politics respectively.

[RCSaunders]

If you want to ask me a question about any idea, I'll be glad to answer.

If you want to interrogate me about anything personal, as though I were on trial, forget it. It's just none of your business.

The only thing you are "on trial" for is pretending your heritage/culture/circumstances didn't play a role in who you have become.

Yet here you are - speaking a language you didn't invent.

Only because it's the language you understand. Like everything else in this world, all natural resources, culture, history, accumulated knowledge and one's own physical and mental abilities are the raw material that exist from which one must choose and use to make himself what he is. None of those things determine what an individual is, they only determine the scope of what is possible to an individual. If by, "play a role," you mean provided material from which to choose how to live my life, then everything in my experience played a role, but if you mean by, "play a role," anything determined or make me what I am, you are completely wrong.

[RCSaunders]

To say "either morality exists or it doesn't" implies morality if it exists is natural.

Sure. Everything that exists is "natural" (or "objective" or whatever other label we pin on it - it doesn't matter). That's the premise.

We look to social sciences, history, and the arts to see what men do in the way of social duties.
"Moral subjectivity" implies social duties are not revealed by God or nature but are man made.

If you accept the premise, then drawing the natural/unnatural distinction results in a contradiction.

Everything that exists is natural.
Cars exist.
Cars are natural.

To insist that cars exist but aren't natural is not about cars, humans or naturally - it's about the fundamental problem with ALL distinctions.

And when you corner a philosopher into justifying how/why they draw distinctions, they fall flat on their face.

Thus " moral subjectivism" and morality as a human social behaviour are both true.

Which renders the objectivism/subjectivism distinction superfluous.

Everything that exists is natural.
Cars exist.
Cars are natural.

That's valid. It's also true cars are natural as long as 'natural' is taken to mean not -supernatural.

In real life it's unlikely anyone would say "cars are natural" . The everyday social use of 'natural' is usually polemical as in "eating meat is natural".

The objectivism/subjectivism debate is superfluous but justifiable for reasons of justifying left wing or right wing politics respectively.

I think the distinction that matters is metaphysical (material) vs epistemological (psychological). The metaphysical exists independently of any human awareness or knowledge of it, the epistemological only exists as the product of human minds. The entire material universe exists and has the nature it has whether there are any human beings or not. All knowledge, mathematics, logic, science, history, philosophy, values, and meaning only exist as the products of human minds.

Values, moral or any other kind, only exist epistemologically. If by, "natural," one means, "materially in nature," there are no natural values. Values are the mental creations of human beings. Sans human beings, they do not exist, in nature or anywhere else.

[Skepdick]

The entire material universe exists and has the nature it has whether there are any human beings or not.

OK, but there are human beings - we exist. We are part of the universe ergo we are material too.

All knowledge, mathematics, logic, science, history, philosophy, values, and meaning only exist as the products of human minds.

But humans exist and human minds exist. And that existence is ontological. So the word "only" server no other purpose but to allow you to draw a distinction.

Values, moral or any other kind, only exist epistemologically.

Epistemologies exist in minds. Minds exist in brains. Brains exist ontologicaly - so while the distinction between ontology and epistemology is bullshit.

If by, "natural," one means, "materially in nature," there are no natural values. Values are the mental creations of human beings. Sans human beings, they do not exist, in nature or anywhere else.

IF your grandmother had a dick you wouldn't exist either. But she didn't have a dick and so you do exist.

Humans exist. All of our creations exist. All of our values exist. All of those things are part of nature.

[Skepdick]

That's valid. It's also true cars are natural as long as 'natural' is taken to mean not -supernatural.

Right. Which puts Peter's 'subjective morality' between a rock and a hard place.

Either morality exists or it doesn't.
If it exists supernaturally that gives us theism (and Peter is desperate to avoid that)
If it exists naturally then it's objective. (and Peter loses the argument)
If he denies the existence of morality that makes Peter a nihilist (and he's desperate to avoid that too)

If morality exists, its subjectivity/objectivity is a red herring. Peter had no argument to begin with.

In real life it's unlikely anyone would say "cars are natural" . The everyday social use of 'natural' is usually polemical as in "eating meat is natural".

It goes the same with most words. We use them for their nuance and their connotational value - there's always an agenda hidden behind colourful language.

Quite literally. If you want objectivity - you need to get rid of adjectives and adverbs from English.

The objectivism/subjectivism debate is superfluous but justifiable for reasons of justifying left wing or right wing politics respectively.

Pretty much.

[RCSaunders]

Minds exist in brains.

You've seen them there? What do they look like? What color, size, shape is a mind? How much does it weigh? What part of the brain does a mind exist in?

[RCSaunders]

Minds exist in brains.

You've seen them there? What do they look like? What color, size, shape is a mind? How much does it weigh? What part of the brain does a mind exist in? How do you know there are any minds besides your own.

Oh wait. I forgot. You only have brain.

[Immanuel Can]

And the claim that I refuse to accept any demonstration is a lie.

Great! What will you accept?

We await...

"We" will attempt to give "us" whatever "we" will accept. But "we" won't accept anything.

Summary:
1. Peter claims morality is not objective.
2. Peter insists there are, and can be, no demonstrations to show that it is objective. Then he objects that he hasn't received any.
3. Peter believes subjectivism is true (i.e. that all morality is a momentary personal whim of his).
4. Peter has no stopper for ending up at nihilism, but doesn't want to be a nihilist.

[Immanuel Can]

And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

"Moral subjectivity" is an oxymoron.

Either morality exists, or it doesn't.

If morality doesn't exist, then you are a nihilist.
If morality does exists - then subjective/objective distinction is superfluous.

What's pathetic is holding onto moral subjectivism when it's been shown over and over again that it has absolutely no moral worth.

Prediction: Peter will refuse to answer the question "Does morality exist?"

Good heavens!

For once, I actually agree with you. Completely.

I wasn't even sure that was ever going to be possible...and Peter says there's no such thing as the miraculous!

[Skepdick]

You've seen them there? What do they look like? What color, size, shape is a mind? How much does it weigh? What part of the brain does a mind exist in? How do you know there are any minds besides your own.

Oh wait. I forgot. You only have brain.

the epistemological only exists as the product of human minds.

Can you even hear anybody else over the sound of how confused you are?

When you make up you brain whether minds exist or not - let us know.