What could make morality objective?

[surreptitious57]

All morality is subjective by default because it cannot be anything else
Even where agreement on a moral issue is universal it is still subjective

Can you give me just a single example of absolute objective morality
No you cannot as the origin of any such morality could not be human

[Peter Holmes]

Absolute objectivity is black and white whereas relative objectivity is shades of grey
The latter is a more reliable metric for our behaviour as we are humans not machines

You have failed to provide or even attempt a logical refutation that relative morality does not exist I notice
And also absolute objectivity is impossible because it would have to be mind independent like I already said

As I think your distinction between absolute and relative objectivity is made-up nonsense, I see no need to bother refuting your claim.

So you define what we call objectivity as relative to - dependence on - intersubjective consensus opinion.

Do you define what we call truth in the same way?

[Skepdick]

Do you define what we call truth in the same way?

What do we (you and I) call 'truth', Peter?

Please tell us what truth is. Philosophy has been awaiting you for ... ever.

[surreptitious57]

So you define what we call objectivity as relative to - dependence on - intersubjective consensus opinion

Do you define what we call truth in the same way

The scientific method - the most rigorous method ever - has inter subjective consensus as one of its fundamental principles
This is because it cannot actually achieve absolute objectivity because of free will and because of the problem of induction

Truth is also subjective in exactly the same way because it is dependent upon inter subjective consensus
Even mathematics - a deductive discipline - requires inter subjective consensus with regard to its axioms

The dichotomy between objective and subjective is a false one because everything is ultimately subjective
As all human knowledge and experience is subjective by default simply because it cannot be any thing else

Subjective is on a spectrum and one end of that spectrum is called objective but that is just subjective by another name
There is no black and white on this spectrum only an infinity of shades of grey because that is what subjective actually is

True objectivity of any kind has to be mind independent so cannot be conceived by humans or used as intended for human purpose
And therefore objective morality as a metric for regulating human behaviour cannot either be applied to it or be of human origin

[Peter Holmes]

All morality is subjective by default because it cannot be anything else
Even where agreement on a moral issue is universal it is still subjective

Can you give me just a single example of absolute objective morality
No you cannot as the origin of any such morality could not be human

Eh? Is this addressed to me? I thought you were arguing for relative moral objectivity - whatever that means.

[Peter Holmes]

So you define what we call objectivity as relative to - dependence on - intersubjective consensus opinion

Do you define what we call truth in the same way

The scientific method - the most rigorous method ever - has inter subjective consensus as one of its fundamental principles
This is because it cannot actually achieve absolute objectivity because of free will and because of the problem of induction

Truth is also subjective in exactly the same way because it is dependent upon inter subjective consensus
Even mathematics - a deductive discipline - requires inter subjective consensus with regard to its axioms

The dichotomy between objective and subjective is a false one because everything is ultimately subjective
As all human knowledge and experience is subjective by default simply because it cannot be any thing else

Subjective is on a spectrum and one end of that spectrum is called objective but that is just subjective by another name
There is no black and white on this spectrum only an infinity of shades of grey because that is what subjective actually is

True objectivity of any kind has to be mind independent so cannot be conceived by humans or used as intended for human purpose
And therefore objective morality as a metric for regulating human behaviour cannot either be applied to it or be of human origin

This is fashionable claptrap, performatively contradicted by the very fact that you're saying it. You're mistaking what we believe and say about things for the way they are.

To say that what we call truth and objectivity aren't what we say they are is to entertain the metaphysical delusion that abstract nouns are the names of things that may or may not exist and which, if they do exist, can be described.

When some twat challenges me to say if I believe, say, morality exists, or to explain what truth is, that twat is suffering from that delusion. Which, to be fair, is ancient and pervasive.

[surreptitious57]

I thought you were arguing for relative moral objectivity - whatever that means

I have stated very clearly what relative moral objectivity is and why that is the only type of morality that can exist multiple times now
You meanwhile have still to provide a logical refutation that it does not exist and so either you cannot or you can but have yet to do so
I do not think you are paying attention as indicated by your empty responses and the fact that you have now resorted to ad hominems

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you think murder is relatively objectively morally wrong, because the intersubjective consensus is that it is.

Claptrap.

You got it wrong.

Secular Morality [as a whole] is relatively objective, it is not absolutely objective, i.e. totally unconditional as claimed by theists.

The relative objectivity of secular-Morality is derived from the same approach and principles as the objectivity of Science, i.e. verified upon empirical evidences supported by the finest philosophical reasoning and critical thinking- grounded on the intersubjective consensus of subjects.

'Murder is wrong' is objective within the framework of relative-objective-morality.

Please explain what so-called absolute objectivity has got that so-called relative objectivity hasn't got. Or vice versa. What's the supposed difference?

If you can't explain the difference, you have no reason to claim there is a difference.
If there is in fact no difference, the distinction is meaningless.
If you think absolute objectivity is impossible, you are merely defining objectivity as relative objectivity.
Or, flip it around, and, handy-dandy, relative objectivity is impossible, and objectivity is absolute.

Do you think objectivity is both 'independence from judgement, belief or opinion' AND 'dependence on intersubjective judgement, belief or opinion'?

The difference is so obvious.

Absolute objectivity is totally unconditional objectivity that is attributable to an absolute God, e.g. the ontological God.
An absolute God cannot be conditional to anything except exists in and by itself.
Therefore whatever moral objective commands are from an absolute God, that is absolute objectivity.

Actually, philosophical realists like you are also claiming your objectivity is absolute objective but in a different perspective from the theists.

Relative objectivity as I had explained is what is attributable to scientific objectivity.
Whatever is scientific objectivity is conditional by the Scientific Framework, the scientific method, peer review, i.e. intersubjective consensus by scientists as subjects.

As I had demonstrated secular objective moral oughts/standards/rules/maxims are relatively objective as conditioned and established by a Moral Framework. In this case secular objective moral oughts cannot be absolutely objective as claims by theists for the divine moral objectives.

QED!

As explained many times, relative objectivity is independent of any individual opinions, beliefs and judgment, but relative objectivity are intertwined [thus not independent of] with the collective of subjects, e.g. in the case of scientific objectivity, it is the collective of scientists.

The problem with you as a Philosophical Realist is you and your kind do not have the capacity to differentiate between absolute objectivity and relative objectivity at the meta-level.

[surreptitious57]

When some twat challenges me to say if I believe say morality exists or to explain what truth is

I never challenged you on the existence of morality but simply emphasised the difference between objective and subjective morality
And you should be able to define what truth is as it was you who used the term - all I did was answer the question about it you asked

Still not one answer of substance from you but instead a couple of insults entirely without provocation
So are you going to provide a logical refutation of anything I have said at the third time of asking now

[Peter Holmes]

I thought you were arguing for relative moral objectivity - whatever that means

I have stated very clearly what relative moral objectivity is and why that is the only type of morality that can exist multiple times now
You meanwhile have still to provide a logical refutation that it does not exist and so either you cannot or you can but have yet to do so
I do not think you are paying attention as indicated by your empty responses and the fact that you have now resorted to ad hominems

As it happens, the twat referred to isn't you.

You said 'All morality is subjective by default because it cannot be anything else'.

And yet you claim there is such a thing as 'relative moral objectivity'.

Now, you say that isn't a contradiction, because you use the expression 'objectivity' to mean 'relative objectivity', and you use that expression to mean 'a product of intersubjective consensus'.

You've actually demonstrated absolutely nothing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you define what we call objectivity as relative to - dependence on - intersubjective consensus opinion

Do you define what we call truth in the same way

The scientific method - the most rigorous method ever - has inter subjective consensus as one of its fundamental principles
This is because it cannot actually achieve absolute objectivity because of free will and because of the problem of induction

Truth is also subjective in exactly the same way because it is dependent upon inter subjective consensus
Even mathematics - a deductive discipline - requires inter subjective consensus with regard to its axioms

The dichotomy between objective and subjective is a false one because everything is ultimately subjective
As all human knowledge and experience is subjective by default simply because it cannot be any thing else

Subjective is on a spectrum and one end of that spectrum is called objective but that is just subjective by another name
There is no black and white on this spectrum only an infinity of shades of grey because that is what subjective actually is

True objectivity of any kind has to be mind independent so cannot be conceived by humans or used as intended for human purpose
And therefore objective morality as a metric for regulating human behaviour cannot either be applied to it or be of human origin

This is fashionable claptrap, performatively contradicted by the very fact that you're saying it. You're mistaking what we believe and say about things for the way they are.

To say that what we call truth and objectivity aren't what we say they are is to entertain the metaphysical delusion that abstract nouns are the names of things that may or may not exist and which, if they do exist, can be described.

When some twat challenges me to say if I believe, say, morality exists, or to explain what truth is, that twat is suffering from that delusion. Which, to be fair, is ancient and pervasive.

Actually you are the delusional one in insisting there is an absolute table [say] out there that is independent of human conceptions and perception.

Yes, the table out there is independent of human conceptions and perception, but that is only based on relative objectivity, i.e. that independent is pseudo and ultimately that independence is not absolute but relative to subjects collectively.

At the extreme, there is no independent table if there are no humans alive.
The argument is humans, tables and all things are part and parcel of reality, i.e. all there is.
Thus while at a certain level of reality, things are realized as independent, ultimately and inevitably whatever is reality cannot be ultimately independent of the human conditions -subjects collectively.

It is the delusional like you who claim things are absolutely independent of human conceptions - the philosophical realists' view.
This is the same delusion view of theists who claim God is absolute independent of human conceptions and conditions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I thought you were arguing for relative moral objectivity - whatever that means

I have stated very clearly what relative moral objectivity is and why that is the only type of morality that can exist multiple times now
You meanwhile have still to provide a logical refutation that it does not exist and so either you cannot or you can but have yet to do so
I do not think you are paying attention as indicated by your empty responses and the fact that you have now resorted to ad hominems

As it happens, the twat referred to isn't you.

You said 'All morality is subjective by default because it cannot be anything else'.

And yet you claim there is such a thing as 'relative moral objectivity'.

Now, you say that isn't a contradiction, because you use the expression 'objectivity' to mean 'relative objectivity', and you use that expression to mean 'a product of intersubjective consensus'.

You've actually demonstrated absolutely nothing.

Actually it is beyond your ken to grasp the truth surreptitious57 had expressed.

[surreptitious57]

You said All morality is subjective by default because it cannot be anything else

And yet you claim there is such a thing as relative moral objectivity

Relative morality is subjective morality - they mean exactly the same thing so there is no contradiction
For anything that is relative is subjective by default whether it be morality or something else entirely

[Skepdick]

As it happens, the twat referred to isn't you.

As it happens, the twat I am referring to is you, Peter.

You're mistaking what we believe and say about things for the way they are.

Same old irrelevant bullshit.

The existence of cats is independent of what we "believe and say about cats".
The existence of cats is independent of "the way cats really are".

"Cats exist" is a factual claim about reality, not a metaphysical one.

Consistently with the above "Morality exists" is a factual claim about reality too. Unless morality doesn't exist.

Does morality exist, Peter or are you a nihilist?

[surreptitious57]

To say that what we call truth and objectivity arent what we say they are is to entertain the metaphysical delusion that abstract nouns are the names of things that may or may not exist and which if they do exist can be described

There is no metaphysical delusion involved in describing words and terms as accurately as possible even though language is not prescriptive
You however explicitly assume that your definitions must be absolute by default and all others must be wrong without truly examining them
Abstract nouns by their very nature cannot be defined simply and unambiguously so there will always be some subtlety and nuance involved