What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Moral subjectivism is not only viable . Its the only rational moral position because what it claims about morality is actually true

This is exactly what I have saying all along and so now you finally agree with me
There is no such thing as absolute moral objectivity just degrees of subjectivity

If that's what you've been saying all along, then I never disagreed with you in the first place. Only, what you call 'relative objectivity' is made-up nonsense. And what we call objectivity - independence from opinion - isn't a 'degree of subjectivity'. That's rubbish.

[Skepdick]

And what we call objectivity - independence from opinion - isn't a 'degree of subjectivity'. That's rubbish.

Then all of physics is rubbish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_fac ... rpretation

Congratulations, you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

[Peter Holmes]

Proposition: moral subjectivism is ultimately just a concealed nihilism.

Can anyone prove that wrong?

Still haven't cracked this yet? You make a claim, then you try to prove it's true.

Rather, one might see if one can falsify it. There's a claim there: can you falsify it?

Nothing is objectively morally right or wrong.

That's a different question. It won't help here, because even were it true, it would not do one bit to save moral subjectivism from entailing nihilism, if indeed it does. It would merely entail that we were all inevitably bound to nihilism...unless you can show that's not necessarily so, which is my invitation to you.

Up tp your usual dishonesty - failing to quote what actually addresses and answers your point. Here's what I said again.

Still haven't cracked this yet? You make a claim, then you try to prove it's true.

But anyway, since the claims of moral realism and objectivism are unjustified - so there seem to be no moral facts - the claims of metaethical moral relativism and moral nihilism are trivially true and so inconsequential. Nothing is objectively morally right or wrong.

So all we can do - all we've ever and will ever be able to do - is make our own moral judgements. And to say such judgements can have no rational basis because they're not objective is false, fatuous - and libellous.

[Immanuel Can]

Proposition: moral subjectivism is ultimately just a concealed nihilism

That would depend on the degree of moral subjectivity in question...

I think Peter would say, "Zero objectivity is ever acceptable." But you could ask.

...because that is all there is

Then obviously, it's smiling-faced nihilism. There's nothing ultimately behind it. So maybe one may want to imagine, or may fool oneself into believing, or even fool others into agreeing that X or Y is "moral," but actually, there's no such thing. That's the final truth. That's the deep reality.

If that's how it is, then subjectivism is then merely dishonest nihilism -- a nihilism that is too timorous, too fearful to admit to itself what it is.

And worse than that: it's probably what Nietzsche thought it was -- "slave morality." We fool people into believing that there's such a thing as "morality" merely to take advantage of them, or to compel the world to run on our terms...but we have no legitimacy in doing so; we're just lying.

Moral objectivity is simply the less subjective part of the spectrum which is why it is so called

I don't think Peter will accept that any part of that "spectrum" is actually "less subjective," or "more objective" than another.

[Immanuel Can]

And the claim of moral nihilism - that nothing is objectively morally right or wrong - is trivially true and so inconsequential.

So you are a 100% nihilist. Nihilism is "true," you say.

As for it's "triviality," or "inconsequentiality," that's a matter to be decide on what consequences logically follow from nihilism. One can't make them "trivial" merely by pronouncing them so; and most people are going to see very serious consequences.

[Peter Holmes]

Things that natural scientists do say:

1 Based on the evidence and our understanding so far, this factual assertion seems to be true - but we can't be sure it is.

2 New evidence and understanding may mean that any factual assertion we think is true at the moment may turn out to be false.

Things that natural scientists don't say:

3 If the intersubjective consensus of opinion is that a factual assertion is true / false, then it actually is true / false.

4 Because we can never be sure a factual assertion is true / false, then it can't actually be true / false.

5 Because our assessment of the truth / falsehood of a factual assertion may have to be probabilistic, then it can't actually be true / false.

Numbers 3-5 are the kind of fashionable nonsense that post-modern cooeys come out with to wow people at dinner parties. Ooo, I'm so edgily clever.

[Peter Holmes]

And the claim of moral nihilism - that nothing is objectively morally right or wrong - is trivially true and so inconsequential.

So you are a 100% nihilist. Nihilism is "true," you say.

As for it's "triviality," or "inconsequentiality," that's a matter to be decide on what consequences logically follow from nihilism. One can't make them "trivial" merely by pronouncing them so; and most people are going to see very serious consequences.

If the claim that there are moral facts is false, then the claim that nothing is objectively morally right or wrong is merely patently or trivially true - trivially in the philosophical sense that it's no more than a self-evident truth-claim.

And I've explained why this is morally inconsequential, since it merely clears the decks of harmful objectivist delusions and claims - such as the morally appalling claim that, if an action is contrary to the will of some invented god, then it's objectively morally wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

If the claim that there are moral facts is false, then the claim that nothing is objectively morally right or wrong is merely patently or trivially true - trivially in the philosophical sense that it's no more than a self-evident truth-claim.

There's nothing "trivial" about it in terms of consequences, though.

And one obvious consequence is that there's really no such thing as moral subjectivism at all.

It's then just a smokescreen for unscrupulous or fearful nihilists.

[Skepdick]

I don't think Peter will accept that any part of that "spectrum" is actually "less subjective," or "more objective" than another.

Peter already accepts that for the truth-spectrum. I can't see why he would object.

That's exactly what his claim implies when he appeals to "actual truth" while dismissing "trivial truth".

Then again, maybe I gave him too much credit for having double standards. Maybe he has as many standards as there are shades of gray.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think Peter will accept that any part of that "spectrum" is actually "less subjective," or "more objective" than another.

Peter already accepts that for the truth-spectrum. I can't see why he would object.

Well, because he thinks the term "objective" doesn't apply to morality. So things aren't on a "spectrum" for him...they're all equally imaginary. A "spectrum" would require two "poles": he has only one...morality is a figment of our imaginations.

I quote Peter, from above: "And what we call objectivity - independence from opinion - isn't a 'degree of subjectivity'. That's rubbish."

"Rubbish," he says. So it's not a scale or a spectrum, not degrees. It's all or nothing. It's truth or rubbish. Consequently, morality's objective, or it's nihilism -- those are our only options. I can't see any way there's a middle gradation for him.

Then again, maybe I gave him too much credit for having double standards. Maybe he has as many standards as there are shades of gray.

Well, he certainly thinks that he can call things "immoral" with one breath, and immediately turn about and deny that "immoral" refers to anything, one second later. That sure does look like a double standard, at the very least.

But to be fair, maybe he's just never realized his subjectivism is empty. Maybe he will now.

[surreptitious57]

what you call relative objectivity is made up nonsense . And what we call objectivity - independence from opinion - isnt a degree of subjectivity

All definitions are subjective by default because dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive even though consensus exists
Objectivity does mean independence from opinion but that definition is subjective like ALL DEFINITIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE

There is a sliding scale of objectivity that exists on a spectrum and so it cannot just be a single monolithic entity
Anything that human beings determine objective is done using human reasoning WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE BY DEFAULT

Therefore it is RELATIVELY objective as opposed to ABSOLUTELY objective which is reasoning that is ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN BEINGS
Instead of just saying it is rubbish you need to falsify it using logic because until you do I am going to continue stating it as the default position
So if as you claim it is rubbish you should have zero problem in falsifying it - but saying it and doing it are not the same - so can you falsify it ?

[surreptitious57]

Things that natural scientists do say

I Based on the evidence and our understanding so far this factual assertion seems to be true - but we cant be sure it is

2 New evidence and understanding may mean that any factual assertion we think is true at the moment may turn out to be false

Things that natural scientists dont say

3 If the intersubjective consensus of opinion is that a factual assertion is true / false then it actually is true / false

4 Because we can never be sure a factual assertion is true / false then it cant actually be true / false

5 Because our assessment of the truth / falsehood of a factual assertion may have to be probabilistic then it cant actually be true / false

Numbers 3 - 5 are the kind of fashionable nonsense that post modern cooeys come out with to wow people at dinner parties

How many scientists did you actually ask before posting this and if the answer is less than one then how do you know what you say is true ?
These statements are all equivalent with the only difference being between natural and technical language so was that all you had to say ?
By the way science and post modernism are mutually incompatible

[RCSaunders]

But

is an aim which is a good one we all praise, but it cannot ever be accomplished. Observation can;t be totally impartial ;we all have feet of clay. Subjective relativity is always with us, except for mathematics and formal logic.

we all have feet of clay.

How nice of you to speak for the whole human race. Perhaps you and Plato, Hume, Kant, and all the post modernists have perceptual and rational equipment that is defective and are never able to have undistorted perception and thoughts. It is wrong to assume everyone suffers from the limitations you claim for yourself.

You are going to get into trouble if you believe any man is totally good.

Subject is objectivity, not virtue. Your comment is irrelevant, but revealing.

[Peter Holmes]

Things that natural scientists do say

I Based on the evidence and our understanding so far this factual assertion seems to be true - but we cant be sure it is

2 New evidence and understanding may mean that any factual assertion we think is true at the moment may turn out to be false

Things that natural scientists dont say

3 If the intersubjective consensus of opinion is that a factual assertion is true / false then it actually is true / false

4 Because we can never be sure a factual assertion is true / false then it cant actually be true / false

5 Because our assessment of the truth / falsehood of a factual assertion may have to be probabilistic then it cant actually be true / false

Numbers 3 - 5 are the kind of fashionable nonsense that post modern cooeys come out with to wow people at dinner parties

How many scientists did you actually ask before posting this and if the answer is less than one then how do you know what you say is true ?
These statements are all equivalent with the only difference being between natural and technical language so was that all you had to say ?
By the way science and post modernism are mutually incompatible

Which is why your claim that scientists subscribe to the 'subjective consensus' theory of truth is ridiculous. There may be post-modern, post-truth theorists of science who spew this kind of nonsense, of course.

[Peter Holmes]

Oh, and meanwhile, we're still waiting for a moral objectivist here to produce even one example of a moral fact - a moral feature of reality, such as the moral wrongness of slavery or incest, or a true assertion that describes such a moral feature of reality - because that's what facts are or do - to justify their claim. Lots of unsound and specious argument, but not one example so far. Embarrassing, one would have thought.