What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Do you mean own moral judgments like what Hitler et al did and their likes in the present can do the same?

Morality proper is not about making personal judgments.
Hume especially condemned actions for SELF-LOVE i.e. directed toward own moral judgments.

Do you think an individual can make a judgment for every thought and intention before he act it out? You are venturing into the ridiculous.

This is the absurd canard that IC keeps a quacking: a personal moral judgement can only be selfish, self-regarding, incapable of sympathy or empathy, likely to exclude others from consideration in pursuit of me, me, me.

Why can't my moral judgement factor in the well-being of others as essential to my well-being? The identification of subjectivity with selfish individualism flows partly from the diseased religious idea of our fallen nature needing sacrificailly-earned forgiveness from a psychopathic god.

How do arrive at what is the acceptable level of well-being of others that is essential to your well being?
Note the well being [not sick] of slaves are essential to the well-being of the slave owner.
It is the same problem with arriving at the well beings of prostitutes to their pimps, citizens to dictators and the likes.

Now you're asking the real questions, instead of shooting off your absurdities about moral objectivity.

Indeed, how do we arrive at agreement about moral values, judgements and behaviour? I wonder what evolutionary, social, historical processes could possibly lead to the development of modern moral and legal codes? To the moral objectivist, it's an affront that so piecemeal, fragmented, glacially slow and uneven a process could possibly have got us to where we are. No. THERE MUST BE MORAL FACTS.

[Belinda]

Do you mean own moral judgments like what Hitler et al did and their likes in the present can do the same?

Morality proper is not about making personal judgments.
Hume especially condemned actions for SELF-LOVE i.e. directed toward own moral judgments.

Do you think an individual can make a judgment for every thought and intention before he act it out? You are venturing into the ridiculous.

This is the absurd canard that IC keeps a quacking: a personal moral judgement can only be selfish, self-regarding, incapable of sympathy or empathy, likely to exclude others from consideration in pursuit of me, me, me.

Why can't my moral judgement factor in the well-being of others as essential to my well-being? The identification of subjectivity with selfish individualism flows partly from the diseased religious idea of our fallen nature needing sacrificailly-earned forgiveness from a psychopathic god.

How do arrive at what is the acceptable level of well-being of others that is essential to your well being?
Note the well being [not sick] of slaves are essential to the well-being of the slave owner.
It is the same problem with arriving at the well beings of prostitutes to their pimps, citizens to dictators and the likes.

Freedom of individuals is not accepting some Authority like Immanuel Can does. Freedom of individuals is not freedom from reason and sharp judgement. Freedom of individuals is not freedom from biological instincts like sex and eating. Freedom for individuals is not freedom from the demands of others. Freedom for individuals is not freedom from pain and suffering.

Freedom thus shows itself as not an easy way to live but is harder work than obedience to Authority.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, scientists arrive at theories (explanations) by means of processes of intersubjective consesnsus. (Pay attention to what I've just said.)

But no, scientists don't even begin to assume that processes of intersubjective consensus produce what we call 'truth' and 'fact'. And to say that what we call truth and fact are and can only be the products of intersubjective consesnsus is so utterly wrong that it's staggering.

You missed my point;

Note there are two types of truth and fact in this case;

I stated,
Science as a field of knowledge made the ASSUMPTION in its scientific model, that truth and facts of reality exists independent of the observers.
Scientists has to made the above ASSUMPTION otherwise they will be chasing after illusions. But is it only an assumption that has to be made.

Meanwhile, Science relying on the Scientific Method and peer review can only produce qualified scientific truths and facts and not those assumed truth and facts as above.
So what we called scientific truths and facts are a resultants which intrinsically entail intersubjective consensus.

Therefore you cannot conflate assumed truths and facts required for the scientific methods with the resulting qualified truths and facts from the scientific process involving intersubjective consensus.

You insist what you claimed as truths and facts are absolute independent of anyone's opinion nor beliefs, but you are wrong to claim so.
But this is merely a Philosophical Realists' view which is not realistic at all.

[Skepdick]

'Thou shalt not commit murder' is called a command. Grammarians refer to it as the imperative clause form, contrasting it with the declarative, interrogative and exclamative. When we're talking about facts as linguistic expressions (one meaning of the word 'fact'), we're referring to the declarative clause form. So, no, 'Thou shalt not commit murder' isn't a fact, moral or otherwise.

Grammatically, logically and mathematically declarative and imperative forms are isomorphic.

They are just different grammatical styles for expressing intentions.

Translating an imperative into a declarative is simply using future tense. You know English has that, right?

Back to the drawing board, and maybe the elementary grammar textbook, may I suggest.

You should catch up to developments in computational linguistics in the last century.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes, scientists arrive at theories (explanations) by means of processes of intersubjective consesnsus. (Pay attention to what I've just said.)

But no, scientists don't even begin to assume that processes of intersubjective consensus produce what we call 'truth' and 'fact'. And to say that what we call truth and fact are and can only be the products of intersubjective consesnsus is so utterly wrong that it's staggering.

You missed my point;

Note there are two types of truth and fact in this case;

I stated,
Science as a field of knowledge made the ASSUMPTION in its scientific model, that truth and facts of reality exists independent of the observers.
Scientists has to made the above ASSUMPTION otherwise they will be chasing after illusions. But is it only an assumption that has to be made.

Meanwhile, Science relying on the Scientific Method and peer review can only produce qualified scientific truths and facts and not those assumed truth and facts as above.
So what we called scientific truths and facts are a resultants which intrinsically entail intersubjective consensus.

Therefore you cannot conflate assumed truths and facts required for the scientific methods with the resulting qualified truths and facts from the scientific process involving intersubjective consensus.

You insist what you claimed as truths and facts are absolute independent of anyone's opinion nor beliefs, but you are wrong to claim so.
But this is merely a Philosophical Realists' view which is not realistic at all.

Nope. A factual assertion - one about a feature of reality that may or may not exist - is true or false, given the way we use the signs involved in context. And this applies to any kind of factual assertion, including assertions produced by scientists. They don't produce a special kind of 'truth' and 'fact' that is merely the result of intersubjective consensus. That's an absurd idea.

Please go back to my example, and actually address it. Do you think that if the scientific intersubjective consensus is that the earth is flat, then the earth is flat, and so the factual assertion 'the earth is flat' is true? Do you really think that's the case? I'll wait till you answer that question.

[Immanuel Can]

you have a problem killing a clump of cells, but not the pregant women on the field of battle?

I did not say that, at all. That's a misrepresentation.

I just said that so long as one admits that there are core cases of such a thing as murder, and that those core cases are objectively wrong, one has already admitted that "murder" -- however you have chosen to conceive of it -- is objectively wrong. And your admission makes the rest a matter of application and detail, not the core issue.

That's not to say those things are trivial acts: it's to say, rather, that in your earnestness to present liminal cases, you've already given away the argument.

That is, you've already, then, admitted that "murder is objectively wrong" is true.

[Immanuel Can]

What I propose as most effective is secular objective moral model grounded on empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

Okay, but you haven't said what "evidence" you would take into consideration and what line of "reasoning" would lead to the right conclusion. So the claim that "evidence" and "philosophical reasoning" to produce morality are out there somewhere, but that you don't know what, and where they are, is not a helpful strategy...either to us, or to your argument.

You need to give us something to work with there.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, and meanwhile, we're still waiting for a moral objectivist here to produce even one example of a moral fact...

Thou shalt not commit murder. Moral fact.

Done. What's the big deal?

'Thou shalt not commit murder' is called a command.

Indeed it is. But it also contains information, because God never commands merely arbitrarily, like humans do. Each command is also a revelation.

When God commands something, it is not an external thing, a thing unrelated to the basic nature of the case, as it is in human cases. It's always something that also reveals a feature of His nature and of the created world, and in this case, it reveals an objective moral situation as well.

If God tells you something is wrong, it is wrong in multiple ways. It is wrong because He says it's wrong, sure; but it's also wrong because it's not fitting with the telos for which you, as a creature, were designed. Thus, it is also an action that is not-good for you, and will produce deleterious effects on your self, your soul, and damage the environment in which God has rightly placed you. Moreover, it is out of step with the character and nature of the Supreme Being, and thus will rupture your relationship with your Creator...also a bad thing for you, both in effect and intrinsically.

In other words, evil is wrong in many different ways simultaneously. It's not an either-or. To describe evil as "something that has bad effects for me," does not in any way contradict the definition of evil as "something contrary to the character of God." Very clearly, evil is both.

[Immanuel Can]

For "Slave Morality" Nietzche was referring to Theistic Morality where believers are literally slave to a God.

No, not "to God." You'll no doubt remember that Nietzsche himself famously declared already, "God is dead" (i.e. that the "god" concept is defunct). To blame "the dead" would be absurd, and Nietzsche was not such a fool.

Consequently, he did not blame "slave morality" on God at all -- but specifically on the Jews...and later, the Christians. He argued that what "slave morality" really was, was the weak, the unfit, the powerless, exerting control of their betters -- and that the übermensch, the "supermen," would ignore "slave morality," dominate, seize power as they desired it, and rule the world their way, because they would be "beyond good and evil."

For Nietzsche, all morality is "slave morality." It's all bad. And it's all secretly a consequence of the human will-to-power, not of metaphysical beings.

[Belinda]

Thou shalt not commit murder. Moral fact.

Done. What's the big deal?

'Thou shalt not commit murder' is called a command.

Indeed it is. But it also contains information, because God never commands merely arbitrarily, like humans do. Each command is also a revelation.

When God commands something, it is not an external thing, a thing unrelated to the basic nature of the case, as it is in human cases. It's always something that also reveals a feature of His nature and of the created world, and in this case, it reveals an objective moral situation as well.

If God tells you something is wrong, it is wrong in multiple ways. It is wrong because He says it's wrong, sure; but it's also wrong because it's not fitting with the telos for which you, as a creature, were designed. Thus, it is also an action that is not-good for you, and will produce deleterious effects on your self, your soul, and damage the environment in which God has rightly placed you. Moreover, it is out of step with the character and nature of the Supreme Being, and thus will rupture your relationship with your Creator...also a bad thing for you, both in effect and intrinsically.

In other words, evil is wrong in many different ways simultaneously. It's not an either-or. To describe evil as "something that has bad effects for me," does not in any way contradict the definition of evil as "something contrary to the character of God." Very clearly, evil is both.

Immanuel, how do you know what God commands? How do you know what God's commands reveal?

[Belinda]

For "Slave Morality" Nietzche was referring to Theistic Morality where believers are literally slave to a God.

No, not "to God." You'll no doubt remember that Nietzsche himself famously declared already, "God is dead" (i.e. that the "god" concept is defunct). To blame "the dead" would be absurd, and Nietzsche was not such a fool.

Consequently, he did not blame "slave morality" on God at all -- but specifically on the Jews...and later, the Christians. He argued that what "slave morality" really was, was the weak, the unfit, the powerless, exerting control of their betters -- and that the übermensch, the "supermen," would ignore "slave morality," dominate, seize power as they desired it, and rule the world their way, because they would be "beyond good and evil."

For Nietzsche, all morality is "slave morality." It's all bad. And it's all secretly a consequence of the human will-to-power, not of metaphysical beings.

Nietzsche refered to the passing away of the old order of Authority as ultimate arbiter of good and evil. Indeed it was and still is a scary thing to be cast adrift from certainty.

[Immanuel Can]

This is the absurd canard that IC keeps a quacking: a personal moral judgement can only be selfish, self-regarding, incapable of sympathy or empathy, likely to exclude others from consideration in pursuit of me, me, me.

I have not even said that once.

I have rather pointed out that subjective morality cannot mean more than "Peter doesn't like X right now." And that's obviously true, and Peter has not been able to refute it by anything at all.

Now, whether that's "selfish" or not, and whether being "selfish" is wrong, would require us to refer to an objective standard Peter doesn't even concede to exist -- so there would be no point in saying that.

[Immanuel Can]

For "Slave Morality" Nietzche was referring to Theistic Morality where believers are literally slave to a God.

No, not "to God." You'll no doubt remember that Nietzsche himself famously declared already, "God is dead" (i.e. that the "god" concept is defunct). To blame "the dead" would be absurd, and Nietzsche was not such a fool.

Consequently, he did not blame "slave morality" on God at all -- but specifically on the Jews...and later, the Christians. He argued that what "slave morality" really was, was the weak, the unfit, the powerless, exerting control of their betters -- and that the übermensch, the "supermen," would ignore "slave morality," dominate, seize power as they desired it, and rule the world their way, because they would be "beyond good and evil."

For Nietzsche, all morality is "slave morality." It's all bad. And it's all secretly a consequence of the human will-to-power, not of metaphysical beings.

Nietzsche refered to the passing away of the old order of Authority as ultimate arbiter of good and evil.

Yeah, but he named that "authority." It was the authority of what he explicitly called, "Judeo-Christian morality." That's pretty clear.

[Belinda]

This is the absurd canard that IC keeps a quacking: a personal moral judgement can only be selfish, self-regarding, incapable of sympathy or empathy, likely to exclude others from consideration in pursuit of me, me, me.

I have not even said that once.

I have rather pointed out that subjective morality cannot mean more than "Peter doesn't like X right now." And that's obviously true, and Peter has not been able to refute it by anything at all.

Now, whether that's "selfish" or not, and whether being "selfish" is wrong, would require us to refer to an objective standard Peter doesn't even concede to exist -- so there would be no point in saying that.

But Immanuel, we are condemned by uncaring nature to be free to choose not only items of a moral code but moral criteria too.

[Belinda]

No, not "to God." You'll no doubt remember that Nietzsche himself famously declared already, "God is dead" (i.e. that the "god" concept is defunct). To blame "the dead" would be absurd, and Nietzsche was not such a fool.

Consequently, he did not blame "slave morality" on God at all -- but specifically on the Jews...and later, the Christians. He argued that what "slave morality" really was, was the weak, the unfit, the powerless, exerting control of their betters -- and that the übermensch, the "supermen," would ignore "slave morality," dominate, seize power as they desired it, and rule the world their way, because they would be "beyond good and evil."

For Nietzsche, all morality is "slave morality." It's all bad. And it's all secretly a consequence of the human will-to-power, not of metaphysical beings.

Nietzsche refered to the passing away of the old order of Authority as ultimate arbiter of good and evil.

Yeah, but he named that "authority." It was the authority of what he explicitly called, "Judeo-Christian morality." That's pretty clear.

So?