What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, because X is human who had the ability of discretion not to do Y.
If X do Y [evil], there is a potential harm to himself, others and the humanity and the human species.

In your opinion is that ability binary. or absolute; or is that ability relative to the man's mental health, knowledge, civil liberty, and ability to reason?

It is empirically evident humans has the ability of discretion with his freewill in contrast to all other animals [non-humans].

The ability of discretion is relative to the above variables you mentioned above and many others. But this variation is not critical to the point to the discussion in this case.

What is critical is, it is the ability of discretion with freewill and self-consciousness that make humans different from animals and evolving with the faculty of morality - thus leading to the necessity of moral facts which are justified from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. Any appeal to human nature to justify moral judgements as facts is fallacious, for two reasons.

1 There's no agreement - and certainly no intersubjective scientific consensus - as to what constitutes human nature. (Physiological facts, such as the need to breathe, are irrelevant here.)

2 Even if there were such a thing as human nature, that humans should should act in accordance with their nature is a matter of opinion, which is therefore subjective.

Just insisting that there are different kinds of facts, so that there can be moral facts, doesn't help your argument. You have to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. And just one example will do, to prove your case.

So to repeat: please propose what you think is a moral fact - a true factual assertion - which would therefore be false if things were different - and show why it's a fact. Hint: 'People should (be allowed to) breathe' is NOT a fact.

What is human nature is very obvious and can be justified from empirical evidence of human physical-make-ups, anatomy, systems and behaviors.

I have already argued re it is human nature - based on empirical evidences - ALL humans breathe, thus the moral fact, All human ought to breathe and leading to
'No human ought to prevent another from breathing' is a moral fact.
I have already provided all the proofs earlier and you seem to ignore them?

But your problem is you are stuck with one type of fact, i.e. that of Philosophical Realism which is unrealistic.
Btw, you are ignoring my criticism of this fundamental ground of yours.
You have to prove "your" facts are the only facts in existence in itself and absolutely, thus no other facts, e.g. moral facts are acceptable.
Btw, you are not a God to make that autocratic claim, are you?

[Peter Holmes]

Nope. Any appeal to human nature to justify moral judgements as facts is fallacious, for two reasons.

1 There's no agreement - and certainly no intersubjective scientific consensus - as to what constitutes human nature. (Physiological facts, such as the need to breathe, are irrelevant here.)

2 Even if there were such a thing as human nature, that humans should should act in accordance with their nature is a matter of opinion, which is therefore subjective.

Just insisting that there are different kinds of facts, so that there can be moral facts, doesn't help your argument. You have to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. And just one example will do, to prove your case.

So to repeat: please propose what you think is a moral fact - a true factual assertion - which would therefore be false if things were different - and show why it's a fact. Hint: 'People should (be allowed to) breathe' is NOT a fact.

What is human nature is very obvious and can be justified from empirical evidence of human physical-make-ups, anatomy, systems and behaviors.

I have already argued re it is human nature - based on empirical evidences - ALL humans breathe, thus the moral fact, All human ought to breathe and leading to
'No human ought to prevent another from breathing' is a moral fact.
I have already provided all the proofs earlier and you seem to ignore them?

But your problem is you are stuck with one type of fact, i.e. that of Philosophical Realism which is unrealistic.
Btw, you are ignoring my criticism of this fundamental ground of yours.
You have to prove "your" facts are the only facts in existence in itself and absolutely, thus no other facts, e.g. moral facts are acceptable.
Btw, you are not a God to make that autocratic claim, are you?

Still missing the point. I'll repeat my #2 above:

Even if there were such a thing as human nature, that humans should should act in accordance with their nature is a matter of opinion, which is therefore subjective. Please answer these questions:

1 Why should humans breathe?
2 Why should humans live?
3 Why should humans act in accordance with human nature?

Short, clear answers would be useful.

And, no, given our understanding of 'fact' as 'true factual assertion of a feature of reality', yours is the burden of proving that there are moral facts.

[Skepdick]

1 Why should humans breathe?
2 Why should humans live?
3 Why should humans act in accordance with human nature?

Short, clear answers would be useful.

Because if they didn't they wouldn't be able to ask questions, live or act in accord; or against their nature.

They'd be dead.

I notice you are breathing, living and acting... show commitment to your skepticism and stop doing all of those things.

[Peter Holmes]

Why should humans be able to ask questions, live, act in accordance with their nature, and not be dead?

Is it a fact - a true factual assertion - that they should do these things? Or is it a matter of opinion?

[Skepdick]

Why should humans be able to ask questions, live, act in accordance with their nature, and not be dead?

Is it a fact - a true factual assertion - that they should do these things? Or is it a matter of opinion?

On Fri May 08, 2020 at 1:16 pm it was a should.
On Fri May 08, 2020 at 1:17 pm you made it a fact.

Why did you breathe, live and questions?

Why did you turn your opinions into facts?

[Immanuel Can]

I stated my computer is down so I have no access to the book I have downloaded if I had downloaded fully or merely partially the contents only plus reviews by various critiques.

I did not state "I have no chance of knowing anything about this,

"My computer is down," she said, typing on her computer. And "I only have the table of contents, but I think I know about this."

Got it. I stand corrected.

[Immanuel Can]

'Absolute objective reality is claimed by Philosophical Realism ...

"Absolute"? Who put that word in their mouths?

The only claim here is that subjectivism has to be "a subjective impression of something." So I would ask, what is that "thing," of which subjective impressions" give us an impression?

[Immanuel Can]

1. How do you know what you know?

a) Your knowledge comes from experience including secondary knowledge from others and from your general culture of belief.

b) Your knowledge is born with you like your skin is born with you.

Two very obvious facts: one is that a) contradicts b). If all your knowledge is innate, then by definition it is not acquired by experience, secondary knowledge or culture.

Secondly, you choose your knowledge. You are not a "dumb terminal" programmed by whatever external influences just happened to pass by you. You can believe some things, and reject some. So there are missing descriptions in both a) and b).

And, of course, the answer is "objective reality," which is really real. In fact, it's only with reference to those areas in which we DO know objective reality that we are able to judge whether or not our subjective impressions are reliable or unreliable.

It has not always been believed the sun necessarily will be warmer in summer time bringing fertility and food. Which parts of objective reality do you believe?

Eh?

The point is very simple: approximate knowledge is good stuff. It does not always have to be exact. So if subjective knowledge approximates the truth about reality, that's better than embracing delusions, which do not. That's hardly arguable.

Most people believe the 'laws' of science or nature.

Most people are ignorant entirely of the laws of science or nature. Their "knowledge" of the external regularities is tacit and personal, not explicit and scientific. Historically, most people have not even known anything about the Laws of Entropy...that hasn't meant they've stopped growing older.

Do these laws amount to objective reality?

Of course not. How could a pure abstraction (a "law" devised ex post facto by humans) itself amount to an objective reality? At most, these are attempts to describe regularities in objective reality.

[Belinda]

Yes, because X is human who had the ability of discretion not to do Y.
If X do Y [evil], there is a potential harm to himself, others and the humanity and the human species.

In your opinion is that ability binary. or absolute; or is that ability relative to the man's mental health, knowledge, civil liberty, and ability to reason?

It is empirically evident humans has the ability of discretion with his freewill in contrast to all other animals [non-humans].

The ability of discretion is relative to the above variables you mentioned above and many others. But this variation is not critical to the point to the discussion in this case.

What is critical is, it is the ability of discretion with freewill and self-consciousness that make humans different from animals and evolving with the faculty of morality - thus leading to the necessity of moral facts which are justified from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning.

But some men are a lot more more stupid than other men. Some men are more stupid than some animals.In what way are all men different from all animals?

What exactly is this "discretion" and this "free will" ? One knows for a fact that animals show discretion when they make choices. One also knows for a fact that animals feel free when they are free.

[gaffo]

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.

I agree that murder is objectively wrong - i do have a personal code and distinguish between killing and murder. for me for my self defense i would reluctantly kill - same for an extreme vendata (say someone killed a person i loved out of malice and i did not think the justice system would work in an outcome i wished - i'd kill the sob myself (i know such act is illegal - as it should be in a civil society).

"liminal" i do not know that word! i love expanding my vocabulary, and so i shall do so and look that word up!

thanks for reply Sir.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree that murder is objectively wrong - i do have a personal code...

I'm not surprised.

But to say that something is "objectively wrong" means more than to say, "Murder's against my personal code." It would mean that if your personal code was not against it, you would be objectively wrong.

Now, I have no doubt you're a decent person -- at least, I have no reason at all to think you're not -- and that you would never personally murder. But plenty of people would. Plenty of people have, as a matter of fact.

So the most important question is, "Were they wrong, even thought they wanted to do what they did?" And the objective answer is, "Yes -- they were wrong, no matter what they thought."

thanks for reply Sir.

Nice to hear from you again, too.

[gaffo]

I agree that murder is objectively wrong - i do have a personal code...

I'm not surprised.

But to say that something is "objectively wrong" means more than to say, "Murder's against my personal code." It would mean that if your personal code was not against it, you would be objectively wrong.

but I'm a Solipsist! You need a new moniker - Quickdraw Magraw maybe?

Now, I have no doubt you're a decent person -- at least, I have no reason at all to think you're not -- and that you would never personally murder. But plenty of people would. Plenty of people have, as a matter of fact.

I could kill (murder by other's views of my act) As i stated before, if a jurk killed someone a loved out of malice or thrill (say a serial killer killed my sister (I could say my kids - but i don't have any to date) - I'd be fine killing the guy (though it would be Murder per others definition - esp society - which must make personal vendettas illegal for social order).

So the most important question is, "Were they wrong, even thought they wanted to do what they did?" And the objective answer is, "Yes -- they were wrong, no matter what they thought."

thanks for reply Sir.

Nice to hear from you again, too.

I dont understand your last statement - I'm thick, clarify your point so i can address it if you are willing.

thanks for reply again.

[RCSaunders]

One knows for a fact that animals show discretion when they make choices. One also knows for a fact that animals feel free when they are free.

You read the minds of animals?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated my computer is down so I have no access to the book I have downloaded if I had downloaded fully or merely partially the contents only plus reviews by various critiques.

I did not state "I have no chance of knowing anything about this,

"My computer is down," she said, typing on her computer. And "I only have the table of contents, but I think I know about this."

Got it. I stand corrected.

Note I am "he' not "she" - mentioned that before. Don't let your bad memory lead to insulting others.

I was then typing via my phone and tablet.
My comp is OK now but the harddisk containing the files is not accessible so I cannot find out whether I have downloaded the book or not.
I have now found the link to download the PDF copy and I believe I have downloaded it and read the intro and a few articles - nothing NEW except the book is a compilation of irrational thoughts driven by desperate psychology to cling to God as a crutch.