What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

The practical point is all humans must strive to be good rational moral agents for the greater good of humanity in a sustainable mode.
To do the above efficiently we need secular moral objectives [goals] which are objective moral facts [independent from personal opinions and beliefs] as verified from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning. These moral facts of absoluteness are merely guides within the moral system and they are not be enforced like political laws.

Nah. That 'all humans must strive to be good rational moral agents for the greater good of humanity in a sustainable mode' is an opinion, and nothing more. And here's another opinion: 'the white race must maintain its supremacy'. And here's another opinion: 'capitalists must maintain their wealth and power'.

You can shout your opinion, bang the table, and insist that one opinion - unsurprisingly, your opinion - is the right one - as much as you like. But that doesn't mean it stops being an opinion and becomes a fact. It's tough, I know. But suck it up.

Nope it is not an opinion.
It is objective because such an ought can be verified and justified from empirical evidences.
Such moral facts are justified as supervening upon empirical facts which are objective.

If you do not agree [ignorantly] with the above, are you insisting on the opposite or you are just a morally indifferent irresponsible selfish person?

Do you have a counter to my other accusation of you, i.e. 'kicking your own ass' in the following;

• Nah, the point is you are trapped inside the SILO of ontological moral realism, i.e. morality is a thing [like external objects or Plato's universals] that exist via floating within reality.
  These days within the discussion of the Philosophy of Morality, there are rarely anyone supporting this version of ontological moral realism.
  If you think so, name me one modern secular philosopher of morality who support such an ontological moral realism.
  The only ones are the theists whose morality is pseudo-morality and insist God [itself immoral] commands ontological moral laws that believers must comply else they are threaten with hell fire.
  
  Btw, whilst you are condemning the ontological moral realists to the ground, you are ignorant you are exactly like them in your claim of ontological philosophical realism.
  Actually with your strawman on ontological moral realism you are actually kicking your own ass as an ontological philosophical realist.
  I bet you don't understand how you ended up kicking your own ass.

Nope. You still don't get it. Only factual assertions, such as 'people must breathe or they die' can be verified or falsified with evidence. But a moral assertion, such 'people should be allowed to breathe' doesn't make a factual claim with a truth-value, so it can't be verified or falsified. We can explain and try to justify holding the opinion that people should be allowed to breathe - but nothing can turn it into a fact - a true factual assertion.

And you can stuff your nonsense about ontological philosophical and moral realism where the sun don't shine. Not interested. Nothing to see here.

[Sculptor]

As I had written earlier;

• Morality is driven by an inherent Faculty of Morality within the brain of all humans, where it is reasonable active in some and quite dormant in the majority of people.

This might be true, though I would doubt the use of the word "majority" here.
I would also say that hunger is also an inherent faculty.
However only fool would posit from this fact what a person might want to eat, what are their preferences, likes and dislikes. And only a damn fool would prescribe a diet on objective grounds - that is why objective morality is a fool's game.
The difficulty is greater with morals though. Since the target for eating might be as simple as health and satiation, the target for morals is wide and vacuous.

You are the fool who is kicking his own ass due to ignorance.

Hunger is an inherent impulse from the inherent set of primal instincts.

Yes, it is not right to question another person's preference of good but there are some facts that are objective for all humans in relation to hunger.

Who will deny;
"It is imperative for all humans to eat, else they will die"

The level of your stupidity is staggering.
There is no clear moral issue whether or not a person should want to, ought to be allow to, continue living. And there is no clear issue whether death it good or bad.

is a fact that is objective [can be easily verified from empirical evidences]. This is absolutely critical.

IS OUGHT.
Learn it. Think about it. embrace it.

It is also a fact that is objective that;
All humans must eat and consume food that provide basic energy - no humans has been observed to survive on air and water alone for long.
This is also absolutely critical.

Not remotely relevant.

It is also a fact that is objective that;
All humans must eat and consume food with the critical essential nutrients else they will suffer from malnutrition then diseases and die.
This is critical but not as critical as the above but if done long term they will die.

Not remotely relevant.

It is also a fact that is objective that;
All humans must eat food with the essential vitamins.
This is critical but not as critical as the above first two but if done long term they will die.

Not remotely relevant.

Thus there is a diet related on the above based on objective grounds.

Only if you think a person deserves to live a healthy life. What about a person that wants to eat for pure enjoyment? What about a person that wants to go on a hunger strike? What about a person that thinks fasting is healthy. Even if you accept that human life is morally justifiable, there are in infinite number of ways you could achieve that which would make a prescribed diet impossible.

It is the same with the faculty of morality and its various moral facts and degrees of objectivity like that of hunger.

No. Morality is far more complicated that nutrition and health.

I'll throw the following at you as I have done for Peter;

• Nah, the point is you are trapped inside the SILO of ontological moral realism, i.e. morality is a thing [like external objects or Plato's universals] that exist via floating within reality.
  These days within the discussion of the Philosophy of Morality, there are rarely anyone supporting this version of ontological moral realism.
  If you think so, name me one modern secular philosopher of morality who support such an ontological moral realism.
  The only ones are the theists whose morality is pseudo-morality and insist God [itself is immoral] commands ontological moral laws that believers must comply else they are threaten with hell fire.
  
  Btw, whilst you are condemning the ontological moral realists to the ground, you are ignorant you are exactly like them in your claim of ontological philosophical realism.
  Actually with your strawman on ontological moral realism you are actually kicking your own ass as an ontological philosophical realist.
  I bet you don't understand how you ended up kicking your own ass.

Not remotely relevant.

[Immanuel Can]

I have argued objectivity = justified inter-subject-ive consensus.

Two obvious problems with that.

Firstly, it just means, "group delusion." At one time, all people on the planet thought the world was flat. They were all wrong.

Secondly, it raises the huge problem of how all kinds of different people arrive at "consensus" with no objective reality existing to help them arrive there. Did they just happen to have the same kind of delusion, all at once? You're going to have to explain which drug they might have taken that would produce that effect...or else you're going to need to show some other plausible cause for so many people agreeing.

The easy answer, of course, is, "Well, there's an objective reality that all these consensus-agreeing people see, so even though they haven't got quite the same perspective on it, it's there...objectively." But I can see you're not going to say that, because you want to say that objectivity IS their consensus, so now you have no way of explaining its strange similarity at all.

Why do so many people think they see the same objects? Why is "consensus" not only possible, but regularly what we experience when we face reality?

[Immanuel Can]

...there hasn't been a radically new apologetic argument, to my knowledge, for centuries - just ropey re-treads to keep the rust-bucket on the road.

I see. You don't know Linville's argument at all, and are assuming that whatever he says, it's got to be the same as something you've already heard. But it isn't.

1 It was Nietzsche who criticised Eliot 'for want of discernment' in not realising that no god means no moral facts. You seem confused.

Oh yes...I see. You are right...my mistake on Eliot. Culpa mea, I read too quickly that passage. I will rephrase. Eliot took the side of those who said there could be morality without God. Nietzsche said she was wrong about that. However, we still have Nietzsche's point to deal with...how can there be morality with no God? And is it only "lack of discernment" that keeps you believing in subjective morality?

2 I have no time for Nietzsche's histrionics. He wasn't a philosopher - more a zeitgeist pundit - and he was wrong about the god-morality link.

Well, let's not be ad hominem. If Nietzsche were the Devil himself, we would still be faced with the question of whether or not, as Shakespeare put it, the Devil can "speak true." Let us concede that Nietzsche was "histrionic" -- but what about his assertion? Is this one of the instances in which he's got it wrong, or is he actually right? You're going to have to show reasons for dismissing a point of view for which all the good reasons seem to be on his side. If subjective morality is a real thing, on what basis does it stand?

3 Linville's presentation of the moral argument is a mess. Here it is.

P1: If there is no god, then there are no moral facts.
P2: There are moral facts.
C: Therefore, there is a god.

If you were right about what Linville's actual argument was, you might have a point: this would be a case of "negating the consequent," a fallacy. But Linville doesn't actually make that argument, in fact, nor any parallel of it. Nor does he rely on intuitionism, as you suggest in your next criticism...

'Moral experience' or 'intuition' do not establish moral facts.

His focus, if you see, is on AEN -- the "Argument from Evolutionary Naturalism." But you could argue there is some other way of grounding a subjective morality apart from evolutionism, if you want; but if you don't want to, then you've got to grant that, as Plantinga, Dawkins and Rosenberg have argued from opposite sides (the first, a Theist, the others, Naturalists) that Darwin is the only game in town. (394)

And if that's right, you've got to defend some version of an argument that shows an AEN can rationally legitimize morality. So that's the next step.

We can't logically argue from the existence of moral facts to the existence of a god, but then claim that the existence of moral facts depends on the existence of a god.

Actually, we could. If two quantities are mutually necessary, you can argue from either one to the other, and it's valid and logical to do so. To deny that logic, you'd have to show that there was another circumstance under which one or the other could exist. Then you could call it "question-begging." But not if both are mutually necessary.

If the existence of morality and the existence of God are mutually necessary, as both I and Nietzsche would agree (oddly enough), then the proof of one is the proof of both. So to show that people can't argue that way, you'd have to show that morality can be justified apart from reference to God. If it cannot, then you have to drop all this talk of "subjective morality" of which you've been speaking, because "subjective" then denies the meaning of "morality." To be "subjective" is to say that you have only your perception, and no information about praise or blame, proscriptions or prescriptions pertaining to anyone else, and no information even about their evaluation of your own actions or intentions -- and hence no "moral" information, by definition.

And that's what I'm waiting to see, now...you've pitched for subjective morality (oddly enough, for its existence being objective, though its substance is supposed to remain subjective -- at some point, you'll have to show how that can work). But how can morality be "subjective" and be morality at all?

Do you want to opt for AEN, and hence, to refute Linville's argument in some way, or do you want to make some argument for subjective morality that does not take as any premise, or presuppose, that AEN is true?

[Immanuel Can]

Theism Driven by Desperate Psychology
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29316

This is such an old, bad, and off-debunked argument that I hardly know what's worth saying about it anymore.

The problem with the "psychologizing" argument (i.e. the argument that belief in X is "wish fulfillment," or "fear") is that it can be used to deny ANY person the right to be heard on any perspective. For example, if, as Freud said, religion expresses a "wish fulfillment fantasy" for a father, then it's just as easy to point out that Atheism can express a "wish fulfillment fantasy to kill/escape the father," a fact which even Freud himself acknowledged. In fact, you can use the same argument to debunk Freud himself, because Freud hated his own father and wished him dead.

Might we say that Freud is "projecting" his antagonism to his own father, rather than "describing" what real religious people are doing? It might well seem so...and seem so on the basis of Freud's own Oedipal angst.

So that argument is just a "zero" when it comes to threatening Theism, and in fact, a zero in terms of logical argumentation. If it describes any Theists at all, it certainly does not describe a great many of them. And it's just as handy a weapon against Atheism. What can one say about an argument so lame?

Do you have any comment on the above which is actually happening within your brain now.

Well, first, you clearly have no idea at all what's going on in my brain, and if you think it's something like the above, then you've very clearly "gone froggin' without at stick," as they say. So that's all I'll bother to say about that.

Carpe Diem! Know Thyself!

Ummm...

Hate to tell you...carpe diem means "seize the day." Gnothi seauton means "know yourself."

[Impenitent]

caveat emptor

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nah. That 'all humans must strive to be good rational moral agents for the greater good of humanity in a sustainable mode' is an opinion, and nothing more. And here's another opinion: 'the white race must maintain its supremacy'. And here's another opinion: 'capitalists must maintain their wealth and power'.

You can shout your opinion, bang the table, and insist that one opinion - unsurprisingly, your opinion - is the right one - as much as you like. But that doesn't mean it stops being an opinion and becomes a fact. It's tough, I know. But suck it up.

Nope it is not an opinion.
It is objective because such an ought can be verified and justified from empirical evidences.
Such moral facts are justified as supervening upon empirical facts which are objective.

If you do not agree [ignorantly] with the above, are you insisting on the opposite or you are just a morally indifferent irresponsible selfish person?

Do you have a counter to my other accusation of you, i.e. 'kicking your own ass' in the following;

• Nah, the point is you are trapped inside the SILO of ontological moral realism, i.e. morality is a thing [like external objects or Plato's universals] that exist via floating within reality.
  These days within the discussion of the Philosophy of Morality, there are rarely anyone supporting this version of ontological moral realism.
  If you think so, name me one modern secular philosopher of morality who support such an ontological moral realism.
  The only ones are the theists whose morality is pseudo-morality and insist God [itself immoral] commands ontological moral laws that believers must comply else they are threaten with hell fire.
  
  Btw, whilst you are condemning the ontological moral realists to the ground, you are ignorant you are exactly like them in your claim of ontological philosophical realism.
  Actually with your strawman on ontological moral realism you are actually kicking your own ass as an ontological philosophical realist.
  I bet you don't understand how you ended up kicking your own ass.

Nope. You still don't get it. Only factual assertions, such as 'people must breathe or they die' can be verified or falsified with evidence.
But a moral assertion, such 'people should be allowed to breathe' doesn't make a factual claim with a truth-value, so it can't be verified or falsified.
We can explain and try to justify holding the opinion that people should be allowed to breathe - but nothing can turn it into a fact - a true factual assertion.

When did I ever use the following moral statement 'people should be allowed to breathe' ?

The empirical and moral fact is;
"ALL humans ought to breathe else they die."

The objective moral absolute in this case is;
"No human ought to prevent another human from breathing"

I had condemned your view of your dogmatic philosophical realist view of "what is a fact", i.e. a true factual assertion which is ultimate an illusion.
I had explained there are many types of fact which are objective as justified within a Framework of Knowledge.
You have not disputed the above to support your dogmatic "what is a fact."

And you can stuff your nonsense about ontological philosophical and moral realism where the sun don't shine. Not interested. Nothing to see here.

The above is due to your ignorance.
Ontological Philosophical realism and ontological moral realism are very valid topics within Philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
In metaphysics, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
Moral realism (also ethical realism or moral Platonism)[1] is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

Note the similarities between the above Philosophical Realism and Moral Realism.
Since you are a philosophical realist, you are kicking your own ass when you condemn Moral Realism.

Ignoring the above and not defending your position tantamount to being a philosophical retard.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This might be true, though I would doubt the use of the word "majority" here.
I would also say that hunger is also an inherent faculty.
However only fool would posit from this fact what a person might want to eat, what are their preferences, likes and dislikes. And only a damn fool would prescribe a diet on objective grounds - that is why objective morality is a fool's game.
The difficulty is greater with morals though. Since the target for eating might be as simple as health and satiation, the target for morals is wide and vacuous.

You are the fool who is kicking his own ass due to ignorance.

Hunger is an inherent impulse from the inherent set of primal instincts.

Yes, it is not right to question another person's preference of good but there are some facts that are objective for all humans in relation to hunger.

Who will deny;
"It is imperative for all humans to eat, else they will die"

The level of your stupidity is staggering.
There is no clear moral issue whether or not a person should want to, ought to be allow to, continue living. And there is no clear issue whether death it good or bad.

You, the really stupid one calling others stupid?

Your stance above is anyone can kill anyone anytime.
Why don't you just test yourself?
Would you want to be killed by another human being?
Why don't you start killing your spouse, children, parents, siblings, friends and anyone in sight?
Why don't you promote killing spree to everyone universally?

is a fact that is objective [can be easily verified from empirical evidences]. This is absolutely critical.

IS OUGHT.
Learn it. Think about it. embrace it.

I had already refreshed Hume's Treatise [moral section ] and Enquiry.
I fully understand the context Hume presented the IS-OUGHT dichotomy.

Btw, I have read 15 serious articles on Morality from SEP, IEP and elsewhere related to the above. So don't try to pull a fast one without giving sound arguments with supporting references.

It is also a fact that is objective that;
All humans must eat and consume food that provide basic energy - no humans has been observed to survive on air and water alone for long.
This is also absolutely critical.

Not remotely relevant.

You are ignorant on this.
You claim no objective facts can turn out from the hunger drive and I have demonstrated that it can be as above.

It is also a fact that is objective that;
All humans must eat and consume food with the critical essential nutrients else they will suffer from malnutrition then diseases and die.
This is critical but not as critical as the above but if done long term they will die.

Not remotely relevant.

It is also a fact that is objective that;
All humans must eat food with the essential vitamins.
This is critical but not as critical as the above first two but if done long term they will die.

Not remotely relevant.

Thus there is a diet related on the above based on objective grounds.

Only if you think a person deserves to live a healthy life. What about a person that wants to eat for pure enjoyment? What about a person that wants to go on a hunger strike? What about a person that thinks fasting is healthy. Even if you accept that human life is morally justifiable, there are in infinite number of ways you could achieve that which would make a prescribed diet impossible.

It is the same with the faculty of morality and its various moral facts and degrees of objectivity like that of hunger.

No. Morality is far more complicated that nutrition and health.

You are ignorant on this.
You claim no objective facts can turn out from the hunger drive and I have demonstrated that it can be as above.
The basic principles are the same between facts from hunger and objective facts for morality.

I'll throw the following at you as I have done for Peter;

• Nah, the point is you are trapped inside the SILO of ontological moral realism, i.e. morality is a thing [like external objects or Plato's universals] that exist via floating within reality.
  These days within the discussion of the Philosophy of Morality, there are rarely anyone supporting this version of ontological moral realism.
  If you think so, name me one modern secular philosopher of morality who support such an ontological moral realism.
  The only ones are the theists whose morality is pseudo-morality and insist God [itself is immoral] commands ontological moral laws that believers must comply else they are threaten with hell fire.
  
  Btw, whilst you are condemning the ontological moral realists to the ground, you are ignorant you are exactly like them in your claim of ontological philosophical realism.
  Actually with your strawman on ontological moral realism you are actually kicking your own ass as an ontological philosophical realist.
  I bet you don't understand how you ended up kicking your own ass.

Not remotely relevant.

You are ignorant on this.

Critiques of Moral Realism Kicking their own Ass
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29342

Can you counter the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have argued objectivity = justified inter-subject-ive consensus.

Two obvious problems with that.

Firstly, it just means, "group delusion." At one time, all people on the planet thought the world was flat. They were all wrong.

Secondly, it raises the huge problem of how all kinds of different people arrive at "consensus" with no objective reality existing to help them arrive there. Did they just happen to have the same kind of delusion, all at once? You're going to have to explain which drug they might have taken that would produce that effect...or else you're going to need to show some other plausible cause for so many people agreeing.

The easy answer, of course, is, "Well, there's an objective reality that all these consensus-agreeing people see, so even though they haven't got quite the same perspective on it, it's there...objectively." But I can see you're not going to say that, because you want to say that objectivity IS their consensus, so now you have no way of explaining its strange similarity at all.

Why do so many people think they see the same objects? Why is "consensus" not only possible, but regularly what we experience when we face reality?

How can you be so ignorant and dumb with Philosophy and Epistemology?

One good example of objective knowledge is Science which fundamentally is based on the following;
objectivity = justified inter-subject-ive consensus
Do you dispute Scientific knowledge/truth are objective?

Yes, at one time, all people on the planet thought the world was flat. They were all wrong. That is "group delusion." But such a belief was not justified true belief that is objective like Science and other credible Framework of Knowledge.

The "group delusion" is very applicable to the belief 'God exists as real' which is not justified empirically and with philosophical reasoning like Science and other reputable Framework of Knowledge.
The belief 'God exists as real' is based on faith, i.e. without proper justifications and reasons.
Yes, there is intersubjective consensus among theists on the belief 'God exists as real' but it not objective because it is not justified soundly like Scientific knowledge and other reputable Frameworks of Knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Theism Driven by Desperate Psychology
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29316

This is such an old, bad, and off-debunked argument that I hardly know what's worth saying about it anymore.

You must be referring to something else.

Re 'desperate psychology' I am referring to modern psychology, i.e. neuro-psychology i.e. related to neuroscience.
Neuroscience is a very new subject, how can it be old like Freud's.

The problem with the "psychologizing" argument (i.e. the argument that belief in X is "wish fulfillment," or "fear") is that it can be used to deny ANY person the right to be heard on any perspective. For example, if, as Freud said, religion expresses a "wish fulfillment fantasy" for a father, then it's just as easy to point out that Atheism can express a "wish fulfillment fantasy to kill/escape the father," a fact which even Freud himself acknowledged. In fact, you can use the same argument to debunk Freud himself, because Freud hated his own father and wished him dead.

Might we say that Freud is "projecting" his antagonism to his own father, rather than "describing" what real religious people are doing? It might well seem so...and seem so on the basis of Freud's own Oedipal angst.

So that argument is just a "zero" when it comes to threatening Theism, and in fact, a zero in terms of logical argumentation. If it describes any Theists at all, it certainly does not describe a great many of them. And it's just as handy a weapon against Atheism. What can one say about an argument so lame?

You are barking at the wrong tree with the above.

With the basis of neuro-psychology we are not relying on old Freud.

Whatever is involved with theism, there is no escape with the involvement of the brain - thus the necessity of psychology and neurosciences.

There are loads of researches going on from the perspective of neurosciences re neuro-psychology, neuro-theology, and others exploring the origin of how the idea of God [illusion - delusion] arise from within the brain.

The belief in God is related to many areas, e.g. general common belief via faith, mental illness, brain damage, drugs, meditation, stress, poisons, shamanism, arts, sex, etc.

Here is one [among many] scientific research relating the idea of God to mental illness;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

Do you have any comment on the above which is actually happening within your brain now.

Well, first, you clearly have no idea at all what's going on in my brain, and if you think it's something like the above, then you've very clearly "gone froggin' without at stick," as they say. So that's all I'll bother to say about that.

What is going on in "your" brain as a theist can be inferred from generic principles of what is going on in the brain of the generic theist.

Carpe Diem! Know Thyself!

Ummm...

Hate to tell you...carpe diem means "seize the day." Gnothi seauton means "know yourself."

Thus 'seize the day' to 'know thyself' and be free from your ignorance, e.g. of being deceived by your own brain, i.e.

Theism Driven by Desperate Psychology
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29316

[Peter Holmes]

...there hasn't been a radically new apologetic argument, to my knowledge, for centuries - just ropey re-treads to keep the rust-bucket on the road.

I see. You don't know Linville's argument at all, and are assuming that whatever he says, it's got to be the same as something you've already heard. But it isn't.

It is. I think Linville's been developing Plantinga's EAAN, which at root is a teleological argument - unguided evolution couldn't have given us reliable beliefs - and the cognitivist assumption is the same - that morality is an epistemological matter, and that moral assertions have truth-value. As I said, it's a ropey re-tread.

1 It was Nietzsche who criticised Eliot 'for want of discernment' in not realising that no god means no moral facts. You seem confused.

Oh yes...I see. You are right...my mistake on Eliot. Culpa mea, I read too quickly that passage. I will rephrase. Eliot took the side of those who said there could be morality without God. Nietzsche said she was wrong about that. However, we still have Nietzsche's point to deal with...how can there be morality with no God? And is it only "lack of discernment" that keeps you believing in subjective morality?

So you side with Nietzsche against George Eliot. Suggestive.

2 I have no time for Nietzsche's histrionics. He wasn't a philosopher - more a zeitgeist pundit - and he was wrong about the god-morality link.

Well, let's not be ad hominem. If Nietzsche were the Devil himself, we would still be faced with the question of whether or not, as Shakespeare put it, the Devil can "speak true." Let us concede that Nietzsche was "histrionic" -- but what about his assertion? Is this one of the instances in which he's got it wrong, or is he actually right? You're going to have to show reasons for dismissing a point of view for which all the good reasons seem to be on his side. If subjective morality is a real thing, on what basis does it stand?

Let's be precise. Nietzsche's claim is this: if there's no god, then there are no moral facts. This says nothing about moral subjectivism.

3 Linville's presentation of the moral argument is a mess. Here it is.

P1: If there is no god, then there are no moral facts.
P2: There are moral facts.
C: Therefore, there is a god.

If you were right about what Linville's actual argument was, you might have a point: this would be a case of "negating the consequent," a fallacy. But Linville doesn't actually make that argument, in fact, nor any parallel of it. Nor does he rely on intuitionism, as you suggest in your next criticism...

I got this wrong, for which I apologise. And denying the consequent (modus tollens) is valid anyway.

'Moral experience' or 'intuition' do not establish moral facts.

His focus, if you see, is on AEN -- the "Argument from Evolutionary Naturalism." But you could argue there is some other way of grounding a subjective morality apart from evolutionism, if you want; but if you don't want to, then you've got to grant that, as Plantinga, Dawkins and Rosenberg have argued from opposite sides (the first, a Theist, the others, Naturalists) that Darwin is the only game in town. (394)

And if that's right, you've got to defend some version of an argument that shows an AEN can rationally legitimize morality. So that's the next step.

But the premise - that morality is an epistemological matter, so that moral assertions need a grounding in the way that factual assertions do - is the matter in dispute. What does 'legitimise morality' mean? Why does it need legitimising?

We can't logically argue from the existence of moral facts to the existence of a god, but then claim that the existence of moral facts depends on the existence of a god.

Actually, we could. If two quantities are mutually necessary, you can argue from either one to the other, and it's valid and logical to do so. To deny that logic, you'd have to show that there was another circumstance under which one or the other could exist. Then you could call it "question-begging." But not if both are mutually necessary.

No. To assume a conclusion in a premise is circular. And establishing each conclusion - 'there is a god' and 'there are moral facts' - is a separate opertaion.

If the existence of morality and the existence of God are mutually necessary, as both I and Nietzsche would agree (oddly enough), then the proof of one is the proof of both. So to show that people can't argue that way, you'd have to show that morality can be justified apart from reference to God. If it cannot, then you have to drop all this talk of "subjective morality" of which you've been speaking, because "subjective" then denies the meaning of "morality." To be "subjective" is to say that you have only your perception, and no information about praise or blame, proscriptions or prescriptions pertaining to anyone else, and no information even about their evaluation of your own actions or intentions -- and hence no "moral" information, by definition.

I understand that you agree with Nietzsche - who proclaimed the death of God - on this: if there's no god, there are no moral facts. And I think this is a flipside-of-the-same-delusion situation.

If there are no moral facts anyway - if moral facts are impossible - then a god is irrelevant here; and the nature of morality - the function of moral assertions - is quite unlike the realist / objectivist conception. So showing the existence of moral facts has to be the realist / objectivist starting point. You tried 'incest is morally wrong', but failed to show why that's a fact. And I think I asked what's factual about 'eating animals is morally wrong' - though I can't remember if you addressed that one.

And that's what I'm waiting to see, now...you've pitched for subjective morality (oddly enough, for its existence being objective, though its substance is supposed to remain subjective -- at some point, you'll have to show how that can work). But how can morality be "subjective" and be morality at all?

Burden of proof. You pitch for moral objectivity - and, I assume, moral realism, since they're inextricable - so you need to make your case, which you've failed to do so far. Raging against the nature - or even the possibility - of moral subjectivism does nothing for your argument. The reply is simply 'so what?' An argument from undesirable consequences - which is what you persist in making - is a fallacy.

Do you want to opt for AEN, and hence, to refute Linville's argument in some way, or do you want to make some argument for subjective morality that does not take as any premise, or presuppose, that AEN is true?

I'm not making an argument for moral subjectivism. I'm asking 'What could make morality objective?' What evolutionary naturalism can or can't account for isn't the issue. If it can't account for moral objectivity, so what?

[Belinda]

Nah. That 'all humans must strive to be good rational moral agents for the greater good of humanity in a sustainable mode' is an opinion, and nothing more. And here's another opinion: 'the white race must maintain its supremacy'. And here's another opinion: 'capitalists must maintain their wealth and power'.

You can shout your opinion, bang the table, and insist that one opinion - unsurprisingly, your opinion - is the right one - as much as you like. But that doesn't mean it stops being an opinion and becomes a fact. It's tough, I know. But suck it up.

Nope it is not an opinion.
It is objective because such an ought can be verified and justified from empirical evidences.
Such moral facts are justified as supervening upon empirical facts which are objective.

If you do not agree [ignorantly] with the above, are you insisting on the opposite or you are just a morally indifferent irresponsible selfish person?

Do you have a counter to my other accusation of you, i.e. 'kicking your own ass' in the following;

• Nah, the point is you are trapped inside the SILO of ontological moral realism, i.e. morality is a thing [like external objects or Plato's universals] that exist via floating within reality.
  These days within the discussion of the Philosophy of Morality, there are rarely anyone supporting this version of ontological moral realism.
  If you think so, name me one modern secular philosopher of morality who support such an ontological moral realism.
  The only ones are the theists whose morality is pseudo-morality and insist God [itself immoral] commands ontological moral laws that believers must comply else they are threaten with hell fire.
  
  Btw, whilst you are condemning the ontological moral realists to the ground, you are ignorant you are exactly like them in your claim of ontological philosophical realism.
  Actually with your strawman on ontological moral realism you are actually kicking your own ass as an ontological philosophical realist.
  I bet you don't understand how you ended up kicking your own ass.

Nope. You still don't get it. Only factual assertions, such as 'people must breathe or they die' can be verified or falsified with evidence. But a moral assertion, such 'people should be allowed to breathe' doesn't make a factual claim with a truth-value, so it can't be verified or falsified. We can explain and try to justify holding the opinion that people should be allowed to breathe - but nothing can turn it into a fact - a true factual assertion.

And you can stuff your nonsense about ontological philosophical and moral realism where the sun don't shine. Not interested. Nothing to see here.

"People should be allowed to breathe" is objectively true only if it refers to some overarching criterion such as God, or a recognisable law. There are no natural rights but there are rights within an arbitrary code of rights such as the law or God. So rights (oughts) depend from what is socially accepted as real. Moral realists don't understand God is dead.

It is true we have mirror neurons and are social animals. If we are nature realists we believe in the basic orderliness of reality. I do so believe despite having no proof of it. My native culture is built upon the natural orderliness of reality and I like and respect my native culture, and I have faith in the orderliness of nature including what socially-moral behaviour is right. I don't however claim to know for a fact my native culture of belief is the best ever and the best that could ever be, so the tenets of my native culture are not objectively true.

One does not know the source of Veritas's beliefs which tend to philosophical jingoism.

[Sculptor]

Critiques of Moral Realism Kicking their own Ass
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29342

Can you counter the above?

You stopped listening a long time ago.
It would be pearls before swine.

[Peter Holmes]

"People should be allowed to breathe" is objectively true only if it refers to some overarching criterion such as God, or a recognisable law. There are no natural rights but there are rights within an arbitrary code of rights such as the law or God. So rights (oughts) depend from what is socially accepted as real. Moral realists don't understand God is dead.

But what distinction does the expression 'objectively true' make? In what way can a factual assertion be true, other than independently from opinion? Can a factual assertion be 'subjectively true'? And if so, what does that mean?

If in chess a certain move is prohibited, the rule forbidding it is 'the case'. And the factual assertion 'in chess, this move is forbidden' is true - it is a true factual assertion. But the (arbitrary) rules of chess aren't true or false - because rules have no truth-value. And the same applies to moral assertions which express rules, such as 'people should be allowed to breathe'. They're not true or false, let alone objectively so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"People should be allowed to breathe" is objectively true only if it refers to some overarching criterion such as God, or a recognisable law. There are no natural rights but there are rights within an arbitrary code of rights such as the law or God. So rights (oughts) depend from what is socially accepted as real. Moral realists don't understand God is dead.

It is true we have mirror neurons and are social animals. If we are nature realists we believe in the basic orderliness of reality. I do so believe despite having no proof of it. My native culture is built upon the natural orderliness of reality and I like and respect my native culture, and I have faith in the orderliness of nature including what socially-moral behaviour is right. I don't however claim to know for a fact my native culture of belief is the best ever and the best that could ever be, so the tenets of my native culture are not objectively true.

One does not know the source of Veritas's beliefs which tend to philosophical jingoism.

You are stretching Peter's strawman.

Note my correction to his straw-man;
viewtopic.php?p=455011#p455011

When did I ever use the following moral statement 'people should be allowed to breathe' ?

The empirical and moral fact is;
"ALL humans ought to breathe else they die."

The objective moral absolute in this case is;
"No human ought to prevent another human from breathing"

I had condemned your view of your dogmatic philosophical realist view of "what is a fact", i.e. a true factual assertion which is ultimate an illusion.
I had explained there are many types of fact which are objective as justified within a Framework of Knowledge.
You have not disputed the above to support your dogmatic "what is a fact."

Do you have a counter to the above.

Whatever I present is based are sound arguments based on empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
All you need to do is to review my arguments and show me which premise is false, that is so easy.
I believe I am the one of those who had regularly provided references for my argument - most like you merely hand-wave and babble without arguments and references.