What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

There's obviously no point in going over this, saying the same things.

It boils down to something very simple, Pete.

• I say there is such a thing as an objective morality.

• You say there is such a thing as a subjective morality.

• Nihilists say there is no such thing as any real, justifiable, rational or actual morality...just a bunch of fakes.

And you're right to say that we moral objectivists have to show that objective moral facts do exist. Fair enough.

But anybody who believes in subjectivism, and refuses to plunge to Nihilism, owes exactly the same kind of demonstration.

Otherwise, the Nihilists win.

So I will work on my demonstrations. And I have been, so long as we've been discussing Linville's argument (to which I am happy to return).

But equally, let's see what you can do with yours: what are the grounds for saying "subjective morality" is real, justifiable, rational or authentic at all?

Why isn't it the case that the Nihilists are right, in other words?

[henry quirk]

If there is no moral reality: nihilism wins.

Not seein' this as a head-scratcher.

[Peter Holmes]

If there is no moral reality: nihilism wins.

Not seein' this as a head-scratcher.

Moral nihilism can just mean there are no moral facts - nothing is objectively morally right or wrong. And since moral objectivists can't show there are any moral facts, that's a wrap.

But, meanwhile, we make and abide by and develop our moral judgements.

Oh, and aesthetic nihilism can just mean there are no aesthetic facts - nothing is objectively aesthetically beautiful or ugly. And since aesthetic objectivists can't show there are any aesthetic facts, that's a wrap.

But, meanwhile, we make and abide by and develop our aesthetic judgements.

Agreed - it's not a head-scratcher.

Only psychopaths who think their own moral and aesthetic judgements are facts have a difficulty with any of this.

[Peter Holmes]

There's obviously no point in going over this, saying the same things.

It boils down to something very simple, Pete.

• I say there is such a thing as an objective morality.

• You say there is such a thing as a subjective morality.

• Nihilists say there is no such thing as any real, justifiable, rational or actual morality...just a bunch of fakes.

And you're right to say that we moral objectivists have to show that objective moral facts do exist. Fair enough.

But anybody who believes in subjectivism, and refuses to plunge to Nihilism, owes exactly the same kind of demonstration.

Otherwise, the Nihilists win.

So I will work on my demonstrations. And I have been, so long as we've been discussing Linville's argument (to which I am happy to return).

But equally, let's see what you can do with yours: what are the grounds for saying "subjective morality" is real, justifiable, rational or authentic at all?

Why isn't it the case that the Nihilists are right, in other words?

No. You misrepresent moral nihilists, who just say nothing is objectively morally right or wrong - so there are no moral facts. You say there are moral facts - but you can't actually demonstrate the truth of your claim. So far, it seems to be game over - but you refuse to accept the result.

And your fellow objectivists, convinced of their rectitude, have happily tortured people on the rack, murdered abortion practitioners, flown planes into tall building, and thrown homosexuals off them. And moral objectivism justified slavery for centuries. Altogether - what we need is more moral objectivism, cos it's the way forward.

[henry quirk]

Moral nihilism can just mean there are no moral facts - nothing is objectively morally right or wrong. And since moral objectivists can't show there are any moral facts, that's a wrap.

That's precisely what it means (no morality, only opinion). As for it bein' a wrap: I agree. I have my take (which I think is sound) and you disagree with me...*shrug*...ain't lookin' to re (re, re, re) litigate that.

I'm only sayin' if there is no moral realism, then nihilism wins.


But, meanwhile, we make and abide by and develop our moral judgements.

Well, all that means is we form and stick to our opinions.


Oh, and aesthetic nihilism can just mean there are no aesthetic facts - nothing is objectively aesthetically beautiful or ugly. And since aesthetic objectivists can't show there are any aesthetic facts, that's a wrap.

Were we talkin' aesthetics? Did I miss sumthin'? I thought this was about morality.

[henry quirk]

And your fellow objectivists, convinced of their rectitude, have happily tortured people on the rack, murdered abortion practitioners, flown planes into tall building, murdering thousands, and thrown homosexuals off tall buildings. And moral objectivism justified slavery for centuries. Altogether - what we need is more moral objectivism, cos it's the way forward.

meh...murder, torture, terrorism, prejudice: viewed through a nihilist lens, these are just lifestyle choices

And those enlightened nihilists: ain't nuthin' similar can be laid at their feet, I guess.

[Peter Holmes]

Moral nihilism can just mean there are no moral facts - nothing is objectively morally right or wrong. And since moral objectivists can't show there are any moral facts, that's a wrap.

That's precisely what it means (no morality, only opinion). As for it bein' a wrap: I agree. I have my take (which I think is sound) and you disagree with me...*shrug*...ain't lookin' to re (re, re, re) litigate that.

I'm only sayin' if there is no moral realism, then nihilism wins.


But, meanwhile, we make and abide by and develop our moral judgements.

Well, all that means is we form and stick to our opinions.


Oh, and aesthetic nihilism can just mean there are no aesthetic facts - nothing is objectively aesthetically beautiful or ugly. And since aesthetic objectivists can't show there are any aesthetic facts, that's a wrap.

Were we talkin' aesthetics? Did I miss sumthin'? I thought this was about morality.

The comparison - the analogy - is exact: this is morally right / this is beautiful. Both express value-judgements which those who make them can explain and try to justify. No rational person would say 'this is beautiful / ugly' is a true factual assertion - that there could be no argument about it. We recognise that subjective judgement is involved. Now apply that to 'this is immoral' - said of SSM or eating animals.

[henry quirk]

Moral nihilism can just mean there are no moral facts - nothing is objectively morally right or wrong. And since moral objectivists can't show there are any moral facts, that's a wrap.

That's precisely what it means (no morality, only opinion). As for it bein' a wrap: I agree. I have my take (which I think is sound) and you disagree with me...*shrug*...ain't lookin' to re (re, re, re) litigate that.

I'm only sayin' if there is no moral realism, then nihilism wins.


But, meanwhile, we make and abide by and develop our moral judgements.

Well, all that means is we form and stick to our opinions.


Oh, and aesthetic nihilism can just mean there are no aesthetic facts - nothing is objectively aesthetically beautiful or ugly. And since aesthetic objectivists can't show there are any aesthetic facts, that's a wrap.

Were we talkin' aesthetics? Did I miss sumthin'? I thought this was about morality.

The comparison - the analogy - is exact: this is morally right / this is beautiful. Both express value-judgements which those who make them can explain and try to justify. No rational person would say 'this is beautiful / ugly' is a true factual assertion - that there could be no argument about it. We recognise that subjective judgement is involved. Now apply that to 'this is immoral' - said of SSM or eating animals.

I personally think aesthetics and morality are different things, but: hey, no problem.

I'll amend: if there is no moral or aesthetic realism, then nihilism wins.

Not seein' it makes much of a difference to my point (through the nihilist lens, opinion is all we got).

Jane's home is invaded, she's raped and brutalized.

Has she been hurt? Yes.

Has she been wronged? I think so, but that's just my opinion.

Stan spends a good deal of his time and resources helpin' folks goin' through hard times (we used to call 'em the less fortunate and what Stan does for 'em charity...since we're all nihilists now mebbe we should say Stan allocates resources to the disenfranchised, an act of [insert nihilistic placeholder]).

Is Stan helping folks? Tangibly, yes.

Is Stan doin' good? I might think so, but that's just my opinion.

[Skepdick]

No rational person would say 'this is beautiful / ugly' is a true factual assertion - that there could be no argument about it.

That's precisely ass-backwards.

There would be an argument about it because some people find X beautiful and some people find X ugly.
There IS an argument about it because some of us think morality is objective while others think it's subjective.

Statistically, you would expect an even split of opinion, because beauty, like morality, is in the eye of the beholder, right?

50% think X is beautiful.
50% think X is ugly.

50% think murder is wrong.
50% think murder is right.

And yet I am still waiting for somebody (even a single person) to argue for the rightness of murder.
Nobody? Not even one? So I guess 100% of you think murder is wrong.

How is that possible?

Consensus between humans is impossible without there being a facts to settle them.

Independent of anybody's opinion humans believe that they ought not be murdered. That is a moral fact.

[Immanuel Can]

No. You misrepresent moral nihilists, who just say nothing is objectively morally right or wrong - so there are no moral facts.

No, I don't. I never accused them of anything. I just said that what they do, if they are correct, cannot ever justifiably be called "good" or bad." They say so...and that's why. It has nothing to do with my "representing" anything.

You say there are moral facts - but you can't actually demonstrate the truth of your claim.

Well, you keep saying that, but you won't grapple with an argument on the level of sophistication of Linville's. Instead, you prefer to oversimplify or misrepresent, then dismiss. That's kind of transparent, Pete. If you were serious, you'd tackle serious arguments. When one shows up, you don't face it.

And your fellow objectivists...

Sorry...you don't get to group everybody under one banner and dismiss them either. The Muslims who flew the planes into the towers were all men; are you now going to argue that all men are evil? They all had black hair and dark eyes, too...are you going to argue that all people with dark hair and eyes, men and women alike, are evil? Are you going to argue that since homosexuals are all tossed off buildings by what you call "objectivists" that that Hassidim, Mennonites and Quakers are responsible too? They are, after all, both Theists and objectivists...

That's not argument, Pete...that's just bigotry. You can do better than that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh, another linguistic assertion which isn't a MORAL THING. You call yourself a moral realist, which means you think moral things exist. Nothing to see here. Just another moral opinion.

Oh, and sticking the word 'practical' in does nothing to improve your argument.

You have nothing, even assuming your demonstrably ridiculous consensus theory of truth. Nada. Tipota. They wouldn't even let you into kindergarten.

Do you really understand what is Practical Reasoning?
Describe what you understand what is Practical Reasoning re Morality and Ethics.
Don't just limit yourself to Wiki, but do a survey of it within the full range of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Note Kant's The Critique of Practical Reason

The Critique of Practical Reason (Kritik der praktischen Vernunft) is the second of Immanuel Kant's three critiques, published in 1788. It follows on from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and deals with his moral philosophy.
-wiki

You are deceptive.
I am specifically an empirical moral realist not 'ontological moral realist.'

Yes, I know all about Kant's distinction, and I can't be bothered to show you why it's specious.

I am not expecting you to comment on Kant's book.

My point is to show you there is a serious category of philosophy called Practical Reason which in this case is with reference to Morality and Ethics.
How can you have any credibility to talk about Morality and Ethics if you are so ignorant of what is Practical Reason re Morality and Ethics?

Now, as an empirical moral realist, you claim there are real moral things - otherwise, what does 'moral realist' mean?

You are expressing like a kindergarten in philosophy.
Note you started with using my claim as 'empirical moral realist' but ended asking me what does 'moral realist' mean. You cannot resist to steer back to your 'silo' of ignorance.

I believe we have no issue with the term 'empirical'.

As for 'realist' that is related to 'reality'.
The problem is you are stuck with the reality as in Philosophical Realism which is not realistic. This is a very contentious issue.

In the case of 'moral' you are ignorant of "Practical Reason" which is a Framework of Knowledge and practices. I asked you to differentiate between Practical Reason and Theoretical Reason which focus on the issue of 'state of affairs' and 'matter of fact' which themselves are contentious.

You use the term 'thing' but the term 'thing' itself is very contentious.
There is no such thing as thing-in-itself which is different from what you could claim as 'thing' within Philosophical Reason.
In the broadest sense, 'thing' is not confined to solid 'concrete' physical object but also to abstract objects.
A thought and a set of concepts can also be a 'thing'.
'Justice' is an abstract thing which exists in reality and this is the same as moral facts which are represented by an abstract referent.

You will not be able to understand [not necessary agree with] my views until you have understood [not necessary agree with] the above contentious issues. You just cannot brush them off.

So stop deflecting and produce an example of a real moral thing - a thing discernable in experience, based on sense data. I don't care if it's not what you call ontologically real - meaningless as the distinction between empirically real and ontologically real actually is. Just do it.

I had never used 'thing' in the narrowest sense in this argument.
It is not 'real moral thing' rather it is 'real empirical moral fact' that is objective, i.e. independent of any individual's opinions or beliefs.

Again you are so ignorant and deceptive that upon the term 'thing' your straight away slide it to "a thing discernable in experience, based on sense data."

Note your OP is about 'Moral Objective' which implied something objective, i.e. independent of any individual's opinions or beliefs.

I have demonstrated many times [in the above posts] how I have derived secular moral objectives [goals] that are objectives as verified and justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning within a Framework of Morality and Ethics, i.e. a Framework of Practical Reason.

It is a serious necessity to differentiate what is empirical realism and ontologically real of Philosophical Realism. Again you are ignorant of this very contentious philosophical issue and simply want to dismiss it based on your subjective opinion.

Again I insist you get educated on what is Practical Reason as its unique characteristics.


My point;
I have derived secular moral objectives [goals] that are objectives as verified and justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning within a Framework of Morality and Ethics, i.e. a Framework of Practical Reason.

[Belinda]

If there is no moral reality: nihilism wins.

Not seein' this as a head-scratcher.

If you take responsibility for your own morals you are helping to create morality, making it real.

I say "making it real". I don't mean real for all eternity like God made it sort of thing. I mean real in the sense others subscribe to it too.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can identify as many facts as you like but the one overriding assumption that you are making, that is NOT a fact: you seem to think that humans ought to live. Sorry but that is simply an opinion.
Until you embrace this failing in your thinking you shall never understand your interlocutors.

I have supported my views with arguments.

I understand the interlocutors views.
While the interlocutors are stuck with ontological philosophical realism and offer to sound arguments to counter my views.

Note my mention of Practical Reasoning as opposed to Theoretical Reasoning.

You still don't get it do you?
Why are you carrying your personal assumptions into a discussion about objectivity?

What?? how come you are so ignorant of the issue?

Note the OP is about ' Moral Objective' thus objectivity.
So why are you condemning my discussion about 'objectivity'.

Point is whatever I assert with moral objectives [goals] they have to be objective, i.e. independent from any individual's opinion and beliefs.

The point with Practical Reason, i.e. Morality and Ethics is one cannot conflate with ontological Philosophical Realism with objective Moral facts.

You can identify as many facts as you like but the one overriding assumption that you are making, that is NOT a fact: you seem to think that humans ought to live. Sorry but that is simply an opinion.

How can you be so ignorant?

Note what is fact [repeated many times];

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
All of these statements have the epistemic quality of being "ontologically superior" to opinion or interpretation — they are either categorically necessary or supported by adequate documentation.
-wiki

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

As such how can the statement;
"ALL human ought to breathe else they die"
not be a a moral fact relative to the Moral Framework?

Note the "ALL' above and therefore,
"no human[s] ought to prevent other humans from breathing till they die"
is a universal moral fact as derived from a Moral Framework of Practical Reason?
The justification is, the above is derived from empirical evidences with philosophical reasoning, thus consistent with the definition of fact, in this case a moral fact.

Note it is a justified and rational fact, the human species will be potentially extinct if otherwise, i.e.
"ALL human[s] ought to prevent other humans from breathing till they die."
How can this be an opinion [as defined]?

[surreptitious57]

what are the grounds for saying subjective morality is real

Even if one accepts that objective morality exists it would still be subjectively interpreted by human beings
That is because human beings are imperfect so by default cannot accept objective morality without question

A perfect moral philosophy cannot be transferred onto less than perfect beings without some contamination of the message
For no human being can attain perfection no matter how rigorously they may practice an objective morality they believe in

And so the best that can be realistically attained is less imperfection over time though there will always be some imperfection
Striving for perfection is therefore impractical but can serve as an ideal to aim for even if it will never be achieved in practice

To blindly adhere to an objective morality would require the negation of free will and for human beings to be no more than mere robots
But not only is this not possible but it is also superfluous since no morality can exist without the freedom to actually make moral choices

The question therefore should not be whether morality is objective or subjective but how rigorously one can live by ones own moral choices
So a morality that accounts for free will and the human condition is a more practical one than one that does not all other things being equal

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you are conflating the various perspectives of 'objectivity'.

I am indeed speaking of ontological objectivity, which is not only tenable but absolutely necessary to any conception of subjectivity that does not implicate mere delusion.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth is really not an ontological theory. It's an epistemological theory, a theory about what humans can or cannot know, not about what does or does not exist. And I'm not subscribing to that view.

In one sense, what is ontological generally refers to existence of things, beings and entity.

Specifically I am referring to your view as ontological Philosophical Realism;

In metaphysics, [philosophical] 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.

The above applies to God and God's laws which part of are pseudo-moral.

The objectivity of Philosophical Realism is a falsehood and illusory.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth is related to Philosophical Realism, it is used to assess the truth of an assumed independent object of philosophical realism that is parallel and independent of the subject.

Do you deny scientific truths are objective, albeit they are merely polished conjectures.

You would have to nuance this question. As you are presently stating it, it's ambiguous, so I'm not sure which way to answer it honestly for you.

I thought that is so basic.

• P1 What is objective must be independent of the individual's opinions and beliefs .
  P2 Scientific truths are independent of the individual's opinions and beliefs.
  C1 Therefore scientific truths are objective truths.

Agree?

But note, whilst scientific truths are objective, they are at best polished conjectures.

What-the-truth-is-about is an emergence that is co-dependent with humans collectively as part and parcel of that emergence.

It's not, actually. Emergentism has such serious rational problems right now that it cannot claim plausibility. See Jaegwon Kim on that, if you wonder what I mean.

I am not talking of emergentism.

In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind.

What is refer to is merely plain "emergence."
E.g. the "apple" emerged from an apple tree and atomic elements combining to be a ripen fruit over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
How would Jaegwon Kim dispute this sort of plain emergence.

So by what process is a belief "justified," as you see it?

"Justified" means justified in according to the imperative processes and principles of the specific Framework of Knowledge.
As such scientific objectivity must satisfy the requirements of the Scientific Methods, verifiability, testability, repeatability, falsifiability, peer review.

You mean what's called "the epistemological virtues." You just listed some of them.

That's an epistemological framework. And it depends on a realist ontology, a belief in an objective reality outside of the subjective.

It does not tell us that objective reality doesn't exist -- rather, it assumes objective reality DOES exist, and merely proposes the probabilistic means of people seeking to perceive most accurately that objective reality.

Note you are stating it yourself,
"it assumes objective reality DOES exist."

Has anyone ever been able to prove 'that objective reality' really exists?
Tell me, who has ever experienced and know 'that objective reality' directly?
The best philosophical realists can do is to ASSUME 'that objective reality' out there exists.

Note Russell's dilemma;
in [ ] = mind

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no [real independent] table [out there] at all.

Before we go farther it will be well to consider for a moment what it is that we have discovered so far.
It has appeared that, if we take any common object of the sort [a table] that is supposed to be known by the senses,
what the senses immediately tell us is not the truth about the object as it is apart from us,
but only the truth about certain sense-data which, so far as we can see, depend upon the relations between us and the object.
Thus what we directly see and feel is merely 'appearance', which we believe to be a sign of some 'reality' behind.
But if the reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all?
And if so, have we any means of finding out what it is like?

There is no need for any means of finding what "IT" that-objective-reality is like!
It is a non-starter because there is no objective reality at all in the first place, it is only ASSUMED upon an illusion driven by desperate psychology.

The above dilemma has been raised since the early stages of the emergence of human engagement in philosophy and it is still being contentious today.
To the philosophical anti-realist the dilemma is resolved but the philosophical realists like you is still chasing after independent that-objective-reality "out there" which is illusory and driven by desperate psychology.

You get the point?