What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

moral nihilism...as a minimum denies that there are moral facts - so that morality isn't and can't be objective. That position is perfectly compatible with a rational and justifiable morality.

Prove that. Say how.

"Rationalize" it. "Justify" it, just as you say can be done so easily. Show any moral precept is "rationalizable" and "justifiable" once one is a moral nihilist.

Any argument can be distilled down to well-formed premises and a conclusion

Indeed it can be. But you loose the proof, the citations, the exact wording... and your interlocutor accuses you of misrepresenting. So let's avoid all that. Right now, you have the best form of the arguments by the leading experts. And as I say, I'll discuss any part of those arguments with you, in any amount of detail; just as I began to do with Linville before you changed the subject.

But if you won't even look at the best arguments, then what is the strength of your conviction that there are no good arguments? It's a wish, not a fact, then.

[Peter Holmes]

moral nihilism...as a minimum denies that there are moral facts - so that morality isn't and can't be objective. That position is perfectly compatible with a rational and justifiable morality.

Prove that. Say how.

"Rationalize" it. "Justify" it, just as you say can be done so easily. Show any moral precept is "rationalizable" and "justifiable" once one is a moral nihilist.

Any argument can be distilled down to well-formed premises and a conclusion

Indeed it can be. But you loose the proof, the citations, the exact wording... and your interlocutor accuses you of misrepresenting. So let's avoid all that. Right now, you have the best form of the arguments by the leading experts. And as I say, I'll discuss any part of those arguments with you, in any amount of detail; just as I began to do with Linville before you changed the subject.

But if you won't even look at the best arguments, then what is the strength of your conviction that there are no good arguments? It's a wish, not a fact, then.

More evasion. Set out the argument, if you think it's successful. (You said nothing to indicate what Linville was arguing - beyond the refernce to Nietzsche. Or perhaps I missed it.)

Btw, do you agree with the valid syllogism, using Nietzsche's premise, that I proposed earlier?:

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

Meanwhile, you have to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. Still waiting.

[Immanuel Can]

Set out the argument

You have it, or can have it. You know of a certainty it exists, and where to find it.

Read it.

Now, where's your proof that Nihilists can justify morality? You said they could.

[uwot]

Set out the argument

You have it, or can have it. You know of a certainty it exists, and where to find it.

Read it.

Now, where's your proof that Nihilists can justify morality? You said they could.

Is anyone else tempted to say it's in a fucking book you are too dim to understand?

[Peter Holmes]

Set out the argument

You have it, or can have it. You know of a certainty it exists, and where to find it.

Read it.

Now, where's your proof that Nihilists can justify morality? You said they could.

More evasion. Set out the argument, if you think it's successful. (You said nothing to indicate what Linville was arguing - beyond the refernce to Nietzsche. Or perhaps I missed it.)

Btw, do you agree with the valid syllogism, using Nietzsche's premise, that I proposed earlier?:

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

Meanwhile, you have to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. Where's your proof that objectivists can justify morality? Still waiting.

[Immanuel Can]

You said nothing to indicate what Linville was arguing - beyond the refernce to Nietzsche. Or perhaps I missed it.

You did indeed. If you had actually even glanced at Linville, you wouldn't have, though. I asked you if you were using AEN to support your view of morality, which is the first matter in Linville's argument. You never answered.

But it's clear that you're not going to deal with Linville's argument, so I'm going to have to leave the matter at this: you know where it is, and you know it's a good one. How good, you'll never know unless you read it. But that's up to you. Either way, your claim that no good evidence or arguments exist for objective morality is evidently unwarranted.

So now I'm going to offer you a different argument, one of my own.

Here's my argument:

It's objective morality, or no morality: those are the choices. There is no such thing as justifiable subjective morality. There is only Nihilism. Subjective morality is an illusion, because nothing legitimizes subjective moralizing.

[Harbal]

It's objective morality, or no morality: those are the choices. There is no such thing as justifiable subjective morality. There is only Nihilism. Subjective morality is an illusion, because nothing legitimizes subjective moralizing.

That doesn't make any sense at all to me. How can morality be anything other than subjective? Each person's precise mix of moral sensibility is as individual as their fingerprint. If morality were objective we would all have the same opinion of what is right and what isn't. The generally held moral values of today are different from those of our predecessors. The further back you look, the more our sense of morality has changed. Society is in constant evolution, and its morality is part of the process. If morality were objective, it wouldn't change as societies develop, it would be fixed.

[Skepdick]

That doesn't make any sense at all to me. How can morality be anything other than subjective?

Either morality exists or it doesn't. This is an ontological premise.

Whether it exists in your head, or it exists "out there" - is irrelevant. You, the subject, exist. Everything about you exists objectively. Including your morality (if you have one).

The objective/subjective distinction is a conceptual error. The contents of my subjective mind exist objectively - irrespective of my subjective opinions about them.

If morality were objective, it wouldn't change as societies develop, it would be fixed.

No. That too is a conceptual error. If morality didn't exist - then nothing would ever improve. Murder, war and violence would've remained fixed throughout human history. We wouldn't have science or medicine. We would still think the Earth is flat. Life in 2020 AD would be much the same as life in 5000 BC.

How and why would anything improve if morality didn't exist?

[Harbal]

How and why would anything improve if morality didn't exist?

Morality does exist, in as much as any human concept exists. But it has no existence outside of human minds. If the human race became extinct tomorrow, our morality would die with us. You could say that morality is objective in so far as it exists within a society in the form of a consensus of ethical behaviour, which is passed on to the individual, but that only makes it seem objective at the individual level. It is still subjective at the social level, because that is where it originates. There is no outside source of morality, therefore it cannot be objective.

[Skepdick]

Morality does exist, in as much as any human concept exists.

No. There is more to it. Abstract concepts lead to concrete action. Morality exists in as much as our actions affect reality.

But it has no existence outside of human minds.

So what? Objectively, your mind is part of reality.

If the human race became extinct tomorrow, our morality would die with us.

And? Things in the universe disappear all the time. Planets. Stars. Black holes.

Does that mean the effects planets, starts and black holes had on reality are "subjective" ?

You could say that morality is objective in so far as it exists within a society in the form of a consensus of ethical behaviour

No. You could say that morality is objective in as much as your behaviour has measurable effect on reality. It's a causal factor!

There is no outside source of morality, therefore it cannot be objective.

There is no "outside" and "inside" - everything that happens is inside reality.

[Harbal]

There is no "outside" and "inside" - everything that happens is inside reality.

Whatever it is that you are talking about, it is something completely different to what I'm talking about.

Let me put it this way: To argue that morality is objective is the same as arguing that our taste in food is objective.

[Skepdick]

Let me put it this way: To argue that morality is objective is the same as arguing that our taste in food is objective.

That's exactly what I am arguing. Your taste in food is objective to me. Your taste in food is objective from every perspective except yours.

I can observe you and I can study your eating habits - I can reasonably learn the kinds of food you like and dislike.

If I can develop a statistical profile/model which can predict your food choices then your taste is objective.

[Immanuel Can]

It's objective morality, or no morality: those are the choices. There is no such thing as justifiable subjective morality. There is only Nihilism. Subjective morality is an illusion, because nothing legitimizes subjective moralizing.

That doesn't make any sense at all to me. How can morality be anything other than subjective? Each person's precise mix of moral sensibility is as individual as their fingerprint.

If that is the truth, then there is no such thing as "morality" at all. All there is are the individual preferences of individual people. Nothing about one's personal choices merits bestowing them with any such gloss of honour as to call them "moral" -- they're just preferences.

I was saying to Peter that he should explain why his "subjective morality" amounts to anything more than "Peter doesn't like X," or "Peter likes Y." Why should we think it amounts to something like, "Peter plus Harbal plus IC plus all good people should dislike X or like Y?" There's no reason to think Peter's subjective feeling or "moral sensibility" has any implications for anyone else at all -- especially if it belongs uniquely and only to him, like a fingerprint.

If morality were objective we would all have the same opinion of what is right and what isn't.

Well, why would we think so? It's not obvious that all people would automatically have the same opinion about anything, even anything objective.

For instance, it might be objective that smoking causes cancer...but not all people have thought it is. For a long while, the Rothman's company insisted it wasn't. So did Winston and Camel. Now, that doesn't suggest those who think smoking is fine are right, nor does it suggest that smoking doesn't cause cancer. It just means people are fallible, or that they sometimes have reasons to lie about what they actually do know to be moral.

The generally held moral values of today are different from those of our predecessors.

Some, but not others. But again, that doesn't tell us that nobody's values were objectively right...it might well be the case that our forebears were wrong, as when they allowed slavery; but it might also be that we are wrong, as when we drug our children, promote porn, invade foreign countries, or murder our own infants.

If morality were objective, it wouldn't change as societies develop, it would be fixed.

That doesn't follow, H, because morality isn't even stable between contemporaneous societies. Again, this may well only indicate that people can get morality wrong; it doesn't tell us whether or not it's possible to get it objectively right. We don't have a higher precept that tells us that newer cultures are automatically more moral in all ways than older ones, or that all cultures in the world have an equally moral set of precepts that they follow.

Anyway, from where would we even get such a precept?

P.S. -- Good to have you back, H. Where you been at?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Whether or not you could say I believe any of this would depend on what is meant by "independent."

"Independent" as claimed by the philosophical realist is, the existence of a thing/object/entity [not own self] is totally unconditional to the human self.
For example the existence of a tree out there is absolutely unconditional upon the observer of the tree.

But note, Philosophical anti-Realism [mine is Kantian] do not agree with the claim of Philosophical Realism.
The Kantian claim is;
whilst common and conventional sense depict given objects are so obviously independent of the human conception,
at the meta-perspective, humans cannot be absolute independent of the given objects,
because the given objects and the human self are both part and parcel of reality [all there is].
Thus 'absolute independence' is not possible while inter-connectedness is probable.

Is morality independent of human subjectivity?
Epistemologically, no...ontologically, yes.

There are no objective moral facts/laws that are ontologically that is absolutely independent of human subjectivity.
Theists claim moral laws from God are objective and independent of human subjectivity, but I had argued God is an impossibility to be real.
Besides theism and morality are independent fields - thus whatever morality theists claim for theism is merely pseudo-morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"ALL human[s] ought to prevent other humans from breathing till they die."
How can this be an opinion [as defined]?

That opinion is not more valid than the converse.
Let me show you where you are going wrong.

It is obviously not an opinion as defined and as accepted generally.

You have stated that breathing is necessary for life in humans. Actually you can live without breathing, with a machine, but I'll let that go for purposes of simplicity. No one disagrees the truth of this; that at least oxygen is necessary for the persistence of a living human life.

So far so good.

That is shifting the goal post.
If you are insistent I would say "the need for oxygen" is critical or else it is death.
There are loads of moral facts and oughts other than the need to breathe.

You seem to continue to say that breathing is an objective right, or words to that effect.
Is this okay so far?

I derived the moral fact from the Moral Framework based on empirical facts, i.e.
"No human ought to prevent other humans from breathing till they die"

Let's see if you are kidding yourself and ignoring some issues here. Let's start simply by answering the questions without comment.

Can you answer these questions, yes or no, please!

1) Is it possible that the continuation of a life is a good idea, from the perspective of an individual?

I had argued,
'ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
The "purpose" is to ensure the preservation of the human species.
This is supported by empirical facts.
Therefore the "individual" human will survive at all cost till the inevitable naturally as "programmed".
As such is not not a matter of 'a good idea' but that the "individual" of the human species is naturally programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable.

However nature is never perfect and in general the Normal Distribution principles [Bell Curve] patterns are a reality with all human variables.
Thus those individuals in the appx 2 sigma percentile [5%] may be the exceptions [suicidal, risk takers etc.] and may not strive to survive at all costs.

Thus the fact remains,
'ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
Therefore the "individual" human will strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable, naturally as "programmed"

2) Is it possible that the continuation of a particular life is a good is a good idea, from the perspective of society?

Same argument as above.

'ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
Therefore the "individual" human will strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable, naturally as "programmed" as a society to enhance a greater chance of survival.
There will be exceptions.

3) Is it possible that the preservation of life of an infinite number of humans on a planet with finite resources a good idea?

The "purpose" is to ensure the preservation of the human species.
To ensure the above,
This is effected,
'ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
Therefore the "individual" human will strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable, naturally as "programmed" as a society to enhance a greater chance of survival.
There will be exceptions.

In addition to the above, and to ensure the preservation of the species,
Human beings are also programmed with the inherent faculty of philosophy, morality, intelligence, rationality, wisdom, continual improvement program and the propensity to optimize within constraints.

The objective of humanity in the longer run will be to optimize the objective laws of morality with whatever known constraints.
In the longer run, the average or the majority of individuals will have developed higher competency in their impulse controls with understanding of species-teamwork, optimality & fool proof approaches and will not fuck & produce like rabbits as with the current population explosion.

4) If you think that breathing is an objective moral right, who has to responsibility to guarantee that right and provide the resources where necessary to given each and every human the means to breath?

Within the Moral Framework, there will be a need to increase the average Moral Quotient of say 100 to 1,000 within the next 50 to 100 years.
Then individual will self-legislate as team-humanity and co-operate for the greater good.

5) It is necessary for a potato eelworm to have potatoes to live. Does a potato eelworm have the right to potatoes?

Straw man!
Note Hume's example of Patricide,
i.e. it is immoral for a new plant from seed of tree-X to grow so tall and big nearby that it monopolized all the sunlight and in the end kill its father tree-X?
Hume is way off with morality in this example.

Point is, DNA/RNA wise all humans are programmed with a faculty of morality and ethics and neuroscientists and neuropsychologists and others are slowly discovering this faculty within the brain of human and to some minute degree in primates.

Lets' have more of the sort of the above discussions instead of intellectual violence.