What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

A word for the confused.

1 The only things that can be true or false - that can have truth-value - are factual assertions. So morality - or the conception of morality, whatever that is - isn't something that has a truth-value, and so can't be verified (shown to be true) or falsified.

2 The word morality really is an abstract noun, just as the word dog really is a concrete noun - although the modifier abstract here is a conventional grammatical misattribution, because words are real things.

3 Names are not descriptions. For example, the name dog doesn't describe what we call dogs. So the question 'what state of affairs does "morality" describe?' is incoherent.

4 The meaning of a word is the way we use it. And we use the word dog to name the things we call dogs - which we know and can demonstrate actually exist, and can describe in different ways, for different purposes.

5 The idea that, because we use nouns to name things, abstract nouns such as truth, objectivity and morality are names of things is a metaphysical delusion. Metaphysicians, such as Platonists, have failed to demonstrate the existence of abstract things - because it was always a fool's enterprise - and merely assume they exist, and can therefore be described.

6 Given the above, the claim that I may not think morality exists is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it beggars belief.

[Sculptor]

Btw, after refreshing on Hume's Treatise and Enquiry, I have by now read more that 40 articles [including part of books] on the topic of 'what is morality'.
From my readings of morality extensively and deeply, it tell me your thinking re Morality & Ethics is too shallow and narrow - i.e. kindergartenish. In fact, you are a very thick brick wall.

As a counter to your above ignorance on 'what is morality' note my response to Peter above.

What is objective is independent from the individuals' opinion and beliefs.
As long as the judgment is collective, it is objective as qualified to a Framework of Knowledge, e.g. the Scientific Framework with its Scientific Method, peer reviews, etc.
Moral judgments as moral facts are objective since they are independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs from a Moral Framework.

Nope I do not start from the assumption that life is sacred.
I started with empirical evidences with scientific justifications from the Scientific Framework, using logical and philosophical reasoning to arrive moral judgments [objective] from within a specified Moral Framework.

Your bucket of empirical evidences are merely various forms and deviations from the fundamental [substance] objective standards.
We had used the example of 'hunger' which is fundamental and generic [of substance] to ALL humans, but how each individual and group resolve their hunger is of infinite forms of producing, processing and taking in the essential food and nutrients.
I anticipate this critical point will not even 'blink' on your cheapskate radar.

Please refer to the statements I made above.
Please look up definitions of "objective", and "fact".

You have not define what is objective and what is fact.


What is objective?

Objective = (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
-Google Dictionary

What is fact?
I have already present and explain the definition of what is fact many times and there are many types of fact relative to the specific Framework of Knowledge. A Moral fact is a fact derived from the Moral Framework.

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.
-wiki

Do you dispute the above?

I have done further reading on morality and Ethics.
From my readings of morality extensively and deeply, it tell me your thinking re Morality & Ethics is too shallow and narrow - i.e. kindergartenish.

I am at present reading various books on Moral Realism and here is one;

In Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism David Enoch develops, argues for, and defends a strongly realist and objectivist view of ethics and normativity more broadly.
This view-according to which there are perfectly objective, universal, moral and other normative truths that are not in any way reducible to other, natural truths-is familiar, but this book is the first in-detail development of the positive motivations for the view into reasonably precise arguments.
And when the book turns defensive-defending Robust Realism against traditional objections-it mobilizes the original positive arguments for the view to help with fending off the objections.

The main underlying motivation for Robust Realism developed in the book is that no other metaethical view can vindicate our taking morality seriously.
The positive arguments developed here-the argument from the deliberative indispensability of normative truths, and the argument from the moral implications of metaethical objectivity (or its absence)-are thus arguments for Robust Realism that are sensitive to the underlying, pre-theoretical motivations for the view.
https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Morality- ... 0199683174

My argument as an empirical-moral-realist is, moral facts are justified from naturalism's empirical facts within a Moral/Ethics Framework.

Please refer to the statements I made above.
You are not learning your lesson.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please refer to the statements I made above.
Please look up definitions of "objective", and "fact".

You have not define what is objective and what is fact.


What is objective?

Objective = (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
-Google Dictionary

What is fact?
I have already present and explain the definition of what is fact many times and there are many types of fact relative to the specific Framework of Knowledge. A Moral fact is a fact derived from the Moral Framework.

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.
-wiki

Do you dispute the above?

I have done further reading on morality and Ethics.
From my readings of morality extensively and deeply, it tell me your thinking re Morality & Ethics is too shallow and narrow - i.e. kindergartenish.

I am at present reading various books on Moral Realism and here is one;

In Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism David Enoch develops, argues for, and defends a strongly realist and objectivist view of ethics and normativity more broadly.
This view-according to which there are perfectly objective, universal, moral and other normative truths that are not in any way reducible to other, natural truths-is familiar, but this book is the first in-detail development of the positive motivations for the view into reasonably precise arguments.
And when the book turns defensive-defending Robust Realism against traditional objections-it mobilizes the original positive arguments for the view to help with fending off the objections.

The main underlying motivation for Robust Realism developed in the book is that no other metaethical view can vindicate our taking morality seriously.
The positive arguments developed here-the argument from the deliberative indispensability of normative truths, and the argument from the moral implications of metaethical objectivity (or its absence)-are thus arguments for Robust Realism that are sensitive to the underlying, pre-theoretical motivations for the view.
https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Morality- ... 0199683174

My argument as an empirical-moral-realist is, moral facts are justified from naturalism's empirical facts within a Moral/Ethics Framework.

Please refer to the statements I made above.
You are not learning your lesson.

Where?
Don't be too hasty, you are the ignorant one on the subject of morality.

[Skepdick]

1 The only things that can be true or false - that can have truth-value - are factual assertions. So morality - or the conception of morality, whatever that is - isn't something that has a truth-value, and so can't be verified (shown to be true) or falsified.

2 The word morality really is an abstract noun, just as the word dog really is a concrete noun - although the modifier abstract here is a conventional grammatical misattribution, because words are real things.

3 Names are not descriptions. For example, the name dog doesn't describe what we call dogs. So the question 'what state of affairs does "morality" describe?' is incoherent.

4 The meaning of a word is the way we use it. And we use the word dog to name the things we call dogs - which we know and can demonstrate actually exist, and can describe in different ways, for different purposes.

5 The idea that, because we use nouns to name things, abstract nouns such as truth, objectivity and morality are names of things is a metaphysical delusion. Metaphysicians, such as Platonists, have failed to demonstrate the existence of abstract things - because it was always a fool's enterprise - and merely assume they exist, and can therefore be described.

6 Given the above, the claim that I may not think morality exists is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it beggars belief.

Horseshit.

Morality is either a phenomenon or it isn't.
Morality either has causal properties, and therefore - detectable consequences, or it's inconsequential.
If morality is inconsequential it's just a label - a semantic concern, not an empirical one.

Even if you are using the word 'morality' to refer to your brain's wiring; or your emotional response; or your innate repulsion to murder; or even just an arbitrary choice/assertion!
Even that conception of "morality" has more substance than the semantics of an abstract noun.

If morality is just an abstract noun and not a phenomenon, then it's just an empty word - you are a nihilist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A word for the confused.

1 The only things that can be true or false - that can have truth-value - are factual assertions. So morality - or the conception of morality, whatever that is - isn't something that has a truth-value, and so can't be verified (shown to be true) or falsified.

2 The word morality really is an abstract noun, just as the word dog really is a concrete noun - although the modifier abstract here is a conventional grammatical misattribution, because words are real things.

3 Names are not descriptions. For example, the name dog doesn't describe what we call dogs. So the question 'what state of affairs does "morality" describe?' is incoherent.

4 The meaning of a word is the way we use it. And we use the word dog to name the things we call dogs - which we know and can demonstrate actually exist, and can describe in different ways, for different purposes.

5 The idea that, because we use nouns to name things, abstract nouns such as truth, objectivity and morality are names of things is a metaphysical delusion. Metaphysicians, such as Platonists, have failed to demonstrate the existence of abstract things - because it was always a fool's enterprise - and merely assume they exist, and can therefore be described.

6 Given the above, the claim that I may not think morality exists is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it beggars belief.

WHO ARE YOU to dictate you are right?

As I had stated, I have covered 'Morality' very extensively by now and your Philosophical Realism view of the only 'state of affair' is constipated "sh:t."

There are moral state of affairs within the Moral Framework and many has argued for it.

Here is one claim of 'moral state of affair' as moral facts;

The views discussed above can be illustrated with an example.
Consider the moral sentence, “Petal ought to avoid eating too much.”
The utterance of the sentence expresses the speaker’s judgment about Petal and perhaps about her tendency to the excessive consumption of food.
The cognitivist holds that the speaker’s judgment is of the same kind as ordinary beliefs, that is the cognitivist holds that the speaker’s moral judgment is a cognitive state.
Beliefs are representations of how things are, namely, possible states of affairs; and, language typically expresses beliefs.
According to the cognitivist, then, the moral sentence that expresses the moral judgment represents a possible state of affairs.
We may say that the descriptivist maintains that the moral sentence describes what ought to be the case about Petal and her tendency toward food. Petal could be instantiating the property of the “oughtness” of avoiding the excessive consumption of food, although this is not the only cognitivist way of maintaining her descriptivism about moral language.
Just as the morning star refers to Venus, the linguistic item “ought to avoid eating too much” may refer to a moral property. It might even be maintained that there obtains the referential relation between moral expressions and the things in the world that they are supposed to pick out.

[Peter Holmes]

Your problem is you are stuck in a very tall narrow silo on the subject of morality.

At present, beside others, I am reading


Brink's thesis is;



In the IS/OUGHT Chapter,
Chapter 6. MORAL REALISM AND THE IS/OUGHT THESIS 144
Brink concluded,



Your continuous harping from the semantics, and facts from the Philosophical Realists' perspective reflect a very immature sense of morality.
I suggest you research more on the subject of Morality and Ethics.

In any case, I have presented my argument of how I derived moral facts as justified from empirical facts with philosophical reasoning and invite you to counter my arguments. You just don't have the capacity to understand [not necessary agree] to counter my arguments.

So, people have written books making claims that you agree with. So what? Other people have written books in which they falsify the claims that you agree with. When you've had enough confirmation bias reinforcement, have a go at the cogently argued bias trashing you can find elsewhere.

Meanwhile, it's the arguments that count, and I prefer to stick to them.

Note Brink's conclusion obviously imply he had presented an argument to arrive at that conclusion.
I suggest you read Brinks' book to understand [not necessary agree with] his argument then provide your counter to his argument.

In any case, Brink's view is your sort of argument is very immature and outdated.

Note Brink's view;

Partly as a result of the dominance of this kind of noncognitivism, moral philosophy came to many, I think, to seem a fairly sterile and boring intellectual place.

Your argument belong to the category of noncognitivism, i.e. there are no moral facts which is very outdated.
The latest trend in the debate of Morality and Ethics are;

Indeed, concern with normative ethics, including both moral theory and substantive moral problems, has dominated moral philosophy for the last two decades.

It is my view that the main features of the noncognitivist legacy are fundamentally flawed.

Obviously Brink provided arguments and justification for his above views.

Note it is not only David Brink but there are tons of moral philosophers who argued for Moral Realism which is getting more and more popular as supported by the latest knowledge from neurosciences, neuropsychology, genomics and other fields of knowledge.

Your reliance on the Principles from Philosophical Realism is false and stale.

Gives a shit about the latest trends in moral philosophy. Philosophers have been wrong about many things for centuries - and in the end their arguments have been exposed as fallacious. All you're doing is passing on their conclusions, just as IC did. Sorry - it doesn't cut the mustard.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, people have written books making claims that you agree with. So what? Other people have written books in which they falsify the claims that you agree with. When you've had enough confirmation bias reinforcement, have a go at the cogently argued bias trashing you can find elsewhere.

Meanwhile, it's the arguments that count, and I prefer to stick to them.

Note Brink's conclusion obviously imply he had presented an argument to arrive at that conclusion.
I suggest you read Brinks' book to understand [not necessary agree with] his argument then provide your counter to his argument.

In any case, Brink's view is your sort of argument is very immature and outdated.

Note Brink's view;

Partly as a result of the dominance of this kind of noncognitivism, moral philosophy came to many, I think, to seem a fairly sterile and boring intellectual place.

Your argument belong to the category of noncognitivism, i.e. there are no moral facts which is very outdated.
The latest trend in the debate of Morality and Ethics are;

Indeed, concern with normative ethics, including both moral theory and substantive moral problems, has dominated moral philosophy for the last two decades.

It is my view that the main features of the noncognitivist legacy are fundamentally flawed.

Obviously Brink provided arguments and justification for his above views.

Note it is not only David Brink but there are tons of moral philosophers who argued for Moral Realism which is getting more and more popular as supported by the latest knowledge from neurosciences, neuropsychology, genomics and other fields of knowledge.

Your reliance on the Principles from Philosophical Realism is false and stale.

Gives a shit about the latest trends in moral philosophy. Philosophers have been wrong about many things for centuries - and in the end their arguments have been exposed as fallacious. All you're doing is passing on their conclusions, just as IC did. Sorry - it doesn't cut the mustard.

As I had stated your thinking is dogmatic, shallow and narrow.
Give reasons why this current trend is wrong.

Generally a the latest trend emerge due to the emergence of new knowledge and arguments.
You are very childish to merely wave them off without understanding [not necessary agree with] and providing justifications.

[Peter Holmes]

Gives a shit about the latest trends in moral philosophy. Philosophers have been wrong about many things for centuries - and in the end their arguments have been exposed as fallacious. All you're doing is passing on their conclusions, just as IC did. Sorry - it doesn't cut the mustard.

As I had stated your thinking is dogmatic, shallow and narrow.
Give reasons why this current trend is wrong.

Generally a the latest trend emerge due to the emergence of new knowledge and arguments.
You are very childish to merely wave them off without understanding [not necessary agree with] and providing justifications.

Set out the arguments and I'll show you why they're fallacious, if I think they are. If they're sound, they'll be persuasive. Simples.

[Skepdick]

Set out the arguments and I'll show you why they're fallacious, if I think they are. If they're sound, they'll be persuasive. Simples.

This is factually and empirically incorrect.

A sound arguments needs not be persuasive arguments.

One man's Modus Tollens is another's Modus Ponens.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Gives a shit about the latest trends in moral philosophy. Philosophers have been wrong about many things for centuries - and in the end their arguments have been exposed as fallacious. All you're doing is passing on their conclusions, just as IC did. Sorry - it doesn't cut the mustard.

As I had stated your thinking is dogmatic, shallow and narrow.
Give reasons why this current trend is wrong.

Generally a the latest trend emerge due to the emergence of new knowledge and arguments.
You are very childish to merely wave them off without understanding [not necessary agree with] and providing justifications.

Set out the arguments and I'll show you why they're fallacious, if I think they are. If they're sound, they'll be persuasive. Simples.

All you repeat is 'there are no moral facts, no moral facts, no moral facts, to ad nauseam without providing any sound and solid argument to justify your stance.

Hey.. your constipated Philosophical Realism only state-of-affairs stance is toothless against the current trend of meta-ethical and Moral Constructivism approaches in Morality and Ethics.

[Peter Holmes]

A word for the confused.

1 The only things that can be true or false - that can have truth-value - are factual assertions. So morality - or the conception of morality, whatever that is - isn't something that has a truth-value, and so can't be verified (shown to be true) or falsified.

2 The word morality really is an abstract noun, just as the word dog really is a concrete noun - although the modifier abstract here is a conventional grammatical misattribution, because words are real things.

3 Names are not descriptions. For example, the name dog doesn't describe what we call dogs. So the question 'what state of affairs does "morality" describe?' is incoherent.

4 The meaning of a word is the way we use it. And we use the word dog to name the things we call dogs - which we know and can demonstrate actually exist, and can describe in different ways, for different purposes.

5 The idea that, because we use nouns to name things, abstract nouns such as truth, objectivity and morality are names of things is a metaphysical delusion. Metaphysicians, such as Platonists, have failed to demonstrate the existence of abstract things - because it was always a fool's enterprise - and merely assume they exist, and can therefore be described.

6 Given the above, the claim that I may not think morality exists is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it beggars belief.

WHO ARE YOU to dictate you are right?

As I had stated, I have covered 'Morality' very extensively by now and your Philosophical Realism view of the only 'state of affair' is constipated "sh:t."

There are moral state of affairs within the Moral Framework and many has argued for it.

Here is one claim of 'moral state of affair' as moral facts;

The views discussed above can be illustrated with an example.
Consider the moral sentence, “Petal ought to avoid eating too much.”
The utterance of the sentence expresses the speaker’s judgment about Petal and perhaps about her tendency to the excessive consumption of food.
The cognitivist holds that the speaker’s judgment is of the same kind as ordinary beliefs, that is the cognitivist holds that the speaker’s moral judgment is a cognitive state.
Beliefs are representations of how things are, namely, possible states of affairs; and, language typically expresses beliefs.
According to the cognitivist, then, the moral sentence that expresses the moral judgment represents a possible state of affairs.
We may say that the descriptivist maintains that the moral sentence describes what ought to be the case about Petal and her tendency toward food. Petal could be instantiating the property of the “oughtness” of avoiding the excessive consumption of food, although this is not the only cognitivist way of maintaining her descriptivism about moral language.
Just as the morning star refers to Venus, the linguistic item “ought to avoid eating too much” may refer to a moral property. It might even be maintained that there obtains the referential relation between moral expressions and the things in the world that they are supposed to pick out.

Don't be pathetic. I don't dictate that I'm right. I make claims and arguments for others to assess, just as you do. If someone shows my claims are false and my arguments fallacious, I'll have to re-think them. Isn't that what you do?

As for the IEP quotation, if that's representative of the material you've been reading - you need to get out more. It's tendentious nonsense - and if I have time, I'll show you why.

[Belinda]

If someone says " You ought to fix your car's brakes" they imply unless you do so there will be bad consequences.

If someone says "You ought to vote Labour " they imply unless you do there will be bad consequences.

If someone says " You ought to be kind to animals " they imply unless you do there will be bad consequences.

Morality, same as efficacy, relates to effects of causes. Probability is the best prediction we can do because we can't predict with 100% accuracy..
Probability applies to moral predictions .Even if there were a God Who issues directives we would have to interpret what He meant. Therefore there is no possibility of objective morality.

[Sculptor]

You have not define what is objective and what is fact.


What is objective?

Objective = (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
-Google Dictionary

What is fact?
I have already present and explain the definition of what is fact many times and there are many types of fact relative to the specific Framework of Knowledge. A Moral fact is a fact derived from the Moral Framework.



Do you dispute the above?

I have done further reading on morality and Ethics.
From my readings of morality extensively and deeply, it tell me your thinking re Morality & Ethics is too shallow and narrow - i.e. kindergartenish.

I am at present reading various books on Moral Realism and here is one;



My argument as an empirical-moral-realist is, moral facts are justified from naturalism's empirical facts within a Moral/Ethics Framework.

Please refer to the statements I made above.
You are not learning your lesson.

Where?
Don't be too hasty, you are the ignorant one on the subject of morality.

Morality is what you make it. Not what YOU want to impose upon it.
Your ignorance is not concerning morality but in basic terms such a objectivity and facts

[Sculptor]

Set out the arguments and I'll show you why they're fallacious, if I think they are. If they're sound, they'll be persuasive. Simples.

This is factually and empirically incorrect.

A sound arguments needs not be persuasive arguments.

One man's Modus Tollens is another's Modus Ponens.

The problem here is that Veritas Aequitas is trying to appeal to people's moral sense to offer convincing arguments to act in a specific moral way, but is using unsound arguments to do so, pretending them to be objective when they are nothing of the kind.
If someone says be nice to everyone, many will agree.
That is not the same as saying it is an objective fact that everyone OUGHT to be nice to everyone else.

[Peter Holmes]

A word for the confused.

In the noun phrase moral conscience, the function of the word moral is not to modify the noun conscience - as though there could be an immoral conscience.

Instead, the phrase moral conscience refers to how moral values - whatever their source - inform our judgements and actions.

Abrahamic religious belief distorts the otherwise humane and rational moral conscience, because believers have to pretend that the devil they worship - who supposedly practised, commanded or endorsed moral atrocities - among them the collective punishment of the innocent, genocide, slavery, the oppression of women and homosexuals, and the efficacy of substitutional human sacrifice - was and is a morally good god.

That that invented god was wicked is, of course, a moral opinion. And there are no moral facts. So the expression moral conscience assumes certain moral attitudes: what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness.