What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

Lol okay, so you admitted that there is no absolute-objective morality. I accept your admission of defeat.

WTF, I have always rejected absolute-objective morality [e.g. Platonic Forms or God moral laws] - I have posted that from the start.

Quickly changing the subject to non-absolute morality, and then claiming that I was arguing against that one, and saying that I was cornered, is pathetic. Drawing a parallel with science is also pathetic.

As above, there is no change in the subject.
You are arguing with along with Peter's idea, thus the consequences.

Denying the existence of genuinely amoral people is pathetic, yes they are rare, but denying their existence is a great source of the world's evils.

It is human nature all humans are to be born with two legs and two arms.
That is the fact of human nature.
But no one in the know [as evident] will deny there are people who are born with one or no arms and legs.

Thus my point;
It is human nature all humans are to be born with a natural propensity for morality
That is the fact of human nature and a fact.
As such there are moral facts [as justified] extended from the above.

Is it morally right or wrong to beat dishonest idiots like Veritas into a pulp?

It is legally wrong to beat someone into a pulp, thus it same [as justified] in the moral perspective.
Obviously, it is morally wrong to beat someone into a pulp.

It is an idiotic fool like you who insist it is not morally wrong for anyone wants to kill you, rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.
The only recourse to you [if you are not living in an unowned isolated island] is the legal way or just cry miserably.

The whole topic is about absolute-objective morality (that's the default meaning of 'objective morality' in English) so what on Earth are you babbling about?

[henry quirk]

How do you know "ownness" is not learned from other people? Did you learn "ownness" from your parents, or maybe also the boys you went around with during your youth?

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. You can say this till the cows come home, but it remains false.

'Humans must breathe or they die' is a fact - a true factual assertion, based on empirical evidence.

But 'No human ought to stop other humans from breathing till they die' is not a fact - a true factual assertion. There is no empirical evidence, because it does not make a factual claim. Instead, it expresses a moral value-judgement.

You merely insist on an entailment which does not, in fact, exist - which is why denying the moral consequent does not produce a contradiction.

But, tell you what - let's keep this going for ever and ever, until one of us stops breathing.

But you are committing a fallacy of equivocation.
You are conflating a natural fact with moral fact ignorantly and without any justifications.
Show me why you have not committed a fallacy of equivocation?

Note there is empirical evidence of another person-X who had killed another human.
This result in a legal-value-judgment and a legal fact, i.e. it is an act of murder and the X is convicted as a murder and is sentenced to death or some period in prison.
How come you are not questioning 'where is the entailment,' where is the factual claim, etc.?

The fact is the legal fact is justified [judgement made] from within a legal framework and system.
It is the same, the fact is the moral fact is justified [judgement made] from within a Moral framework and system.

As I had stated you are very ignorant of "what is morality" and got stuck and thus is dogmatic by clinging to some archaic teachings re morality.

It is likely your cows will never come home because they are grazing on a fallacy of equivocation.

No. Equivocation is using the same word in a different way. I use the word 'fact' to mean either a state-of-affairs - as many philosophers do - or a description of a state-of-affairs - of which only the second has a truth-value, obviously. And that dual-use is standard - check it out in any dictionary.

You are defining "fact" in one dogmatic way as applicable to all circumstances.
There is a difference between natural facts and moral facts which must be qualify.
You are equivocating and conflating natural facts with moral facts which is a fallacy.

And that's why your theory of frameworks is irrelevant when it comes to what counts as a fact. What you call a moral fact is either a moral state-of-affairs or a description of a moral state-of-affairs with the truth-value 'true'.

You are indeed desperate.

The Framework is very critical in our discussion.

A scientific fact cannot be a legal fact which are process in their respective framework.
There is a scientific fact, one person is killed by another person as verified by biological and physiological activities.
From the above scientific fact, that the person killed is "murdered" is a legal fact when justified via a legal framework.

A moral fact or moral state-of-affair is thus a moral fact that is specifically justified from Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

And you - like all moral realists and objectivists, empiricist or not - haven't demonstrated the existence of moral states-of-affairs (whatever they may be), or (and therefore) the truth of a moral assertion - or that it can even have a truth-value.

A moral fact is a statement of fact that is justified from a Moral Framework and System. I have already produced examples of various moral facts.

And the reason why you haven't produced the goods is because you can't. It can't be done. It's a fool's endeavour. It's a category error. It's conceptually and intellectually incoherent. It's irrational. And, like any religious belief, shedding it requires a kind of awakening to reality.

You have not got your answer is because you are ignorant of "what is fact" and "what is morality."

I have presented you to what is fact SO MANY TIMEs but you have not bothered to dispute it to prove your definition is the sole absolute definition.

Here again

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.

Demonstrate to me the above is false and yours is the absolute definition of 'what is fact'?

[Peter Holmes]

A moral fact is a statement of fact that is justified from a Moral Framework and System. I have already produced examples of various moral facts.

I have presented you to what is fact SO MANY TIMEs but you have not bothered to dispute it to prove your definition is the sole absolute definition.

Here again

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.

This definition of 'fact' refers only to its linguistic form - but apart from that, I agree with it. And I always have. So that isn't the problem.

The problem is this claim: 'A moral fact is a statement of fact that is justified from a Moral Framework and System.'

Let's look at the premises of that supposed moral framework and system. As I understand it, the following are examples:

1 Humans are programmed to survive.
2 Humans must breathe or they die.

Have I got these right? Or would you want to change them or add a few more?

Let's clarify at least some of the premises of the supposed moral framework and system from which you think moral facts can be 'justified'.

I'll wait for your reply.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A moral fact is a statement of fact that is justified from a Moral Framework and System. I have already produced examples of various moral facts.

I have presented you to what is fact SO MANY TIMEs but you have not bothered to dispute it to prove your definition is the sole absolute definition.

Here again

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.

This definition of 'fact' refers only to its linguistic form - but apart from that, I agree with it. And I always have. So that isn't the problem.

Not sure of your point.
So you are insisting there is only one definition of fact, i.e. in the linguistic form?
There are no other types of facts as historical fact, cosmological facts, scientific facts, etc.?
See this new thread I raised;

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

The problem is this claim: 'A moral fact is a statement of fact that is justified from a Moral Framework and System.'

Let's look at the premises of that supposed moral framework and system. As I understand it, the following are examples:

1 Humans are programmed to survive.
2 Humans must breathe or they die.

Have I got these right? Or would you want to change them or add a few more?

Let's clarify at least some of the premises of the supposed moral framework and system from which you think moral facts can be 'justified'.

I'll wait for your reply.

Yes I agree with point 1 and 2 above.

• 1 Humans are programmed to survive - is natural scientific fact.
  2 Humans must breathe or they die, is a natural scientific fact and moral fact.

The two facts above are inputs within a moral framework and system which will upon justifications generate Moral facts, such as;
"No human ought to prevent another from breathing till death'.

The moral facts are justified upon a complex set of grounds and principles.
One of the principles among many is the Principle of Universality - which is imperative for morality.

Thus if we proposed the contrary universally, i.e.
"ALL humans ought to prevent others from breathing till death'
then logically and theoretically, the human species will be extinct in time.
Therefore it is only rational the absolute moral maxim should be;
"No human ought to prevent another from breathing till death'.

This is the moral fact that is justified from the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics from empirical evidences [pt 1 and 2 above] and philosophical reasoning.

Note the above is merely on principle i.e. Principle of Universality.
There are many other grounds and principles involved that reinforce the justifications of moral facts from empirical evidences [pt 1 and 2 above] and philosophical reasoning.

Btw, I have repeated the above MANY TIMES, so I don't expect the above to get into your thick skull.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Lol okay, so you admitted that there is no absolute-objective morality. I accept your admission of defeat.

WTF, I have always rejected absolute-objective morality [e.g. Platonic Forms or God moral laws] - I have posted that from the start.

Quickly changing the subject to non-absolute morality, and then claiming that I was arguing against that one, and saying that I was cornered, is pathetic. Drawing a parallel with science is also pathetic.

As above, there is no change in the subject.
You are arguing with along with Peter's idea, thus the consequences.

Denying the existence of genuinely amoral people is pathetic, yes they are rare, but denying their existence is a great source of the world's evils.

It is human nature all humans are to be born with two legs and two arms.
That is the fact of human nature.
But no one in the know [as evident] will deny there are people who are born with one or no arms and legs.

Thus my point;
It is human nature all humans are to be born with a natural propensity for morality
That is the fact of human nature and a fact.
As such there are moral facts [as justified] extended from the above.

Is it morally right or wrong to beat dishonest idiots like Veritas into a pulp?

It is legally wrong to beat someone into a pulp, thus it same [as justified] in the moral perspective.
Obviously, it is morally wrong to beat someone into a pulp.

It is an idiotic fool like you who insist it is not morally wrong for anyone wants to kill you, rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.
The only recourse to you [if you are not living in an unowned isolated island] is the legal way or just cry miserably.

The whole topic is about absolute-objective morality (that's the default meaning of 'objective morality' in English) so what on Earth are you babbling about?

I am applying the point with rigor within Philosophy not English.

No the very notable contention between the Philosophical Realists and Philosophical Anti-Realist as applied to ontology, morality, etc.
Your Philosophical Realists stance is fundamentally unrealistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Belinda]

How do you know "ownness" is not learned from other people? Did you learn "ownness" from your parents, or maybe also the boys you went around with during your youth?

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

We are at cross purposes. I agree with you about the rightness of the feeling a man belongs to himself. I agree it is wrong to be a slave or to enslave someone else whether by wearing him down spiritually or by physical shackles.You expressed your belief well and I feel i understand and agree.

At this juncture my point is that you and I are able to understand these moral tenets not only because they are true but also because we live among other people and under regimes where individual liberty is valued.

Men try to survive and sometimes , often, have to accept one or other sort of slavery so their kids can be fed and survive to adulthood. You may say they exchange their souls for their kids' safety.

My objection to your politics, Henry, is you ignore the part your society plays in permitting you, training you, enabling you to feel free to be an individual. This is odd in view of the well known words of the American national anthem.

[Peter Holmes]

A moral fact is a statement of fact that is justified from a Moral Framework and System. I have already produced examples of various moral facts.

This definition of 'fact' refers only to its linguistic form - but apart from that, I agree with it. And I always have. So that isn't the problem.

Not sure of your point.
So you are insisting there is only one definition of fact, i.e. in the linguistic form?
There are no other types of facts as historical fact, cosmological facts, scientific facts, etc.?

No. My point is that what we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs - which is typically a linguistic expression. And those are completely different things. Your definition refers only to the second use of 'fact' - but that's okay for our purposes. I agree that different discourses can produce different kinds of facts: scientific, historical, and so on.

The problem is this claim: 'A moral fact is a statement of fact that is justified from a Moral Framework and System.'

Let's look at the premises of that supposed moral framework and system. As I understand it, the following are examples:

1 Humans are programmed to survive.
2 Humans must breathe or they die.

Have I got these right? Or would you want to change them or add a few more?

Yes I agree with point 1 and 2 above.

Okay. You agree that these are two premises in the supposed framework and system of morality.

Next question: Do you agree that, as they stand, these two premises are empirical - that, if they are true, it's because they correctly describe features of reality for which there is evidence?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This definition of 'fact' refers only to its linguistic form - but apart from that, I agree with it. And I always have. So that isn't the problem.

Not sure of your point.
So you are insisting there is only one definition of fact, i.e. in the linguistic form?
There are no other types of facts as historical fact, cosmological facts, scientific facts, etc.?

No. My point is that what we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs - which is typically a linguistic expression. And those are completely different things. Your definition refers only to the second use of 'fact' - but that's okay for our purposes. I agree that different discourses can produce different kinds of facts: scientific, historical, and so on.

The problem is this claim: 'A moral fact is a statement of fact that is justified from a Moral Framework and System.'

Let's look at the premises of that supposed moral framework and system. As I understand it, the following are examples:

1 Humans are programmed to survive.
2 Humans must breathe or they die.

Have I got these right? Or would you want to change them or add a few more?

Yes I agree with point 1 and 2 above.

Okay. You agree that these are two premises in the supposed framework and system of morality.

Next question: Do you agree that, as they stand, these two premises are empirical - that, if they are true, it's because they correctly describe features of reality for which there is evidence?

I have already answered the above earlier, i.e.

• 1 Humans are programmed to survive - is natural scientific fact.
  2 Humans must breathe or they die, is a natural scientific fact and moral fact.

Yes, point 1 and 2 are based on empirical evidences.
However note they as inputs and transition to moral facts.

In other cases, both 1 and 2 are inputs and transition to legal facts and other facts.

[Peter Holmes]

Not sure of your point.
So you are insisting there is only one definition of fact, i.e. in the linguistic form?
There are no other types of facts as historical fact, cosmological facts, scientific facts, etc.?

No. My point is that what we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs - which is typically a linguistic expression. And those are completely different things. Your definition refers only to the second use of 'fact' - but that's okay for our purposes. I agree that different discourses can produce different kinds of facts: scientific, historical, and so on.

Yes I agree with point 1 and 2 above.

Okay. You agree that these are two premises in the supposed framework and system of morality.

Next question: Do you agree that, as they stand, these two premises are empirical - that, if they are true, it's because they correctly describe features of reality for which there is evidence?

I have already answered the above earlier, i.e.

• 1 Humans are programmed to survive - is natural scientific fact.
  2 Humans must breathe or they die, is a natural scientific fact and moral fact.

Yes, point 1 and 2 are based on empirical evidences.
However note they as inputs and transition to moral facts.

In other cases, both 1 and 2 are inputs and transition to legal facts and other facts.

No, slow down. One step at a time.

You think that 'humans are programmed to survive' and 'humans must breathe or they die' are premises in the supposed moral framework and system - and that they are what you call 'natural scientific facts'.

And you think that these facts can be what you call 'inputs and transitions' to other facts, such as what you call moral facts.

Sorry if I missed it, but please explain what you mean by 'input and transition' in this context? What do you think it means to say one fact is an input and transition to another fact? How does that happen? I'd be grateful if you could be as clear and explicit as possible.

[henry quirk]

you ignore the part your society plays in permitting you, training you, enabling you to feel free to be an individual.

I ignore nuthin': I just see it differently from you.


This is odd in view of the well known words of the American national anthem.

Oh gosh, you invoked The Star-Spangled Banner!

I'm ruined!

[henry quirk]

If Reality is amoral why do some men insist otherwise?

[Skepdick]

The whole topic is about absolute-objective morality (that's the default meaning of 'objective morality' in English) so what on Earth are you babbling about?

The default meaning of "objective" in English or any human language is not the absolute meaning.

If it were then you've rendered the notion of "objectivity" meaningless. Because "absolute objectivity" is not humanly possible.

[Atla]

I am applying the point with rigor within Philosophy not English.

No the very notable contention between the Philosophical Realists and Philosophical Anti-Realist as applied to ontology, morality, etc.
Your Philosophical Realists stance is fundamentally unrealistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

You can't apply any point within philosophy in a language that only you speak. And philosophical realism and anti-realism are still both pretty nonsensical.

[Atla]

The whole topic is about absolute-objective morality (that's the default meaning of 'objective morality' in English) so what on Earth are you babbling about?

The default meaning of "objective" in English or any human language is not the absolute meaning.

If it were then you've rendered the notion of "objectivity" meaningless. Because "absolute objectivity" is not humanly possible.

Objective MORALITY refers to the humanly impossible, that's the whole goddamn point.