What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had exposed your ignorance and stupidity on your earlier claim, i.e.

Atla: It also went over your head that science STRIVES for objectivity,

You are still stupid,
thus it is stupid of you not to differentiate objectivity appropriately, which will allow others to conflate God's absolute-objectivity with general relative-objectivity of Science as above and those of normative morality.

You are retarded I swear. I keep telling you over and over and over that in English, objective morality refers to absolute-objectivity. YOU are not differentiating appropriately by jumping to non-absolute objectivity, which is a secondary meaning and was never the topic here.

You are retarded I swear. I keep telling you over and over and over that this is not about English but rather we are doing Philosophy - check the title of THIS FORUM.
Therefore you cannot insist "objective morality" refers to absolute-objectivity like what your kins and grandfathers had been doing.

[Atla]

I had exposed your ignorance and stupidity on your earlier claim, i.e.

Atla: It also went over your head that science STRIVES for objectivity,

You are still stupid,
thus it is stupid of you not to differentiate objectivity appropriately, which will allow others to conflate God's absolute-objectivity with general relative-objectivity of Science as above and those of normative morality.

You are retarded I swear. I keep telling you over and over and over that in English, objective morality refers to absolute-objectivity. YOU are not differentiating appropriately by jumping to non-absolute objectivity, which is a secondary meaning and was never the topic here.

You are retarded I swear. I keep telling you over and over and over that this is not about English but rather we are doing Philosophy - check the title of THIS FORUM.
Therefore you cannot insist "objective morality" refers to absolute-objectivity like what your kins and grandfathers had been doing.

Do you not comprehend that you have just written this comment in English as well? Are you really that retarded, Veritas?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are retarded I swear. I keep telling you over and over and over that in English, objective morality refers to absolute-objectivity. YOU are not differentiating appropriately by jumping to non-absolute objectivity, which is a secondary meaning and was never the topic here.

You are retarded I swear. I keep telling you over and over and over that this is not about English but rather we are doing Philosophy - check the title of THIS FORUM.
Therefore you cannot insist "objective morality" refers to absolute-objectivity like what your kins and grandfathers had been doing.

Do you not comprehend that you have just written this comment in English as well? Are you really that retarded, Veritas?

Are you really that retarded, Atla?

[Atla]

You are retarded I swear. I keep telling you over and over and over that this is not about English but rather we are doing Philosophy - check the title of THIS FORUM.
Therefore you cannot insist "objective morality" refers to absolute-objectivity like what your kins and grandfathers had been doing.

Do you not comprehend that you have just written this comment in English as well? Are you really that retarded, Veritas?

Are you really that retarded, Atla?

So no, you are unable to comprehend that we are doing philosophy in English here.
A quick google search would tell you what "objective morality" means, but such things are beyond your abilities.

That's why you couldn't get a clue about Kant either, and about several other topics. You just make up your own random meanings for words and stick to them like an idiot.

[Skepdick]

So no, you are unable to comprehend that we are doing philosophy in English here.
A quick google search would tell you what "objective morality" means, but such things are beyond your abilities.

That's why you couldn't get a clue about Kant either, and about several other topics. You just make up your own random meanings for words and stick to them like an idiot.

Congratulations!

By arguing words' meanings over substance you have graduated to a full Philosophical retard.

There's some irony in Philosophers trying to play language games, when they neither understand what language is; nor understand how games work.

Ironically, linguistics and game theory are part of the computer science curriculum. Too bad you got scammed by your university.

[Skepdick]

Therefore you cannot insist "objective morality" refers to absolute-objectivity like what your kins and grandfathers had been doing.

He is literally insisting on it. Philosophers must use a HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE meaning of "objective morality".

Otherwise you risk coming to humanly agreement. This is a philosophy forum - you can't have that!
Agreement is an unemployment hazard to Philosophers.

[Atla]

Therefore you cannot insist "objective morality" refers to absolute-objectivity like what your kins and grandfathers had been doing.

He is literally insisting on it. Philosophers must use a HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE meaning of "objective morality".

Otherwise you risk coming to humanly agreement. This is a philosophy forum - you can't have that!
Agreement is an unemployment hazard to Philosophers.

Do you know how bad it looks when you pretend to agree with someone? That like puts the last nail into their coffin.

[Skepdick]

Do you know how bad it looks when you pretend to agree with someone? That like puts the last nail into their coffin.

Nowhere nearly as bad as pretending to disagree.

[Belinda]

If someone said "objective morality" to me, I'd know well enough what they meant. They would imply either God's morality or social superiors' morality.

[Skepdick]

If someone said "objective morality" to me, I'd know well enough what they meant. They would imply either God's morality or social superiors' morality.

In both cases it's externalised morality.

The point here is simply that you ought to recognise that the person has an external locus of control. Whether they follow "God's law" or the country's law - they are obedient to a moral authority.

But... that is why authority is useful and even necessary. Not everybody can invest the time/energy necessary to develop their individual thought.

And then you do the whole Philosophy-dance with them to try and get them to internalize that locus.

[Belinda]

If someone said "objective morality" to me, I'd know well enough what they meant. They would imply either God's morality or social superiors' morality.

In both cases it's externalised morality.

The point here is that even if the person has external locus of control that mean following said laws is ill-advised.

But... that is why authority is useful and even necessary. Not everybody can invest the time/energy necessary to develop their individual thought.

I am surprised at your support for established religion! However you are right and since time immemorial there have been specialists who tell people what is morally what.

Thought experiment: if there were a personal God Who wants us to claw our ways back to Him, then He'd want us to do so as free men not as slaves to ignorance or other people. A man's freedom is only freedom insofar as he had knowledge, refined judgement, and insight into his own thinking and feeling.

It may be objected I elevate reason too much. But a reasonable man is invariably a man who feels. (NB not every man who feels is reasonable).

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you not comprehend that you have just written this comment in English as well? Are you really that retarded, Veritas?

Are you really that retarded, Atla?

So no, you are unable to comprehend that we are doing philosophy in English here.
A quick google search would tell you what "objective morality" means, but such things are beyond your abilities.

That's why you couldn't get a clue about Kant either, and about several other topics. You just make up your own random meanings for words and stick to them like an idiot.

You are the retard the stupid, so blinded by ignorance and yet try to be arrogant and learned.

Note the link below;
If you read widely and not succumbed to confirmation bias, there are more of such alternative views to objective morality from what you are blinded with;

An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development.

Morality is a key factor in the success of human groups in competition or co-existence with one another.

A group's moral code represents an increasingly rational pattern of behavior derived from the collective experience of the group handed down from generation to generation.
Group selection is a controversial idea for animal evolution but it is inescapable in accounting for human evolution under the influence of language and the accumulation of cultural patterns.

Further, morality has an objective physiological and neurological basis in so far as it exists to moderate the expression of the array of genetically-derived emotional patterns.
Emotions represent the combination of action tendencies (neural motor programs) with physiologically-derived affective concomitants.
The relation between emotion, empathy, and morality is important.
Empathy (a special form of perception still largely unexplained) has a key role both in the formation and cohesion of human groups and in the observance within groups of a moral code.

Ultimately observance of moral rules depends on recognition by each individual of an integrating purpose in his/her life.

In so far as the moral code is directed towards achieving this integrating purpose, morality for the individual becomes objective.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 509190016J

The above is scientifically driven and has nothing to do with the absolute objectivity of God's moral command, Plato's universals and the likes.

Just admit you are a retard and is stupid.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas quoted:

An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development.

It's the evolutionary account that is claimed to be objective presumably by academic anthropological standards. It's not the morality that can be found to be absolute.

[Atla]

You are the retard the stupid, so blinded by ignorance and yet try to be arrogant and learned.

Note the link below;
If you read widely and not succumbed to confirmation bias, there are more of such alternative views to objective morality from what you are blinded with;

An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development.

Morality is a key factor in the success of human groups in competition or co-existence with one another.

A group's moral code represents an increasingly rational pattern of behavior derived from the collective experience of the group handed down from generation to generation.
Group selection is a controversial idea for animal evolution but it is inescapable in accounting for human evolution under the influence of language and the accumulation of cultural patterns.

Further, morality has an objective physiological and neurological basis in so far as it exists to moderate the expression of the array of genetically-derived emotional patterns.
Emotions represent the combination of action tendencies (neural motor programs) with physiologically-derived affective concomitants.
The relation between emotion, empathy, and morality is important.
Empathy (a special form of perception still largely unexplained) has a key role both in the formation and cohesion of human groups and in the observance within groups of a moral code.

Ultimately observance of moral rules depends on recognition by each individual of an integrating purpose in his/her life.

In so far as the moral code is directed towards achieving this integrating purpose, morality for the individual becomes objective.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 509190016J

The above is scientifically driven and has nothing to do with the absolute objectivity of God's moral command, Plato's universals and the likes.

Just admit you are a retard and is stupid.

Yes that's what morality itself is, but did you actually read what you quoted?

morality for the individual becomes objective

So it is NOT objective morality as per the standard definition of objective morality, it just becomes 'objective' for the individual. And this kind of 'objectivity' can be changed via cognitive restructuring for example.

Jesus Christ.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas quoted:

An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development.

It's the evolutionary account that is claimed to be objective presumably by academic anthropological standards. It's not the morality that can be found to be absolute.

You missed the points contented here.

Atla insisted the term 'moral objective' refers only to 'absolute objectivity' e.g. God's command, Plato's universal and the likes.

I disagree that 'moral objective' [objectivity within morality] must be restricted to the above but should cover other aspects of "moral objective" which is not absolute but relative such as "evolutionary account" and other human related elements.