What could make morality objective? 2

[Atla]

"Analytic" opposes "Synthetic" more appropriately and referring to how a proposition's subject relates to the predicate. When the subject logically relates to the predicate by a genus-specie or tautological meaning, the propositions are deemed easiest to analyze because they don't add information beyond what can be implied. Thus, a proposition that has a subject that does not connect necessarily to its predicate is relatively artificial or coincidental and thus, the term, 'synthetic' describes those propositions.

Note sure what is your point here, cannot see anything significant.
What is critical is when the above are combined with a priori or a posteriori elements -see Kant's view on this.

This was about what you said to Pete Olcott dismissing "analytic philosophy" for whatever you proposed in place of it. The replacing complement has to refer to 'synthetic' information that cannot be properly discussed without ambiguity. Any intellectual inspection about anything requires analysis. This IS what you are doing necessarily when competing and comparing for different views. The formal "analytical philosophers" were very specific to make sure that any statements being used to logically discuss any matter requires absolute clarity. It not, they deemed it unable to be analyzed with SPECIFIC understanding. It is also what must coexist within science. Science just adds the particular 'constants' that you can place into a logical argument. If you can't do this, it is referred to as "indeterminate".

I probably won't get into this too deeply as I'm not committed to being online as much anymore. But although I thank you for reopening a new thread given I wouldn't bother attempting to catch up on the 3000+ posts there. However, I am still surprised that you (Veritas) are still attempting to impose meaning to something 'moral' as though with religious conviction. (?)

As I have been arguing, what I had proposed is as close to Science as possible.
Show me where I am wrong in this?

This requires answering your next quote:

Since morals are about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" (as its minimal extremes), how do you deem that some behavior is understood as 'good' in some universal way? You may be making the same kind of error that the Social Darwinian's extend in meaning (synthetically) by contrast to the Evolutionary Darwinian idea of 'fit'. The meaning of what is 'fit' in evolution means "to match" and not, "to improve", even though these may synthetically be true to many parts of reality. The 'fit' meaning "to improve" is a subjective evalutation what such fitness implies about better qualities, capacities, or efficiencies relative to some understood goals. But these evaluations of utility are independently defined.

Nope Morality proper is not about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" for the individual to make moral choices and moral decision with every action intended.

If you aren't treating morality and ethics in general as to be necessarily about emotional evaluations, such as good or bad, you aren't talking about these as is understood. You are welcome to redefine the meanings of any symbol you want in philosophy. I can define "morality" as "anything that I, Scott Mayers, says it is." But then the symbol, "morality", doesn't share the same meaning. You assumed we all shared this meaning by the title of this thread. Yet it would be just a sales-pitch term, like how "free" is used in unconventional ways in advertisements that is just meant to trick us into interpreting whatever price they want for something as though it is providing something 'free' by popular understanding.

Morality is necessarily about judgements of favor or disfavor by someone(s) particular beliefs about them (subjectively) or some whole that all subjects in some universal class are presumed to share (objectively) regarding behaviors in normal usage. (favored things are deemed "good" to those suggesting it versus the opposite or vice versa.) The title implies that you are not in disagreement of some common understood distinction but that whether something can be 'objective' by whatever you interpret that to mean.

It reduces to politics. Is it morally universal (objective) that "no one should kill", where "kill" might mean, "to end the life of something or someone"? Or is it only morally universal to kill special things or persons? (an exception that would make it relatively 'subjective')

To most, since morality IS about valued emotional judgements, the "should" implicit in some 'law' is just an opinion about what is expected by SOME people. If it is all, then 'should' no longer applies given all members are compelled to obey without concern to nature's laws (objectively).

Note I wrote this in another thread;

First one need to define 'what is morality' else we will be talking pass each other.
Fundamentally morality is not about making moral choices - which is an impossibility to make a moral decision on every actions we intend to act or act spontaneously.
viewtopic.php?p=458435#p458435

Then I proceed to explain how morality works.

Re evolution, my purpose is to abstract moral facts from empirical evidence related to human nature.
Show me where I have failed in this?

Your link is responding to Pete's thread and has to map to HIS meaning, not your unusual meaning. It appears that his is the same as mine and what others understand it to mean via the general use of the term.

He basically asserted the same thing I just spoke above. If there is some behavior that is universally evaluated at all, it requires at least a COMPLEMENT judgement about what should be done or it is already universal for no one being able to choose. If X is ONLY a 'constant' evaluation that is universally shared objectively, no subject of the universal class of discourse could disagree. If you are interpreting the nature of people in science to maintain "objective" opinions based upon statistical majorities (or pluralities), these imply a difference of opinion that MAY exist of some potential member(s) of that class. But the act of agreeing or disagreeing about what is true of nature is deemed tentative and dependent upon some physical theory.

We might have a unanimous agreement among scientists that climate change will distroy us if we don't act now. The logic could even be assured given all premises are agreed to by all members as a given. But someone can still disagree for some indeterminate reason of their own regardless of the logic, even if they agree to the inputs. Morals are treated by default as having at least two CERTAIN possibilities to behave as existing, not merely postulated about the future. That is, a particular moral is suggested when there actually is a certainty that at least some person behaves in one way which some other person has not, that both behaviors are relatively ambiguous to nature (indeterminate), and that some political/social suggestion proposed which is intended to set a human law of behavior that implies consequences if one disobeys.

If people didn't exist, people's morals do not. But if something physical exists, morales do not. Religious people usually believe this last point is not true in that some God is assumed to exist who dictates THAT one of two or more behaviors are 'good' or not apriori to anyone or anything existing. The term, "God" is literally an evolved word from "good" versus "bad" (or "evil", some more absolute extreme of some 'bad' behavior). As such, they believe morality as absolute and has definitively certain consequences. In fact, many argue THAT a God has to exist to command what will be defined as 'good' versus 'evil' precisely because nature itself doesn't do this on Earth. For instance, why is there not always consequential justice to universal behaviors? Why, for instance, can we kill another and sometimes get away with it regardless? The religious would argue that while on Earth one CAN behave arbitrarily, they will still have a real specific consequence as adjudicated by a God when you die on Earth.

Morality has no meaning without interpreted values of 'good/not-good' to exist with UNIQUE consequences. This is then "objective" to Nature (for God's domain) by religious people. The consequences have to be promised uniquely or they lack meaning.

Politics is the human domain to adjudicate which behaviors we assign to be 'good' or 'bad' with consequences for breaking them where caught/exposed. Thus this is why I keep referring you to look at politics and not science. We have something called, political science

If you are not talking politics, which include social laws we make between any two people about deciding shared etiquette, then morals have no consideration by science proper. The reason "indeterminacy" is a difficult discussion in science is due to science's shared assumption that physical laws exist that assure unique consequential outcomes. If you are opting to discuss different possible outcomes in science, they require too to have at least some interpretation about physics that demonstrates at least some conflicting ambiguity assuming two possible valued outcomes. But in these cases, Nature would hold all the possible outcomes that those discussing some moral idea would impose.

And IF you are still so certain THAT morality can be treated as 'objectively' unique, then you would simultaneously SOLVE all political/social problems regarding differences of behavior. Unfortunately, since Nature only permits existence WITH conflict, you have a great challenge to try to prove that you could possibly even have a universally undeniable 'science' of moral conduct which is sure to please each and every person on Earth.

Veritas seems to have no concept of "objectivity" at all. I don't understand how that's possible, maybe it's because he's from the East?