Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Moral judgements are not logical judgements; neither are aesthetic ones.

Is that ALL moral judgments or YOUR moral judgments?

Mine are logical. If yours aren't - say so.

All logical statements are limited by their premises.

No they aren't. Have you heard of reverse mathematics?
Reverse mathematics says "Who says we must we start with premises and arrive with conclusions? Why can't we do it the other way?"

Reverse mathematics is a program in mathematical logic that seeks to determine which axioms are required to prove theorems of mathematics. Its defining method can briefly be described as "going backwards from the theorems to the axioms"

Moral and aesthetic premises are arbitrary and opinionated.

But they are logically justified and they have a truth-value.

Thus any resultant statements gleaned by logic in the moral and aesthetic realms have no factual value but have everything to do with opinions.

But they do have a truth-value.

So the same question to you as was posed to Peter. Are facts a subset of truth, or is truth a subset of facts?

If something is true, but it's not a fact - does it matter that it's not a fact?

[Peter Holmes]

There is no Platonic criterion by which we might judge an argument is not specious.The criteria for good arguments are man made criteria.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean all arguments are specious. Against what sort of (Platonic?) standard is that conclusion justifiable?

There is no argument that concludes all arguments. How many angels can dance on a pin head? What I predicate of you as subject is "should stop looking for absolutes".

(What?) I'm not looking for absolutes. On the contrary, your claim that all arguments are specious - like the claim 'all models are wrong' - entertains an absolutist fantasy, if only to dismiss it.

You have just endorsed my claim all arguments are subjective, except those which are arbitrarily confined to preset formulations.

No, your claim is that all arguments are specious - false or sophistical - not that they're all subjective. Do you think 'subjective' means 'specious'? And if so, why?

If what you're really saying is that there's no such thing as what we call truth, facts and objectivity, why do you think that? Why must a valid and sound argument be specious?

[Belinda]

Agreed. But that doesn't mean all arguments are specious. Against what sort of (Platonic?) standard is that conclusion justifiable?
(What?) I'm not looking for absolutes. On the contrary, your claim that all arguments are specious - like the claim 'all models are wrong' - entertains an absolutist fantasy, if only to dismiss it.

You have just endorsed my claim all arguments are subjective, except those which are arbitrarily confined to preset formulations.

No, your claim is that all arguments are specious - false or sophistical - not that they're all subjective. Do you think 'subjective' means 'specious'? And if so, why?

If what you're really saying is that there's no such thing as what we call truth, facts and objectivity, why do you think that? Why must a valid and sound argument be specious?

Subjective doesn't mean specious, but it's a specious claim that this claim any other claims are true however many times they may be put to the test.

A valid argument with true premises is not specious. What saves that argument from speciousness is it's embedded in a social agreement about the worth of the premises.

[Peter Holmes]

You have just endorsed my claim all arguments are subjective, except those which are arbitrarily confined to preset formulations.

No, your claim is that all arguments are specious - false or sophistical - not that they're all subjective. Do you think 'subjective' means 'specious'? And if so, why?

If what you're really saying is that there's no such thing as what we call truth, facts and objectivity, why do you think that? Why must a valid and sound argument be specious?

Subjective doesn't mean specious, but it's a specious claim that this claim any other claims are true however many times they may be put to the test.

A valid argument with true premises is not specious. What saves that argument from speciousness is it's embedded in a social agreement about the worth of the premises.

Okay, you agree that a valid and sound argument is not specious. So you must agree that your claim that all arguments are specious is false. Your reservation about 'how ever many times they may be put to the test' is a flat contradiction that I can't fathom.

And I agree that any truth-claim is contextual and dependent on social agreement in the use of words, etc. Never said otherwise.

[Belinda]

You do know an argument can be valid even if the premises are false?

[Peter Holmes]

You do know an argument can be valid even if the premises are false?

Yes. Soundness is different from validity. That's why I specified both.

[Skepdick]

Yes. Soundness is different from validity. That's why I specified both.

Neither validity nor soundness matter if the conclusion is true. An accidental truth is better than an intentional falsity.

It's because you think protocol matters more than correct conclusions is why I keep calling you a fucking idiot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my response to the above OP,

• There are Moral Facts.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
  Moral facts are objective.
  Therefore morality is objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is my response to the above OP,

• There are Moral Facts.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
  Moral facts are objective.
  Therefore morality is objective.

On the contrary, there are no moral facts, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my response to the above OP,

• There are Moral Facts.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
  Moral facts are objective.
  Therefore morality is objective.

On the contrary, there are no moral facts, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

Where are your sound proofs and justification for your claims?

[Peter Holmes]

Here is my response to the above OP,

• There are Moral Facts.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
  Moral facts are objective.
  Therefore morality is objective.

On the contrary, there are no moral facts, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

Where are your sound proofs and justification for your claims?

Where is the valid and sound argument justifying your claim? Haven't seen it yet.

[Veritas Aequitas]

On the contrary, there are no moral facts, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

Where are your sound proofs and justification for your claims?

Where is the valid and sound argument justifying your claim? Haven't seen it yet.

Be intellectually responsible, answer my question before raising yours.

My argument is provided in the thread and I have countered your response.

[Peter Holmes]

Where are your sound proofs and justification for your claims?

Where is the valid and sound argument justifying your claim? Haven't seen it yet.

Be intellectually responsible, answer my question before raising yours.

My argument is provided in the thread and I have countered your response.

Be intellectually responsible and meet the burden of proof for your claim that there are moral facts. I reject your claim, and I and others have shown you countless times why it's false, and why your argument is unsound - in the interests of intellectual responsibility.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where is the valid and sound argument justifying your claim? Haven't seen it yet.

Be intellectually responsible, answer my question before raising yours.

My argument is provided in the thread and I have countered your response.

Be intellectually responsible and meet the burden of proof for your claim that there are moral facts. I reject your claim, and I and others have shown you countless times why it's false, and why your argument is unsound - in the interests of intellectual responsibility.

Others?? who? thick skulls like sculptor and pantflasher?

Note I have done an extensive literature survey of the subject re Morality and Ethics plus indepth research into the subject. What I have read so far is most of the moral philosophers do not conform to your dogmatic and archaic attitude and approach to moral issues.

Your OP above is full of noises [claims from ignorance and arrogance] without any references to any well argued points from various philosophers.

[Peter Holmes]

Be intellectually responsible, answer my question before raising yours.

My argument is provided in the thread and I have countered your response.

Be intellectually responsible and meet the burden of proof for your claim that there are moral facts. I reject your claim, and I and others have shown you countless times why it's false, and why your argument is unsound - in the interests of intellectual responsibility.

Others?? who? thick skulls like sculptor and pantflasher?

Note I have done an extensive literature survey of the subject re Morality and Ethics plus indepth research into the subject. What I have read so far is most of the moral philosophers do not conform to your dogmatic and archaic attitude and approach to moral issues.

Your OP above is full of noises [claims from ignorance and arrogance] without any references to any well argued points from various philosophers.

It's the arguments that count, along with the evidence for the premises. Who produces them is irrelevant.

You've failed to demonstrate one example of what you call a moral fact. So your appeal to evidence and sound argument is worthless. And all your reading seems to have been a waste of time, if you can't produce the killer evidence and sound argument.

Do it here, now. Go on. Simply and quickly. Then the misery will be over.