Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have always argued,

Scientific facts are also a matter of opinions, i.e. conjectures to start with.
It is only that such opinions/conjectures got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Scientific Framework and System, that they are accepted as facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

What anyone calls a 'fact' is up to them, but in my view a scientific fact is something like 'drop a brick and it falls to the ground'. It's a fact because that is what happens; it is the "opinions/conjectures" about why it happens which get polished, but regardless of how shiny, they remain hypotheses and theories. As far as ethics is concerned, it is a fact that if you chop someone's head off, they will die, whether you think that is good thing or not is a matter of opinion.

I agree what 'YOU' think personally is a matter of opinion or belief.

But Morality is not a question of 'whether YOU think that is a good thing or nor.'
Morality is human species oriented - i.e. applicable to ALL humans alive.

It is an intrinsic human nature, all humans breathe, else they die.
Therefore all human ought to breathe, else they die, - this is independent from all personal opinions and belief.

In the case of morality, the above biological fact is input and processed within a Moral Framework and System to produce the following moral fact, i.e.
'no human ought to stop another from breathing till he dies' [M1].

A Moral Framework and System is just like the Scientific Framework and System with all its relevant structures, processes, principles, assumptions, limitations, rules, etc.
Initial moral opinions or beliefs can also be polished [with justifications, testing, verifications, etc.] up to a very fine level like what is Science is doing to its conjectures.

One of the justification principle used within the Moral FSK is the universal principle since it involves all humans within the human species.

There are other justifications of MI as a moral fact.
Another is the this moral fact has a neural referent in terms of an algorithm within the inherent moral function in the brain/mind.

If MI is not instituted as an overriding maxim, then in theory, it is possible the human species will be exterminated.
Therefore to ensure the human species will not go extinct in all possible scenario, MI as a moral-fact is a necessity.

Caution: A moral-fact is conditioned upon the Moral FSK, don't let your mind deflect you to the other conditional fact, especially 'fact' as defined with Analytic Philosophy.

The same principle applies to the moral fact,
'no human ought to kill another'
if this moral fact is not instituted as a maxim, in theory, the human species could possibility be exterminated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree - it's a reasonable principle, along with others. But I also think a lion belongs to itself, and so does a whale - whatever that really means. Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion. They're not facts.

Your thinking is too rhetorical and perverted.

If you use the term 'opinion' in such a rhetorical manner, then note this;

I have always argued,

Scientific facts are also a matter of opinions, i.e. conjectures to start with.
It is only that such opinions/conjectures got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Scientific Framework and System, that they are accepted as facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

If you insist,
"Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion"
then, as with Scientific facts from opinions/conjectures,
Moral Facts are opinions/conjectures that got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Moral Framework and System, that they are accepted as Justified True Moral Facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

And the idea that they are facts - even fuzzy facts - is what leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings - or shooting lions for fun, or slaughtering whales for profit.

How can the moral maxim with the moral FSK,
'no human ought to kill another'
logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

This is why. People who think there are moral facts think their own moral opinions are facts. Big surprise.

So if you think homosexuality or is immoral or evil, or that the USA is the Great Satan, and you think those are facts, then you can justify to yourself killing homosexuals, or flying planes into US buidings. Or if you think other species are outside the scope of human moral concern - that that's a fact - then you can justify subjugating and abusing those species. Moral objectivism is fundamentally evil.

How come you are so blind and repeat the above inspite of my glaring question, i.e.

• How can the moral maxim within the moral FSK,
  'no human ought to kill another'
  logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

You totally ignore the above question and jump so blatantly to your weird thinking.
Something is wrong with you here.

Your morality FSK argument is specious. It assumes that moral rightness and wrongness are 'objects of knowledge' - things that can be known, about which therefore facts - true factual assertions - can be produced. Your claim that, because all facts are contextual, therefore there can be contextual moral facts, is flat out false - how ever often you repeat it. It's fucking idiotic.

You are the idiotic in this case.
I have stated the contextual moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically and I have provided justifications for them.

If any descriptive context can produce facts, then the 'astrology FSK' can produce facts. If you say it can't, because astrological claims lack empirical evidence, then you agree that not all descriptive contexts can produce facts. What we need is empirical evidence - whatever kinds of facts are involved.

Note I mentioned the use of the Continuum Concept in this case and the degree of veracity.
Yes, whatever is claimed as fact must be justified empirically and philosophically.
Theists claim 'God exists' is a fact, and the onus is on them to produce their evidences and justification.

I claim 'no human ought to stop another from breathing till they die' is a moral-fact and I have provided the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications.

So - what's the empirical evidence for the moral assertion that slavery is morally wrong? (You do know what empirical evidence is, right? No point citing moral principles in a 'framework of knowledge', or essentialist claims about human identity, or 'this is what peple think' - they're don't count as empirical evidence, as you know.)

Let's focus on that: what is the empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?

Are you insisting that 'slavery is not morally wrong' such that you are willing to be enslaved by other human?
It is not morally wrong for others to enslave you, your family, kins and others, to the extent you and them can be sold as chattel slaves, sex slaves, etc.?

I cannot imagine that you will agree to the above, i.e. slavery is not morally wrong.
Surely you personally as a modern normal human being will agree slavery is morally wrong??
If you agree to that, that is your direct empirical evidence.
You can confirm the above empirical evidence with your family, kins, friends, colleagues and if they are 'normal' will provide the empirical evidence to further support the point, slavery is morally wrong.

Unless you are autistic and mentally ill, you will be very convinced all normal human beings will not voluntarily want to be enslaved by another human.
If you are so pedantic, do a poll with sampling from all over the world.

There are many other empirical evidences from history and present why slavery is morally wrong.
There is so much of empirically evident acts of evil and sufferings associated with slavery. Are you insisting such terrible evil acts and suffering related to slavery are not morally wrong.

The other is the argument from the principles of basic human dignity.

Another is the Golden Rule.

There are other justifications why slavery is morally wrong is a moral fact.

[Peter Holmes]

• How can the moral maxim within the moral FSK,
  'no human ought to kill another'
  logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

You totally ignore the above question and jump so blatantly to your weird thinking.
Something is wrong with you here.

People who think there are moral facts also think their own moral opinions are facts. So here's one supposed moral 'fact': no human ought to kill another'. But here's another supposed moral 'fact': homosexuals are an abomination and must be killed. Oops. Now, which supposed moral fact has priority? Perhaps there's another supposed moral fact about that question. And so on.

I have stated the contextual moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically and I have provided justifications for them.

Yes to empirical justification in the form of evidence - we're agreed there. But what you call 'philosophical justification' can only be a valid and sound argument that cites empirical evidence to justify a conclusion. There's nothing special about 'philosophical justification'.

So, to summarise, we agree that a factual assertion in any context - of any kind - needs empirical evidence before it can be called a fact - a true factual assertion. Let's hang on to that.

Note I mentioned the use of the Continuum Concept in this case and the degree of veracity.
Yes, whatever is claimed as fact must be justified empirically and philosophically.
Theists claim 'God exists' is a fact, and the onus is on them to produce their evidences and justification.

I claim 'no human ought to stop another from breathing till they die' is a moral-fact and I have provided the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications.

Okay. So what is the empirical evidence for that moral assertion? The facts of the matter are clear: humans must breathe or they die; if someone stops a person breathing, that person will die.

But what exactly is the evidence for the moral assertion that 'no person ought to stop another from breathing till they die'. What feature of reality that can be experienced empirically does the 'ought' describe or express? If, as you say, the moral assertion is a fact, then it must describe that feature of reality - because, as we agree, every factual claim needs empirical evidence.

It's no good saying 'it's a fact in the context of the moral FSK', because that tells us nothing about the empirical evidence for the claim. For example, if someone asks 'what's the evidence for the claim that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen'? To answer 'it's a fact in the chemistry FSK' would be ridiculous. That doesn't answer the question.

So, please focus on this question: what exactly is the empirical evidence for the moral assertion about not suffocating people? Try listing the evidence - making sure that it really is evidence and not something else, such as a moral principle. I'd like to see what you come up with.

Are you insisting that 'slavery is not morally wrong' such that you are willing to be enslaved by other human?
It is not morally wrong for others to enslave you, your family, kins and others, to the extent you and them can be sold as chattel slaves, sex slaves, etc.?

Right, now this argument is utterly fallacious: 'people don't want to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong'. If the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness is 'what people want', then if people want to enslave others, slavery is not morally wrong. And if 50% of people want to enslave others, and 50% don't, then slavery is half morally right and half morally wrong. The whole idea is absurd.

And worse: the nature of a fact - a true factual assertion - is that its truth is independent from what people think. For example, if 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact, then whether people think it is - and how many think it is - are completely irrelevant. - Just as, in the context of chemistry, that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is a fact, regardless of what people think - because there's empirical evidence for that fact.

I cannot imagine that you will agree to the above, i.e. slavery is not morally wrong.
Surely you personally as a modern normal human being will agree slavery is morally wrong??
If you agree to that, that is your direct empirical evidence.
You can confirm the above empirical evidence with your family, kins, friends, colleagues and if they are 'normal' will provide the empirical evidence to further support the point, slavery is morally wrong.

Unless you are autistic and mentally ill, you will be very convinced all normal human beings will not voluntarily want to be enslaved by another human.
If you are so pedantic, do a poll with sampling from all over the world.

Look up the argument from popularity fallacy.

There are many other empirical evidences from history and present why slavery is morally wrong.
There is so much of empirically evident acts of evil and sufferings associated with slavery. Are you insisting such terrible evil acts and suffering related to slavery are not morally wrong.

No - these are not 'empirical evidences' for the moral wrongness of slavery being a fact. All you're saying is: slavery is morally wrong because it has caused and causes terrible human suffering. (Which I agree, of course.) But then, why is causing terrible human suffering morally wrong? And is that a fact? In other words, you're merely pushing the explanation for a moral judgement back to another moral judgement. And that can keep going back and back for ever, never reaching an actual empirical fact. At bottom is always a moral judgement or principle.

The other is the argument from the principles of basic human dignity.

Another is the Golden Rule.

There are other justifications why slavery is morally wrong is a moral fact.

QED. And btw, the Golden Rule is an imperative, so it can't be a fact - a declarative - anyway. And in declarative form - it is morally right to 'do as you would be done-by' - is just another moral assertion, for which, as usual, there is and can be no empirical evidence.

If the only empirical evidence you have for your claim that there are moral facts - such as 'slavery is morally wrong' - is that people think slavery is morally wrong - then you have no empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery.

And the difference between morality and chemistry is clear. The evidence for the factual assertion that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is not 'everyone thinks it is' - the evidence is genuinely empirical - there really is a feature of reality involved. And calling the chemical fact a contextual 'polished conjecture' is neither here nor there, because water and gases are real things, unlike moral rightness and wrongness, which are not independent features of reality.

Why do you find this so hard to understand?

[Sculptor]

And the difference between morality and chemistry is clear. The evidence for the factual assertion that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is not 'everyone thinks it is' - the evidence is genuinely empirical ...

Why do you find this so hard to understand?

I think this point best ellucidates VA's failure to understand his own position.

[surreptitious57]

What anyone calls a fact is up to them

Actually its not because a fact by default has to be objectively true and also capable of demonstration
Anything else is just an opinion - now it may be an informed opinion but thats all it is and nothing else

[surreptitious57]

the only empirical evidence you have for your claim that there are moral facts - such as slavery is morally wrong - is
that people think slavery is morally wrong - then you have no empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery

Morality is subjective but facts are objective so there can be no causation between the two
Facts can be the foundation for morality but this is entirely arbitrary and not at all absolute

From knowledge can come different moral philosophies which are contradictory or incompatible
Furthermore a moral philosophy such as moral nihilism denies the very existence of any morality

From its perspective slavery was neither right or wrong but other moralities would claim it was definitely wrong and so which one is right ?
The logical connection between knowledge and morality is therefore rather loose and the term moral facts is so loose as to be an oxymoron

[henry quirk]

by my reckoning henry's a heartless bounder

I'm dishonorable?


and by his, I'm a meddling commie bastard.

I throw commie around, but -- no -- I don't think you wanna leash anyone.

[henry quirk]

0A63BEE4-3009-4766-A6D5-500D6A3161BE.jpeg

[henry quirk]

you have an intuitive feel for a moral fact in terms of "a man belongs to himself".

True. I believe it's a universal intuition, common to all men (persons, includin' women and children and mebbe some other high order animals). I believe this intuition or certainty is fundamental to personhood.

[henry quirk]

So if you think homosexuality or is immoral or evil, or that the USA is the Great Satan, and you think those are facts, then you can justify to yourself killing homosexuals, or flying planes into US buidings.

You use this example/reasoning a lot and I'm not sure why. You seem to be sayin' only moral realists are capable of depravity. But surely that can't be what you mean.


Moral objectivism is fundamentally evil.

Good lord but that's an extreme statement.

What that means, it seems: is that I, as a moral realist am prone to evil acts, while you, the moral non-realist are not.

I think, Pete, you're prejudiced.

[Gary Childress]

Your thinking is too rhetorical and perverted.

If you use the term 'opinion' in such a rhetorical manner, then note this;

I have always argued,

Scientific facts are also a matter of opinions, i.e. conjectures to start with.
It is only that such opinions/conjectures got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Scientific Framework and System, that they are accepted as facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

If you insist,
"Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion"
then, as with Scientific facts from opinions/conjectures,
Moral Facts are opinions/conjectures that got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Moral Framework and System, that they are accepted as Justified True Moral Facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].


How can the moral maxim with the moral FSK,
'no human ought to kill another'
logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

This is why. People who think there are moral facts think their own moral opinions are facts. Big surprise.

So if you think homosexuality or is immoral or evil, or that the USA is the Great Satan, and you think those are facts, then you can justify to yourself killing homosexuals, or flying planes into US buidings. Or if you think other species are outside the scope of human moral concern - that that's a fact - then you can justify subjugating and abusing those species. Moral objectivism is fundamentally evil.

I'm not understanding on what basis you seem to be declaring that "moral objectivism is fundamentally evil". You seem to deny VA the ability to make objective moral claims, and then you seem to turn around and make one yourself. How or why is moral objectivism fundamentally evil?

[Peter Holmes]

So if you think homosexuality or is immoral or evil, or that the USA is the Great Satan, and you think those are facts, then you can justify to yourself killing homosexuals, or flying planes into US buidings.

You use this example/reasoning a lot and I'm not sure why. You seem to be sayin' only moral realists are capable of depravity. But surely that can't be what you mean.


Moral objectivism is fundamentally evil.

Good lord but that's an extreme statement.

What that means, it seems: is that I, as a moral realist am prone to evil acts, while you, the moral non-realist are not.

I think, Pete, you're prejudiced.

Understood, Henry. And sorry if that's what I seem to be saying. Not so at all.

What I'm saying is, if you believe your moral opinions are facts - so that no different opinions matter - and if, what's worse, you think the creator of the universe agrees with your moral opinions, which means they must be facts - then all rational moral disagreement, debate and change is finished.

The slavers in the Confederacy believed their right to enslave coloured people was a moral fact, endorsed by their buybull god. I'm not saying they wouldn't have been wicked had they not felt morally justified - that their moral opinions were facts. But it takes that belief for otherwise probably good people to do wicked things, such as fly planes into buildings, etc.

The evil of moral objectivism is its function as an enabling belief. Without it, opinions over the moral rightness and wrongness of actions is open to rational argument and, mercifully, improvement. For most of our history, people didn't think slavery is morally wrong. But now, most of us do. Has there been a factual change?

A common expression in the US is 'doing the right thing', as though there is or can be no disagreement as to what 'the right thing' is. It's rhetorically powerful: of course we all know what the right thing is. But is executing a criminal 'doing the right thing'? Is that a fact?

[uwot]

What anyone calls a fact is up to them

Actually its not because a fact by default has to be objectively true and also capable of demonstration
Anything else is just an opinion - now it may be an informed opinion but thats all it is and nothing else

Well the problem with facts is that if you are going to insist that they have to be beyond any doubt, you are compelled to follow Descartes down the rabbit hole to where the only thing that is certain is the thought you are having at that particular moment. It is conceivable that everything is an idea in the mind of some god, as Berkeley argued, or that we are living in a computer simulation, which Nick Bostrom claims is overwhelmingly likely. I agree that something or other is the case and in that sense is the sort of fact you demand, the trouble is there is no way of telling what that fact is. Everything you care to call a fact is contingent on the model you happen to choose.

[Gary Childress]

For most of our history, people didn't think slavery is morally wrong. But now, most of us do. Has there been a factual change?

I'd say there may indeed have been a factual change. When it was discovered that arguments asserting that blacks were "less" than or else somehow fundamentally different than whites--were in fact wrong, then it undermined the institution of chattel slavery. Chattel slavery depended upon an erroneous fact, that the slaves were less than the rest of the human species. When that fell apart, so did chattel slavery. That seems like moral progress to me. In fact, it seems like the ingredients for the abolition of chattel slavery were there all along but depended upon a further fact (that blacks were fundamentally the same as whites) in order to become clear.

[uwot]

A Moral Framework and System is just like the Scientific Framework and System with all its relevant structures, processes, principles, assumptions, limitations, rules, etc.

In that case it is contingent, subject to change and not objective. In other words, it's precisely the sort of "Moral Framework and System" that everyone gets by with already.

Initial moral opinions or beliefs can also be polished [with justifications, testing, verifications, etc.] up to a very fine level like what is Science is doing to its conjectures.

And there you have it - scientific conjectures are just that: so is any moral pronouncement.