What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

ROTFL
DO you deny that some people absolutely enjoy sodomy?

You are trying to be rhetorical and deceptive in the above.
I did not make 'anal-sex' the issue here.

You brought up sodomy NOT me.
If you can't defend it, then I suggest you don't mention it.

"Sodomy" implied 'force' is used against the victim's will.

No. Not if you enjoy it.
When did it get all too much for you?

What about the 'torturing' and 'killing' I mentioned above which are more morally serious.

I understand several countries validate torture as a legal practice.
Killing is quite common. It is not only legal to kill other animals but in many barbaric countries such as the USA it is perfectly legal to kill citizens.
But I still stand by my statement.
It is perfectly moral to torture and kill with consent.

You are ignorant on the issue thus you are conflating morality and politics.
Morality is independent of politics albeit there are interactions.
This is why we have a Philosophy of Morality and Philosophy of Politics.

[/color]
You are wrong on the above.
What is objective with morality is independent of the individuals' feelings, opinion, and beliefs.

What is OBJECTIVE. Denies peoples consent, and their feelings.
That is why I remain a moral subjectivist. And why your remain unimaginitive.

How come you are so ignorant on this and so insistent when I have given you the basic definition of what is objectivity, see,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

You can counter-check with your buddies Peter Holmes and PantFlasher on this basic definition.

You also need to research on what is Moral Subjectivism.

[Sculptor]

The amount of useful and relevant text on the subject of "What could make morality objective?", by Veritas Aequitas., is hereby entereed below....

...

[Peter Holmes]

Picking up one of Sculptor's points about consent as the moral criterion: that what people do and don't want for themselves is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness. For example, if people want to be tortured, it's morally right to torture them.

Does anyone here agree - and if not, why not?

And does any moral objectivist here want to argue that this is evidence for the existence of moral facts? Because it seems to me, to the contrary, evidence for the subjectivity of morality - that what's morally right and wrong is merely what we want for ourselves, and maybe others.

[Belinda]

Picking up one of Sculptor's points about consent as the moral criterion: that what people do and don't want for themselves is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness. For example, if people want to be tortured, it's morally right to torture them.

Does anyone here agree - and if not, why not?

And does any moral objectivist here want to argue that this is evidence for the existence of moral facts? Because it seems to me, to the contrary, evidence for the subjectivity of morality - that what's morally right and wrong is merely what we want for ourselves, and maybe others.

Torture is wrong because not only does the victim suffer but also the torturer does violence to his own psyche.

[Peter Holmes]

Picking up one of Sculptor's points about consent as the moral criterion: that what people do and don't want for themselves is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness. For example, if people want to be tortured, it's morally right to torture them.

Does anyone here agree - and if not, why not?

And does any moral objectivist here want to argue that this is evidence for the existence of moral facts? Because it seems to me, to the contrary, evidence for the subjectivity of morality - that what's morally right and wrong is merely what we want for ourselves, and maybe others.

Torture is wrong because not only does the victim suffer but also the torturer does violence to his own psyche.

Thanks. But what if the victim and torturor want to suffer? If you think torture would still be wrong, I assume you disagree that 'what people want' is a criterion for moral rightness and wrongness - which is a criterion that VA asserts. And that's what I'm getting at.

And, beyond that - is the wrongness of causing suffering a moral fact, or a matter of opinion? If, as I understand, you think it's a moral fact, what evidence is there for that supposed fact?

[henry quirk]

if people want to be tortured, it's morally right to torture them.

not as I reckon it

see, I have this wacky idea that a man belongs to himself, that he is his own, so it's wrong to use him him as property or resource, even if he has a screw loose and actually craves some good, old-fashioned battery leads on the testicles kinda lovin'

at heart, morality is not about an obligation to do but, instead, is about an obligation to not do; morality isn't treat a man as property if he craves it, it's don't treat a man as property, even if he craves it

yes, pete, I know: that's opinion, not fact!

[Peter Holmes]

if people want to be tortured, it's morally right to torture them.

not as I reckon it

see, I have this wacky idea that a man belongs to himself, that he is his own, so it's wrong to use him him as property or resource, even if he has a screw loose and actually craves some good, old-fashioned battery leads on the testicles kinda lovin'

at heart, morality is not about an obligation to do but, instead, is about an obligation to not do; morality isn't treat a man as property if he craves it, it's don't treat a man as property, even if he craves it

yes, pete, I know: that's opinion, not fact!

Thanks, Henry. And I agree with you that 'what people want' isn't a criterion for moral rightness and wrongness. For example, the fact that normal people don't want to be enslaved doesn't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong. And, for example, the fact that normal people don't want to be killed doesn't make it a fact that a human ought not to kill another human.

[henry quirk]

Thanks, Henry. And I agree with you that 'what people want' isn't a criterion for moral rightness and wrongness. For example, the fact that normal people don't want to be enslaved doesn't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong. And, for example, the fact that normal people don't want to be killed doesn't make it a fact that a human ought not to kill another human.

continuin' with my wacky notions: it's not about folks, normal or not, not wantin' to be slaves

as I say elsewhere: it's perfectly natural & normal for a man to see himself as his own...it's as VA sez, an intuition, a universal one...no man craves the leash, not even the slaver, as he sells men, would agree to be on the auction block...this ownness (wacky name for a wacky notion) isn't a desire or a choice or a good idea anymore than bilateral symmetry is a desire or a choice or a good idea..bilateral symmetry is a fact about a man, as is, I think, ownness

and, it seems to me, extendin' out from this fact comes the moral fact that it's wrong to use a man as property or resource

but, of course, you already know my thinkin' in this (how many times have we ridden this merry go 'round?), and I know yours

-----

[Belinda]

Picking up one of Sculptor's points about consent as the moral criterion: that what people do and don't want for themselves is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness. For example, if people want to be tortured, it's morally right to torture them.

Does anyone here agree - and if not, why not?

And does any moral objectivist here want to argue that this is evidence for the existence of moral facts? Because it seems to me, to the contrary, evidence for the subjectivity of morality - that what's morally right and wrong is merely what we want for ourselves, and maybe others.

Torture is wrong because not only does the victim suffer but also the torturer does violence to his own psyche.

Thanks. But what if the victim and torturor want to suffer? If you think torture would still be wrong, I assume you disagree that 'what people want' is a criterion for moral rightness and wrongness - which is a criterion that VA asserts. And that's what I'm getting at.

And, beyond that - is the wrongness of causing suffering a moral fact, or a matter of opinion? If, as I understand, you think it's a moral fact, what evidence is there for that supposed fact?

Sado -masochism can damage your health.

[Peter Holmes]

Torture is wrong because not only does the victim suffer but also the torturer does violence to his own psyche.

Thanks. But what if the victim and torturor want to suffer? If you think torture would still be wrong, I assume you disagree that 'what people want' is a criterion for moral rightness and wrongness - which is a criterion that VA asserts. And that's what I'm getting at.

And, beyond that - is the wrongness of causing suffering a moral fact, or a matter of opinion? If, as I understand, you think it's a moral fact, what evidence is there for that supposed fact?

Sado -masochism can damage your health.

Maybe. But is damaging your health morally wrong? And if so, why?

I think you're citing a fact and assuming it entails - or even just induces - a moral conclusion. It doesn't and can't.

[Belinda]

Thanks. But what if the victim and torturor want to suffer? If you think torture would still be wrong, I assume you disagree that 'what people want' is a criterion for moral rightness and wrongness - which is a criterion that VA asserts. And that's what I'm getting at.

And, beyond that - is the wrongness of causing suffering a moral fact, or a matter of opinion? If, as I understand, you think it's a moral fact, what evidence is there for that supposed fact?

Sado -masochism can damage your health.

Maybe. But is damaging your health morally wrong? And if so, why?

I think you're citing a fact and assuming it entails - or even just induces - a moral conclusion. It doesn't and can't.

Damaging your health is morally wrong if your moral criterion is being a helpful useful citizen to the best of your ability.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks. But what if the victim and torturor want to suffer? If you think torture would still be wrong, I assume you disagree that 'what people want' is a criterion for moral rightness and wrongness - which is a criterion that VA asserts. And that's what I'm getting at.

And, beyond that - is the wrongness of causing suffering a moral fact, or a matter of opinion? If, as I understand, you think it's a moral fact, what evidence is there for that supposed fact?

Sado -masochism can damage your health.

Maybe. But is damaging your health morally wrong? And if so, why?

I think you're citing a fact and assuming it entails - or even just induces - a moral conclusion. It doesn't and can't.

Ignorant as usual.

Whatever is a moral conclusion, fact or truth, it has to be justified [empirically and philosophically] within a moral framework and system.
Obviously within a Moral FSK, we need an effective definition for what is 'Morality'.

Generally [there are more specific ones] morality is defined as;

• Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

to the above, I extend it to ... "which has an impact [of various degrees] on the well-being of the individual, groups and species."

We cannot generalize here, but where sado-machochism qualified to specific acts are proven to be damaging to one's health and well-being with the possibility of fatality/death, then those specific acts are morally wrong as qualified to the Moral FSK.
However we need to note the degree of moral-wrongness of sado-machochism, say in contrast to premeditated murder.

Note also, justified true moral facts from within a Moral Framework and System are not to be enforced on any individual externally but merely to be taken as a GUIDE and standard for personal moral development.

[Sculptor]

Sado -masochism can damage your health.

Maybe. But is damaging your health morally wrong? And if so, why?

I think you're citing a fact and assuming it entails - or even just induces - a moral conclusion. It doesn't and can't.

Ignorant as usual.

Whatever is a moral conclusion, fact or truth, it has to be justified [empirically and philosophically] within a moral framework and system.
Obviously within a Moral FSK, we need an effective definition for what is 'Morality'.

Generally [there are more specific ones] morality is defined as;

• Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

to the above, I extend it to ... "which has an impact [of various degrees] on the well-being of the individual, groups and species."

We cannot generalize here, but where sado-machochism qualified to specific acts are proven to be damaging to one's health and well-being with the possibility of fatality/death, then those specific acts are morally wrong as qualified to the Moral FSK.
However we need to note the degree of moral-wrongness of sado-machochism, say in contrast to premeditated murder.

As per usual you are missing the point. Answer the question, "What is morally wrong with damaging your health?"

Note also, justified true moral facts from within a Moral Framework and System are not to be enforced on any individual externally but merely to be taken as a GUIDE and standard for personal moral development.

When you try to answer the question, you will find yourself locked in a logical regression with no objective answer.
Give it a try!
I dare you!

[Peter Holmes]

Sado -masochism can damage your health.

Maybe. But is damaging your health morally wrong? And if so, why?

I think you're citing a fact and assuming it entails - or even just induces - a moral conclusion. It doesn't and can't.

Ignorant as usual.

Whatever is a moral conclusion, fact or truth, it has to be justified [empirically and philosophically] within a moral framework and system.
Obviously within a Moral FSK, we need an effective definition for what is 'Morality'.

Generally [there are more specific ones] morality is defined as;

• Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

to the above, I extend it to ... "which has an impact [of various degrees] on the well-being of the individual, groups and species."

We cannot generalize here, but where sado-machochism qualified to specific acts are proven to be damaging to one's health and well-being with the possibility of fatality/death, then those specific acts are morally wrong as qualified to the Moral FSK.
However we need to note the degree of moral-wrongness of sado-machochism, say in contrast to premeditated murder.

Note also, justified true moral facts from within a Moral Framework and System are not to be enforced on any individual externally but merely to be taken as a GUIDE and standard for personal moral development.

Within the chemical 'system and framework of knowledge', what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and what we call hydrogen. And that is an empirically verifiable fact, because it's a feature of reality. The reality comes first, then our knowledge of that reality, then our way of describing it. To say the fact exists because of the chemical FSK is to get things back to front.

Similarly, to say there are moral facts because of a supposed moral FSK is to get things back to front. A supposed moral reality has to come first, then our knowledge of that supposed reality, then supposedly our way of describing it. The only way to establish a moral FSK is to demonstrate the empirically verifiable existence of a moral reality, consisting of moral things - moral rightness and wrongness or 'properness' and 'improperness'.

But instead of doing that, you merely repeat endlessly that there are empirically verified moral facts within a moral FSK. Instead of demonstrating it, as we can in chemistry, that water is H2O - that that's a feature of reality - you just repeat your religious dogma that there are moral facts. Faith without evidence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Maybe. But is damaging your health morally wrong? And if so, why?

I think you're citing a fact and assuming it entails - or even just induces - a moral conclusion. It doesn't and can't.

Ignorant as usual.

Whatever is a moral conclusion, fact or truth, it has to be justified [empirically and philosophically] within a moral framework and system.
Obviously within a Moral FSK, we need an effective definition for what is 'Morality'.

Generally [there are more specific ones] morality is defined as;

• Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

to the above, I extend it to ... "which has an impact [of various degrees] on the well-being of the individual, groups and species."

We cannot generalize here, but where sado-machochism qualified to specific acts are proven to be damaging to one's health and well-being with the possibility of fatality/death, then those specific acts are morally wrong as qualified to the Moral FSK.
However we need to note the degree of moral-wrongness of sado-machochism, say in contrast to premeditated murder.

As per usual you are missing the point. Answer the question, "What is morally wrong with damaging your health?"

Note also, justified true moral facts from within a Moral Framework and System are not to be enforced on any individual externally but merely to be taken as a GUIDE and standard for personal moral development.

When you try to answer the question, you will find yourself locked in a logical regression with no objective answer.
Give it a try!
I dare you!

I have stated a "1000" times,
what is fact [the reality-referent and assertion] is specific to a Framework and System of Knowledge.
The Moral FSK deals with the right and wrong of morality [as defined].
Whatever ought not to be acted upon is morally wrong with a Moral FSK.
This is independent of individuals beliefs and opinion, thus objective.

What you always missed out is the concept of the specific FSK, in this case the Moral FSK.

The damaging of any human's health is an 'ought-not' within a Moral FSK.
Therefore damaging of any human's health is morally wrong.

Note, all normal humans will expect good health.
No normal person will volunteer to avoid good health, i.e. seek sickness.