What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

Deterministic .

Not at all. Neither Henry nor I. Neither one of us think God micromanages the universe for us. Determinism would require that He does.

That is true. I guessed somebody would say "But Free Will".

Maybe that's because it's predictable. The right answer often is.

[henry quirk]

Bring back democracy and open government.

no, bury mob rule in the backyard and obliterate gov

[Sculptor]

Deterministic .

Not at all. Neither Henry nor I. Neither one of us think God micromanages the universe for us. Determinism would require that He does.

No it does not.
You and people like you confuse the idea of he will with two distinct magisteria. One is poltical and the other is epistomological. Epistomological determinism has very little to do with political freewill.
God has nothing to do with either. SInce it is an empty concept.

[Belinda]

Not at all. Neither Henry nor I. Neither one of us think God micromanages the universe for us. Determinism would require that He does.

That is true. I guessed somebody would say "But Free Will".

you beat me to the punch, B...free will is exactly what I woulda brought up...good on you: you're learnin'

we both love freedom, Henry, but we differ as to the best way to get it. There are bad people who would take away not only your goods but your human rights, and you need to deputise and pay people to protect you with laws, police, and the army.

[henry quirk]

That is true. I guessed somebody would say "But Free Will".

you beat me to the punch, B...free will is exactly what I woulda brought up...good on you: you're learnin'

we both love freedom, Henry, but we differ as to the best way to get it. There are bad people who would take away not only your goods but your human rights, and you need to deputise and pay people to protect you with laws, police, and the army.

good lord, B, have you read anything I've posted, ever?

[Immanuel Can]

Epistomological determinism

You've got your terms wrong. Determinism isn't a "epistemology."

It's either an actuality, or it's not. That's all there is to it.

[Belinda]

you beat me to the punch, B...free will is exactly what I woulda brought up...good on you: you're learnin'

we both love freedom, Henry, but we differ as to the best way to get it. There are bad people who would take away not only your goods but your human rights, and you need to deputise and pay people to protect you with laws, police, and the army.

good lord, B, have you read anything I've posted, ever?

Sorry. Do you mean you would pay people for services as and when you need them? Public servants have to be trained, and financed and all this requires organisation.

[Sculptor]

Epistomological determinism

You've got your terms wrong. Determinism isn't a "epistemology."

It's either an actuality, or it's not. That's all there is to it.

Yawn!

[henry quirk]

we both love freedom, Henry, but we differ as to the best way to get it. There are bad people who would take away not only your goods but your human rights, and you need to deputise and pay people to protect you with laws, police, and the army.

good lord, B, have you read anything I've posted, ever?

Sorry. Do you mean you would pay people for services as and when you need them? Public servants have to be trained, and financed and all this requires organisation.

for years we've been makin' with the back & forth and you ask me this

bye, B

[Veritas Aequitas]

What??
Note the "1000" of times I have provided the necessary empirically and philosophically verified true moral facts [conditional feature of reality]. I have dealt with the examples of 'all humans ought-not to kill another" and 'no human ought to enslave another as a chattel'.

Codswallop. Your ontological blather is a diversion. You claim that there are empirically verifiable moral facts, such as that no human ought to kill another. So yours is the burden of proving such a thing exists.

You've provided no evidence for the claim that 'no human ought to kill another' is an empirically verifiable moral fact. To say it exists within a morality FSK merely begs the question. All you're saying is: it's a fact that no human ought to kill another human because, in the morality FSK, it's a fact that no human ought to kill another human. And all the reasons you offer for why it's a moral fact - for example, that we're programmed with ought-not-to-kill - are specious.

Try this claim: it's a fact that water is H2O because, in the chemistry FSK, it's a fact that water is H2O. (Oh, okay.That nails it.)

Your argument for the existence of moral facts is utterly ridiculous.

So you accept the fact, Water is H2O is conditional within the Chemistry FSK?
The fact that water is H20 is empirically verifiable within the Chemistry FSK.
Generally whatever is fact [feature of reality] is conditional upon a FSK.

Therefore moral facts [features of reality] are conditional upon a Moral FSK.

Are you insisting moral facts from Moral FSK are empirically impossible to be real?

How can you deny all normal humans are "programmed' with an ought-not-to-kill?
You can personally confirm it within yourself - you deny this?
You nor anyone cannot deny this 'program' is represented by a neural algorithm within the brain.

Obviously we cannot expect the empirical the justification of moral facts to be like the the empirical verification of H2O of physical science.
It is evident from common sense and all records, no normal humans would volunteer to be murdered by another human.
Whilst morality is not physical science, this can be inductively proven via various methods as with psychological facts within a psychological FSK i.e. Applied Science.

The above is sufficient to justify the existence of moral facts within a moral FSK.
Note there are many other methods of justifying the moral facts from within a moral FSK to reinforce the reality of the moral facts.

Note the secondary evidence, hint and clue;
in a survey of philosophers, 56% accept moral realism, i.e. there are moral facts which are objective.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

You are making noises in claiming my justification is specious.
Demonstrate why my claims of moral facts as above cannot be facts [moral] and are objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Thanks for your persistence in this subjective nonsense. Your "specific" FSK, whatever the F that might be is a SUBJECTIVE framework.
So i'll ask again; " Answer the question, "What is objectively morally wrong with damaging your health?"

Scientific facts/truths are inferred from a specific Scientific FSK.
In a way, all FSKs are represented by subjects, i.e. a Scientific FSK is represented by scientists.
However whatever in inferred by the subjects are conditioned upon the FSK and not the individual subjects.
Since they are not conditioned by the individual subjects' opinion and beliefs, scientific facts/truth are objective.
Whilst scientific facts are objective, [do you deny they are objective?], they are ultimately based on interSUBJECTive consensus, thus essentially subjective.

The Moral FSK is based on the core principles as the Scientific FSK.
If Scientific facts from a specific scientific FSK is objective - intersubjective,
then, moral facts from a specific moral FSK is objective - intersubjective.

This moral fact is not the opinion nor belief of any individual subject.
Since 'no human ought to damage his/her health' is a moral fact, therefore it is objective.

Can you demonstrate why the above moral fact is not objective?

[Peter Holmes]

What??
Note the "1000" of times I have provided the necessary empirically and philosophically verified true moral facts [conditional feature of reality]. I have dealt with the examples of 'all humans ought-not to kill another" and 'no human ought to enslave another as a chattel'.

Codswallop. Your ontological blather is a diversion. You claim that there are empirically verifiable moral facts, such as that no human ought to kill another. So yours is the burden of proving such a thing exists.

You've provided no evidence for the claim that 'no human ought to kill another' is an empirically verifiable moral fact. To say it exists within a morality FSK merely begs the question. All you're saying is: it's a fact that no human ought to kill another human because, in the morality FSK, it's a fact that no human ought to kill another human. And all the reasons you offer for why it's a moral fact - for example, that we're programmed with ought-not-to-kill - are specious.

Try this claim: it's a fact that water is H2O because, in the chemistry FSK, it's a fact that water is H2O. (Oh, okay.That nails it.)

Your argument for the existence of moral facts is utterly ridiculous.

So you accept the fact, Water is H2O is conditional within the Chemistry FSK?
The fact that water is H20 is empirically verifiable within the Chemistry FSK.
Generally whatever is fact [feature of reality] is conditional upon a FSK.

Yes. I've always agreed that a factual assertion - any truth-claim - is contextual and conventional. I've been citing the 'water is H2O' claim as an example. But what makes this factual assertion true? It isn't the 'chemistry FSK' that makes it true. No, no. Because, if that were true, any description could produce facts. No, no. The claim 'water is H2O' is true BECAUSE IT ASSERTS A FEATURE OF REALITY THAT IS THE CASE. And that's why it's empirically verifiable.

Therefore moral facts [features of reality] are conditional upon a Moral FSK.

Are you insisting moral facts from Moral FSK are empirically impossible to be real?

No. I'm insisting that you demonstrate the existence of moral facts in the first place. Pending that demonstration, talk of a moral FSK is vacuous. You agree that not all assertions are factual. So you have to demonstrate the factual nature of moral assertions. To do which so far you've failed.

How can you deny all normal humans are "programmed' with an ought-not-to-kill?
You can personally confirm it within yourself - you deny this?
You nor anyone cannot deny this 'program' is represented by a neural algorithm within the brain.

(How many times?) Your claim is this: we're programmed with ought-not-to-kill; therefore killing is morally wrong. And this is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The claim that we ought to follow our programming has no moral significance. Why ought we to follow our programming? Could it be morally wrong to follow our programming? The fact that you offer this as evidence for the exsitence of a moral fact shows that you really don't understand the issue. It's useless.

Obviously we cannot expect the empirical the justification of moral facts to be like the the empirical verification of H2O of physical science.
It is evident from common sense and all records, no normal humans would volunteer to be murdered by another human.
Whilst morality is not physical science, this can be inductively proven via various methods as with psychological facts within a psychological FSK i.e. Applied Science.

The above is sufficient to justify the existence of moral facts within a moral FSK.
Note there are many other methods of justifying the moral facts from within a moral FSK to reinforce the reality of the moral facts.

Note the secondary evidence, hint and clue;
in a survey of philosophers, 56% accept moral realism, i.e. there are moral facts which are objective.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

You are making noises in claiming my justification is specious.
Demonstrate why my claims of moral facts as above cannot be facts [moral] and are objective?

Answer this question. Could the claim 'no human ought to kill another' be false? And if so, what would have to be different for it to be false?

I'll wait till you answer this question.

[Sculptor]

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.

Thanks for your persistence in this subjective nonsense. Your "specific" FSK, whatever the F that might be is a SUBJECTIVE framework.
So i'll ask again; " Answer the question, "What is objectively morally wrong with damaging your health?"

Scientific facts/truths are inferred from a specific Scientific FSK.
In a way, all FSKs are represented by subjects, i.e. a Scientific FSK is represented by scientists.
However whatever in inferred by the subjects are conditioned upon the FSK and not the individual subjects.
Since they are not conditioned by the individual subjects' opinion and beliefs, scientific facts/truth are objective.
Whilst scientific facts are objective, [do you deny they are objective?], they are ultimately based on interSUBJECTive consensus, thus essentially subjective.

The Moral FSK is based on the core principles as the Scientific FSK.
If Scientific facts from a specific scientific FSK is objective - intersubjective,
then, moral facts from a specific moral FSK is objective - intersubjective.

This moral fact is not the opinion nor belief of any individual subject.
Since 'no human ought to damage his/her health' is a moral fact, therefore it is objective.

Can you demonstrate why the above moral fact is not objective?

Answer the question, "What is objectively morally wrong with damaging your health?"

You have only justified that with your personal opinions. You FSK is subjective, and so everything that emerges from it is also.
Your argument rests on an unfounded assumption that human life has great value. All value judgements are subjective, therefore every statement that relies on that valuation is also subject to that opinion.

I assert that the world would be a better place for the evolution of the living world if there were no humans at all. Thus human life , far from having a value, has value only in the negative. And the removal of all humans is the only way to restore the living world.
Prove that is not objective!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Codswallop. Your ontological blather is a diversion. You claim that there are empirically verifiable moral facts, such as that no human ought to kill another. So yours is the burden of proving such a thing exists.

You've provided no evidence for the claim that 'no human ought to kill another' is an empirically verifiable moral fact. To say it exists within a morality FSK merely begs the question. All you're saying is: it's a fact that no human ought to kill another human because, in the morality FSK, it's a fact that no human ought to kill another human. And all the reasons you offer for why it's a moral fact - for example, that we're programmed with ought-not-to-kill - are specious.

Try this claim: it's a fact that water is H2O because, in the chemistry FSK, it's a fact that water is H2O. (Oh, okay.That nails it.)

Your argument for the existence of moral facts is utterly ridiculous.

So you accept the fact, Water is H2O is conditional within the Chemistry FSK?
The fact that water is H20 is empirically verifiable within the Chemistry FSK.
Generally whatever is fact [feature of reality] is conditional upon a FSK.

Yes. I've always agreed that a factual assertion - any truth-claim - is contextual and conventional. I've been citing the 'water is H2O' claim as an example. But what makes this factual assertion true? It isn't the 'chemistry FSK' that makes it true. No, no. Because, if that were true, any description could produce facts. No, no. The claim 'water is H2O' is true BECAUSE IT ASSERTS A FEATURE OF REALITY THAT IS THE CASE. And that's why it's empirically verifiable.

No.. no.. no.. any description do not support ['produce' is messy] facts and truths until they are verified and justified within its specific FSK.

Note a Framework and System of knowledge is very complex web of things stretching from our human state to our-4-billion-years of evolutionary history.

A FSK establishes facts and truths with its inherent "4-billion-years of evolutionary history" then starting from experiences, observations and other factors but without any real direct consideration to "A FEATURE OF REALITY THAT IS THE CASE".

At most is 'whatever is reality' is merely ASSUMED within the Scientific FSK as a limit but never as a reality.

The Scientific FSK starts from empirical evidences from experiences, observations, then rely on abduction. hypothesis and induction to arrive at a conclusion of what is real but never knowing whether there is a real reality or real feature of reality that is the case which is ASSUMED.

Remember, realized scientific facts and truths from a scientific FSK is at best merely polished conjectures but that is the best we can be realized of reality.
To reify the ASSUMPTION made by the scientific FSK is illusional and to insist upon it is delusional.

Note;

• Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

But that reality that is approximated in merely ASSUMED.
When it is ASSUMED [thought], it can be possible to be false or wrong.

Because what is really-real is merely ASSUMED [which can be false], what is the real fact has to be tied to the specific FSK.

As such in your case, "water is true" because is it empirically verified and justified grounded on the ASSUMPTION of a real feature of reality that is the case.
Because it is merely an assumption, to insist an assumption is real is illusory.

Whereas in my case, whatever is reality and real is conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Btw, conditioned-upon-the-FSK is not merely thinking and inferring it, but it refers to a spontaneous emergence upon a complex set of conditions.

Therefore moral facts [features of reality] are conditional upon a Moral FSK.

Are you insisting moral facts from Moral FSK are empirically impossible to be real?

No. I'm insisting that you demonstrate the existence of moral facts in the first place. Pending that demonstration, talk of a moral FSK is vacuous. You agree that not all assertions are factual. So you have to demonstrate the factual nature of moral assertions. To do which so far you've failed.

I have already presented my basis of verification and justification of moral facts.

How can you deny all normal humans are "programmed' with an ought-not-to-kill?
You can personally confirm it within yourself - you deny this?
You nor anyone cannot deny this 'program' is represented by a neural algorithm within the brain.

(How many times?) Your claim is this: we're programmed with ought-not-to-kill; therefore killing is morally wrong. And this is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The claim that we ought to follow our programming has no moral significance. Why ought we to follow our programming? Could it be morally wrong to follow our programming? The fact that you offer this as evidence for the exsitence of a moral fact shows that you really don't understand the issue. It's useless.

You are the one who is ignorant of the whole issue because your thinking is too shallow, narrow and bigoted.

I have already stated what is moral fact is conditioned within a complex Moral FSK and I have provided verifications and justifications within a Moral FSK that moral fact exists.

Within a Moral FSK, you are at present having some degrees of moral competence when you are in alignment with your inherent "ought-not-to-kill" program.
You are naturally "coded" and "programmed" to adhere to this "ought-not-to-kill" code.
This is why you do not go about killing other humans and I am you are confident and presumed you will NOT want to kill another human in your whole life. This is the Moral FSK at work.

But it is possible you could kill another human later in your life when your inherent "ought-not-to-kill" program is weakened and damaged by various causes, then you could kill another human.
If you suddenly has the urge to kill someone, seriously planned to kill someone, and when you kill another human in the future as planned or based on immediate impulses, then that is morally wrong as qualified within a Moral FSK.
In addition you also had committed a crime in accordance to the legal FSK.

Obviously we cannot expect the empirical the justification of moral facts to be like the the empirical verification of H2O of physical science.
It is evident from common sense and all records, no normal humans would volunteer to be murdered by another human.
Whilst morality is not physical science, this can be inductively proven via various methods as with psychological facts within a psychological FSK i.e. Applied Science.

The above is sufficient to justify the existence of moral facts within a moral FSK.
Note there are many other methods of justifying the moral facts from within a moral FSK to reinforce the reality of the moral facts.

Note the secondary evidence, hint and clue;
in a survey of philosophers, 56% accept moral realism, i.e. there are moral facts which are objective.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

You are making noises in claiming my justification is specious.
Demonstrate why my claims of moral facts as above cannot be facts [moral] and are objective?

Answer this question. Could the claim 'no human ought to kill another' be false? And if so, what would have to be different for it to be false?
I'll wait till you answer this question.

At the present it is already happening where psychopaths with their defective 'ought-not-to kill are turned to be 'ought-to' kill another human. If you research into psychopathy, many psychopaths who killed and caught claimed they were compelled to kill by some internal forces.

So Yes, it can be false if ALL humans are programmed with an "ought-to kill humans".
This is VERY possible if there is a sudden rare mutations in the genes and DNA in the evolution of humans and by the next or two generations ALL humans born are "programmed" with an ought-to kill humans.
From there people will start killing humans.
Some will resist killing but that won't last because their resistance will weakened due to the inherent program 'ought-to' kill humans get more and more active.
The last man standing will not be able to survive by himself and VIOLA the human species will be extinct then.

The current moral facts [within a Moral FSK] as programmed can be changed in time, albeit is reality it may take 100s, 1000s or millions of years.

So yes, the moral reality, fact, truth of 'ought-not-to-kill another human is falsifiable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks for your persistence in this subjective nonsense. Your "specific" FSK, whatever the F that might be is a SUBJECTIVE framework.
So i'll ask again; " Answer the question, "What is objectively morally wrong with damaging your health?"

Scientific facts/truths are inferred from a specific Scientific FSK.
In a way, all FSKs are represented by subjects, i.e. a Scientific FSK is represented by scientists.
However whatever in inferred by the subjects are conditioned upon the FSK and not the individual subjects.
Since they are not conditioned by the individual subjects' opinion and beliefs, scientific facts/truth are objective.
Whilst scientific facts are objective, [do you deny they are objective?], they are ultimately based on interSUBJECTive consensus, thus essentially subjective.

The Moral FSK is based on the core principles as the Scientific FSK.
If Scientific facts from a specific scientific FSK is objective - intersubjective,
then, moral facts from a specific moral FSK is objective - intersubjective.

This moral fact is not the opinion nor belief of any individual subject.
Since 'no human ought to damage his/her health' is a moral fact, therefore it is objective.

Can you demonstrate why the above moral fact is not objective?

Answer the question, "What is objectively morally wrong with damaging your health?"

I have already done so above.

You have only justified that with your personal opinions. You FSK is subjective, and so everything that emerges from it is also.
Your argument rests on an unfounded assumption that human life has great value. All value judgements are subjective, therefore every statement that relies on that valuation is also subject to that opinion.

You are very ignorant of what is meant by 'objectivity' and in this case specifically moral objectivity. Note my thread on

• What is Moral Objectivity?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

My Personal opinions??
Note the survey that 56% of philosophers support Moral realism, thus moral facts, and that is based on the relevant specific Moral FSK.
So it is not based on a MY personal opinions.

The said Moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.
So are you implying the scientific FSK is subjective? Answer yes or no.
You are very ignorant on this matter.
The scientific FSK is objective whilst represented by subjects [the scientists].
Whatever is objective is by definition intersubjective ultimately.

I assert that the world would be a better place for the evolution of the living world if there were no humans at all. Thus human life , far from having a value, has value only in the negative. And the removal of all humans is the only way to restore the living world.
Prove that is not objective!

It is not objective because that is only based on your personal views and not supported nor shared by other subjects.
Show me at least one or more survey where more than 50% of philosophers or [people with rational credentials] agree with your views to indicate there is some semblance of objectivity.