What is Philosophical Objectivity?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I posted a thread;
What is Moral Objectivity?

Despite the above, I noted many still do not understand 'what Philosophical Objectivity essentially is' thus it get very contentious in reference to moral objectivity;

Here is a general definition of what is objectivity [Philosophy];

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

In the above, it stated there is no objectivity if the views are from "a" i.e. ONE sentient SUBJECT.
Therefore it implies there is objectivity only if the views are agreed by two or more sentient beings. Obviously such a claim re 'two' or more is too loose and not credible.

Objectivity of a truth is only credible when there is consensus within a 'reasonable' number of people plus it must be within a specific credible framework and system of reality or knowledge [FSR or FSK].
The most credible and standard bearable of objective truth is the scientific FSR/FSK.

The other FSKs are thus relative in degrees to the scientific FSK as the standard.

Here is a demonstration that whatever is objective is reducible to subjectivity of the individual[s] agreements collectively within a specific FSK.

• Example, It is an objective fact,
  Donald Trump is the 45th President of the USA at present. [until Jan 20 2021]
  In this case this objective fact is a political fact emerging from the POLITICAL FSK of the USA.
  
  If one do not like the above fact, then let say,
  Joe Biden is currently the President-Elect of the USA.
  
  If not, one can refer to any political facts based on democratic election voting by the populace.

Would any one dispute the above is an objective fact, i.e. a political fact upon a political FSK? I don't think so?

What is interesting is,

• 1. the above objective fact emerged from a political FSK where
  
  2. the President is elected based on the results of number of electors -the majority - from an electoral college. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... al_College
  
  3. The electors' choice of their vote is based on the number of votes by residents [individual humans] of the elector's county.
  
  4. The choice of each voter [a sentient being] is dependent on their respective psychological states, emotions, feelings, biasness, rational choice, and personal preferences.
  By definition, re a sentient being, such an act obviously cannot be objective thus definitely a subjective matter.

So how did a subjective premise got converted to be an objective fact, i.e.
Donald Trump is the 45th President of the USA at present till January 20 2021.

From the above, the principle is,
Objectivity emerged from the inter-consensus of individual subjective opinions/beliefs within a specific FSK, in this case the Political FSK.
Therefore objectivity is reduced to intersubjectivity consensus.
In the above case, there is no requirement it has to be 100% consensus but merely by a majority even of 1 is sufficient to manifest objectivity.

Thus what is objective fact is independent of an individual's opinion and beliefs but interdependent with a group of individuals with the same opinions and beliefs.

The above principle of objectivity is applied to all cases of Philosophical Objectivity, i.e. for science - standard bearer of truth and all others FSKs.

Thus there are moral facts emerging from the processes of the moral FSK and they are objective, thus morality is objective!

Notes:
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

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

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe the confusion regarding 'what is objectivity' is many are so brainwashed to relate objectivity to objects or physical things.

My above explanation above represent what Philosophical Objectivity essentially is.

Note Philosophical Objectivity has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's Objectivism or objectivity in the News and reporters.

For additional info, note Kramer's 7 Dimension of Objectivity;
viewtopic.php?p=471122#p471122

.............

Objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness.
When you go to sleep at night, the sun, the moon, the earth all still exist.
Objective existence does not require Subjective experience, to exist.
You, your body, your life, your physical identity, still exists while you are in a coma.
........

You are too hasty in concluding what is 'objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness" without consideration that are many valid alternative and opposing views to the above.

Originally, 'objective' is related to 'object' which is claimed to exist as absolutely mind-independent.

• object = a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed:

The the idea of a mind-independent object is problematic and proven to be illusory by many philosophers, i.e.
-Berkeley refuted mind-independent 'materialism'
-Hume refuted a person is without a real personal identity but rather is a bundle of activities.
-Kant refuted the mind-independent thing-in-itself
-Russel doubted "perhaps there is no external table at all?"
-Modern Physics claimed "the moon does not exist if no humans look at it"

Science has given up the idea of a mind independent object but resort to 'physicalism', so it should be 'physicality' instead of 'objectivity'??

The old meaning of objectivity [confined to objects] has morphed into a view that is independent of human bias, generally "a" person's opinion, beliefs, judgment and idea.
e.g.
Journalistic objectivity is the reporting of facts and news with minimal personal bias or in an impartial or politically neutral manner.

but more importantly is 'scientific objectivity'
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
which is independent a scientist's but rather scientific objectivity is conditioned upon the specific human-based scientific Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge [FSR-FSK].

This mean the "Law of Motion" is true and objective not because Newton said so, but rather the Newtonian FSR-FSK supported by a community of scientists said so. It is the same with the Theory of General Gravity or QM's principles, or Principles from Chemistry, Biology and other scientific fields.

As such, the modern view of 'objective' and 'objectivity' of any claim of reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, i.e. not one person or a disorganized loose group of people.

Because the FSR-FSK is human-based, whatever that follows [objectivity, reality, beliefs, etc.] CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
There is no objective realm that is independent of the human conditions.
Whatever is objective must be coupled with the human conditions.

So, whatever the claim, as long as it is a organized or institutionalized human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, the claims are objective.

But there are degrees to 'what is objective reality' ranging from 0.001% to 99.99% depending on the credibility and reliability of the said FSR-FSK.

To date, the human-based scientific FSR-FSK [in its best] is the most credible and reliable among all other FSR-FSK in terms of its objectivity and claims of reality.
What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044
Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy?
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

In this case the scientific FSK is the standard all other FSKs are compared with.

Organized Theism as a religion is definitely an organized or institutionalized human-based FSR-FSK supported by a community of adherents, thus it claims are qualified to be objective.

But in contrast to the objectivity of the scientific FSK, the theistic FSK has 0.0001 degrees of objectivity because it is grounded on a God which is illusory.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

As argued, there is no Objective Realm that is absolutely mind-independent which exists even if there are no humans around.

[Peter Holmes]

I posted a thread;
What is Moral Objectivity?

Despite the above, I noted many still do not understand 'what Philosophical Objectivity essentially is' thus it get very contentious in reference to moral objectivity;

Here is a general definition of what is objectivity [Philosophy];

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

How high ride the tides of metaphysical confusion. Is the concept of truth different from what we call truth? Can anything other than a factual assertion have truth-value? Is truth independent from individual subjectivity different from truth independent from collective subjectivity? Is collective opinion free from the subjective biases of collected individuals?

This wiki definition demonstrates the catastrophic conflation of the way things are with what we say about them that has plagued philosophy for at least two and a half millennia. We've been furkling down a rabbit hole - hamstering in the wheel that Plato and others set a-spinning - for far too long.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I posted a thread;
What is Moral Objectivity?

Despite the above, I noted many still do not understand 'what Philosophical Objectivity essentially is' thus it get very contentious in reference to moral objectivity;

Here is a general definition of what is objectivity [Philosophy];

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

How high ride the tides of metaphysical confusion.

Your above is the claim from a philosophical gnat.

Note how a subjective premise is eventually concluded an objective fact [political] via a political FSK.
Do you deny the examples of fact I presented in the OP are objective?

Is the concept of truth different from what we call truth?

The 'concept of truth' is different from 'what is realized as truth'.
The concept of an apple is different from what is realized as a real apple.
But the "concept of truth" cannot be independent from "what we call truth" i.e. realized truth.

Can anything other than a factual assertion have truth-value?

You are referring to the linguistic and logic perspectives.
However what is factual derived from a FSK has truth-value, e.g. a claim can either be true or false scientifically, when processed via the scientific FSK. It is the same with all other FSKs.

Is truth independent from individual subjectivity different from truth independent from collective subjectivity?

As stated above, what is true is verified and justified within a specific FSK.
Thus truth from individual subjectivity, truth independent from individual subjectivity can be the same as truth interdependent with collective subjectivity.

• For example, Einstein would had abduced his theory of relativity from a hunch intuitively and that would be truth based on personal subjectivity -an opinion.
  
  Then when he has proven his own theory on paper by himself - that would be belief and truth independent of personal opinion and subjectivity.
  
  When his theory is verified, tested, justified and confirmed by his peers to be true, that truth would be interdependent from collective subjectivity, i.e. is objective based on intersubjective consensus. This is a Justified True Belief conditioned upon the Physics FSK.

Get the point?

Is collective opinion free from the subjective biases of collected individuals?

Collected individuals are related to the community of people within the specific FSK, e.g. the recognized physicists within the Physics FSK
The collective conclusions from a specific FSK is independent of the personal opinions and beliefs of the individuals.

This wiki definition demonstrates the catastrophic conflation of the way things are with what we say about them that has plagued philosophy for at least two and a half millennia. We've been furkling down a rabbit hole - hamstering in the wheel that Plato and others set a-spinning - for far too long.

Whatever is from Wiki should be tentative [not conclusive] but ultimately need to be verified against more authoritative sources.
I am confident [based on what I have covered] what I have linked above re Philosophical Objectivity is in alignment with the authorized thoughts on this subject.

You are merely making and barking noises, thus insulting your intellect.
Where are your sound counters to the above?

Nope you are ignorant re Plato.
The objectivity based on intersubjective consensus I had presented above has nothing to do with Plato, who claimed universals independent of all human minds.

On the other hand the 'objectivity' you are likely to present and argued for is related to Plato, i.e. what you deemed as facts are objective as absolutely independent from human minds [personally and collectively].

[Peter Holmes]

I posted a thread;
What is Moral Objectivity?

Despite the above, I noted many still do not understand 'what Philosophical Objectivity essentially is' thus it get very contentious in reference to moral objectivity;

Here is a general definition of what is objectivity [Philosophy];

How high ride the tides of metaphysical confusion.

Your above is the claim from a philosophical gnat.

Note how a subjective premise is eventually concluded an objective fact [political] via a political FSK.
Do you deny the examples of fact I presented in the OP are objective?

Is the concept of truth different from what we call truth?

The 'concept of truth' is different from 'what is realized as truth'.
The concept of an apple is different from what is realized as a real apple.
But the "concept of truth" cannot be independent from "what we call truth" i.e. realized truth.

Can anything other than a factual assertion have truth-value?

You are referring to the linguistic and logic perspectives.
However what is factual derived from a FSK has truth-value, e.g. a claim can either be true or false scientifically, when processed via the scientific FSK. It is the same with all other FSKs.

Is truth independent from individual subjectivity different from truth independent from collective subjectivity?

As stated above, what is true is verified and justified within a specific FSK.
Thus truth from individual subjectivity, truth independent from individual subjectivity can be the same as truth interdependent with collective subjectivity.

• For example, Einstein would had abduced his theory of relativity from a hunch intuitively and that would be truth based on personal subjectivity -an opinion.
  
  Then when he has proven his own theory on paper by himself - that would be belief and truth independent of personal opinion and subjectivity.
  
  When his theory is verified, tested, justified and confirmed by his peers to be true, that truth would be interdependent from collective subjectivity, i.e. is objective based on intersubjective consensus. This is a Justified True Belief conditioned upon the Physics FSK.

Get the point?

Is collective opinion free from the subjective biases of collected individuals?

Collected individuals are related to the community of people within the specific FSK, e.g. the recognized physicists within the Physics FSK
The collective conclusions from a specific FSK is independent of the personal opinions and beliefs of the individuals.

This wiki definition demonstrates the catastrophic conflation of the way things are with what we say about them that has plagued philosophy for at least two and a half millennia. We've been furkling down a rabbit hole - hamstering in the wheel that Plato and others set a-spinning - for far too long.

Whatever is from Wiki should be tentative [not conclusive] but ultimately need to be verified against more authoritative sources.
I am confident [based on what I have covered] what I have linked above re Philosophical Objectivity is in alignment with the authorized thoughts on this subject.

You are merely making and barking noises, thus insulting your intellect.
Where are your sound counters to the above?

Nope you are ignorant re Plato.
The objectivity based on intersubjective consensus I had presented above has nothing to do with Plato, who claimed universals independent of all human minds.

On the other hand the 'objectivity' you are likely to present and argued for is related to Plato, i.e. what you deemed as facts are objective as absolutely independent from human minds [personally and collectively].

Twaddle, as usual. If what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and hydrogen, that fact has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus. To say it is is to mistake how we reach a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion. The consensus theory of truth is utterly and demonstrably wrong, as is the pragmatic theory and any version of constructivism. You've been suckered by snake oil sellers.

We invented different ways of describing reality, but we didn't invent (or 'co-create') the reality that we describe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever is from Wiki should be tentative [not conclusive] but ultimately need to be verified against more authoritative sources.
I am confident [based on what I have covered] what I have linked above re Philosophical Objectivity is in alignment with the authorized thoughts on this subject.

You are merely making and barking noises, thus insulting your intellect.
Where are your sound counters to the above?

Nope you are ignorant re Plato.
The objectivity based on intersubjective consensus I had presented above has nothing to do with Plato, who claimed universals independent of all human minds.

On the other hand the 'objectivity' you are likely to present and argued for is related to Plato, i.e. what you deemed as facts are objective as absolutely independent from human minds [personally and collectively].

Twaddle, as usual. If what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and hydrogen, that fact has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus.

To say it is is to mistake how we reach a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

How do you know 'water is H2O?'
When you call 'water is H2O' you are actually placing faith your trust in Science.
That 'water is H20' is a scientific fact which is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The authority of the FSK is based on the consensus of the community of scientists who are humans.
Therefore the scientific fact that 'water is H20' is grounded on intersubjective consensus.

1. You are mistaken in thinking 'water is H20' is represented by an objective reality but that is merely a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

2. What is more real with 'water [one molecule] is H20' is it comprised of one atom of Oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen entangled with one another grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

3. But that water [one molecule] is H2O is '1 oxygen+2 hydrogen atoms' is still a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

4. One can dig further but at every stage, that is still pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

Tell me where is the matter that is absolutely independent of human consensus?

The consensus theory of truth is utterly and demonstrably wrong, as is the pragmatic theory and any version of constructivism. You've been suckered by snake oil sellers.

We invented different ways of describing reality, but we didn't invent (or 'co-create') the reality that we describe.

What other theory of truth that you can demonstrate that is right?

The terms co-create [I did not say 'invent'] is a bit loose.
The main point is we cannot separate what is reality, i.e. all-there-is from the human conditions because humans are part and parcel of reality.
Reality, i.e. all-there-is is an emergence.

In one [only] perspective there is the empirical external world that is independent of the human body, BUT that is only apparent and not objective externalness.
Since humans are part and parcel of reality -all-there-is- the reality is such that humans cannot be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.

Demonstrate to me humans can be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.
YOU CANNOT!

This is why humans have to establish various specific constructions of FSK to carve out from reality - all-there-is to establish specific reality which are not independent of human conceptions.

Since there is no absolute independent reality,
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424
thus the specific verified and justified reality of each FSK represent the reality of humans where science is the most credible, thus the standard bearer.

That you yearn for an independent reality that is independent of you [impossible] is due to some desperate psychological existential drive.

[Peter Holmes]

Whatever is from Wiki should be tentative [not conclusive] but ultimately need to be verified against more authoritative sources.
I am confident [based on what I have covered] what I have linked above re Philosophical Objectivity is in alignment with the authorized thoughts on this subject.

You are merely making and barking noises, thus insulting your intellect.
Where are your sound counters to the above?

Nope you are ignorant re Plato.
The objectivity based on intersubjective consensus I had presented above has nothing to do with Plato, who claimed universals independent of all human minds.

On the other hand the 'objectivity' you are likely to present and argued for is related to Plato, i.e. what you deemed as facts are objective as absolutely independent from human minds [personally and collectively].

Twaddle, as usual. If what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and hydrogen, that fact has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus.

To say it is is to mistake how we reach a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

How do you know 'water is H2O?'
When you call 'water is H2O' you are actually placing faith your trust in Science.
That 'water is H20' is a scientific fact which is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The authority of the FSK is based on the consensus of the community of scientists who are humans.
Therefore the scientific fact that 'water is H20' is grounded on intersubjective consensus.

This is back to front. The reason why natural science conclusions have 'authority' is because they constitute hard-won, testable knowledge of the way things are - knowledge that's not based on authority or opinion, individual or collective. It was the struggle against the intersubjective consensus of pre-scientific assumptions that brought about the triumph of natural science as a reliable source of practical knowledge.

1. You are mistaken in thinking 'water is H20' is represented by an objective reality but that is merely a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

2. What is more real with 'water [one molecule] is H20' is it comprised of one atom of Oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen entangled with one another grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

3. But that water [one molecule] is H2O is '1 oxygen+2 hydrogen atoms' is still a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

4. One can dig further but at every stage, that is still pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

Tell me where is the matter that is absolutely independent of human consensus?

Do you think the universe that existed before humans appeared, and that will exist when humans have gone, somehow depends on human consensus? What sort of blithering drivel is this? It's as though you're seeing things inside out. Why say that the chemical composition of water is a pseudo-reality? I fear for your mental health.

The consensus theory of truth is utterly and demonstrably wrong, as is the pragmatic theory and any version of constructivism. You've been suckered by snake oil sellers.

We invented different ways of describing reality, but we didn't invent (or 'co-create') the reality that we describe.

What other theory of truth that you can demonstrate that is right?

What we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth, and there's no other court of appeal. To say otherwise is to entertain the metaphysical delusion that the noun truth is the name of a thing of some kind that we don't understand.

And the most important thing we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is that its truth is independent from individual or collective opinion. We'd laugh any claim that an assertion is true 'because that's the consensus opinion' out of court. But that's precisely your ridiculous consensus theory of truth: this is true because we all (or 73% of us) think it's true. What fucking nonsense.

The terms co-create [I did not say 'invent'] is a bit loose.
The main point is we cannot separate what is reality, i.e. all-there-is from the human conditions because humans are part and parcel of reality.
Reality, i.e. all-there-is is an emergence.

So here's your claim: humans are part of reality, so humans co-create the reality of which they're part. What utter fucking nonsense.

In one [only] perspective there is the empirical external world that is independent of the human body, BUT that is only apparent and not objective externalness.
Since humans are part and parcel of reality -all-there-is- the reality is such that humans cannot be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.

Demonstrate to me humans can be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.
YOU CANNOT!

What are you smoking? Who ever says humans can be independent from the reality of which we're part? This monstrous straw man seems to have invaded and taken over your mind. Again, here's the nonsense: we're part of reality, so we co-create that reality. Bollocks.

This is why humans have to establish various specific constructions of FSK to carve out from reality - all-there-is to establish specific reality which are not independent of human conceptions.

Just wrong. We can know and describe reality only in our ways of knowing and describing it. That's trivially true. But that doesn't mean we co-create that reality. That's fucking nonsense.

Since there is no absolute independent reality,
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424
thus the specific verified and justified reality of each FSK represent the reality of humans where science is the most credible, thus the standard bearer.

That you yearn for an independent reality that is independent of you [impossible] is due to some desperate psychological existential drive.

To repeat. You've been well and truly suckered and seduced by some excitingly radical-sounding post-truth crap. Remedy: get a grip, try some genuinely skeptical critical thinking, and chuck the crap down the crapper, where it belongs.

And, btw, none of this claptrap does anything to demonstrate that there are moral facts.

[Atla]

Twaddle, as usual. If what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and hydrogen, that fact has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus.

To say it is is to mistake how we reach a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

How do you know 'water is H2O?'
When you call 'water is H2O' you are actually placing faith your trust in Science.
That 'water is H20' is a scientific fact which is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The authority of the FSK is based on the consensus of the community of scientists who are humans.
Therefore the scientific fact that 'water is H20' is grounded on intersubjective consensus.

This is back to front. The reason why natural science conclusions have 'authority' is because they constitute hard-won, testable knowledge of the way things are - knowledge that's not based on authority or opinion, individual or collective. It was the struggle against the intersubjective consensus of pre-scientific assumptions that brought about the triumph of natural science as a reliable source of practical knowledge.

1. You are mistaken in thinking 'water is H20' is represented by an objective reality but that is merely a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

2. What is more real with 'water [one molecule] is H20' is it comprised of one atom of Oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen entangled with one another grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

3. But that water [one molecule] is H2O is '1 oxygen+2 hydrogen atoms' is still a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

4. One can dig further but at every stage, that is still pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

Tell me where is the matter that is absolutely independent of human consensus?

Do you think the universe that existed before humans appeared, and that will exist when humans have gone, somehow depends on human consensus? What sort of blithering drivel is this? It's as though you're seeing things inside out. Why say that the chemical composition of water is a pseudo-reality? I fear for your mental health.

The consensus theory of truth is utterly and demonstrably wrong, as is the pragmatic theory and any version of constructivism. You've been suckered by snake oil sellers.

We invented different ways of describing reality, but we didn't invent (or 'co-create') the reality that we describe.

What other theory of truth that you can demonstrate that is right?

What we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth, and there's no other court of appeal. To say otherwise is to entertain the metaphysical delusion that the noun truth is the name of a thing of some kind that we don't understand.

And the most important thing we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is that its truth is independent from individual or collective opinion. We'd laugh any claim that an assertion is true 'because that's the consensus opinion' out of court. But that's precisely your ridiculous consensus theory of truth: this is true because we all (or 73% of us) think it's true. What fucking nonsense.

The terms co-create [I did not say 'invent'] is a bit loose.
The main point is we cannot separate what is reality, i.e. all-there-is from the human conditions because humans are part and parcel of reality.
Reality, i.e. all-there-is is an emergence.

So here's your claim: humans are part of reality, so humans co-create the reality of which they're part. What utter fucking nonsense.

In one [only] perspective there is the empirical external world that is independent of the human body, BUT that is only apparent and not objective externalness.
Since humans are part and parcel of reality -all-there-is- the reality is such that humans cannot be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.

Demonstrate to me humans can be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.
YOU CANNOT!

What are you smoking? Who ever says humans can be independent from the reality of which we're part? This monstrous straw man seems to have invaded and taken over your mind. Again, here's the nonsense: we're part of reality, so we co-create that reality. Bollocks.

This is why humans have to establish various specific constructions of FSK to carve out from reality - all-there-is to establish specific reality which are not independent of human conceptions.

Just wrong. We can know and describe reality only in our ways of knowing and describing it. That's trivially true. But that doesn't mean we co-create that reality. That's fucking nonsense.

Since there is no absolute independent reality,
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424
thus the specific verified and justified reality of each FSK represent the reality of humans where science is the most credible, thus the standard bearer.

That you yearn for an independent reality that is independent of you [impossible] is due to some desperate psychological existential drive.

To repeat. You've been well and truly suckered and seduced by some excitingly radical-sounding post-truth crap. Remedy: get a grip, try some genuinely skeptical critical thinking, and chuck the crap down the crapper, where it belongs.

And, btw, none of this claptrap does anything to demonstrate that there are moral facts.

I say VA's level of confusion isn't simply absurd, it's an artform in its own right. It escapes understanding, defies all logic. I like it.

[Peter Holmes]

I say VA's level of confusion isn't simply absurd, it's an artform in its own right. It escapes understanding, defies all logic. I like it.

Yes. Every time a restated - and very rarely, a new - misconception. Something of the fly stuck inside the window, inexhaustibly hopeful.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Twaddle, as usual. If what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and hydrogen, that fact has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus.

To say it is is to mistake how we reach a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

How do you know 'water is H2O?'
When you call 'water is H2O' you are actually placing faith your trust in Science.
That 'water is H20' is a scientific fact which is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The authority of the FSK is based on the consensus of the community of scientists who are humans.
Therefore the scientific fact that 'water is H20' is grounded on intersubjective consensus.

This is back to front. The reason why natural science conclusions have 'authority' is because they constitute hard-won, testable knowledge of the way things are - knowledge that's not based on authority or opinion, individual or collective.
It was the struggle against the intersubjective consensus of pre-scientific assumptions that brought about the triumph of natural science as a reliable source of practical knowledge.

Your ignorance, shallow and narrowness again.

the way things are?? that's where you are delusional.
Show me when humans had known, how and where human will ever know 'the way things really are'? i.e. thing-in-itself that is independent of human conceptions, individual or collective.

Note the best knowledge we have, i.e. scientific facts are at best polished conjectures, note "conjectures".

Generally, Science merely assumed there are facts beyond the 'polished conjectures'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It was the struggle against the intersubjective consensus of pre-scientific assumptions that brought about the triumph of natural science as a reliable source of practical knowledge.

Wrong!!

Scientific facts are grounded on intersubjective consensus upon the scientific FSK.
What are scientific facts are at best polished conjectures.
Generally, Science merely assumed there is an objective reality as a convenience and there is no way science will ever know what is really-real, i.e. the way-things-are.

1. You are mistaken in thinking 'water is H20' is represented by an objective reality but that is merely a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

2. What is more real with 'water [one molecule] is H20' is it comprised of one atom of Oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen entangled with one another grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

3. But that water [one molecule] is H2O is '1 oxygen+2 hydrogen atoms' is still a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

4. One can dig further but at every stage, that is still pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

Tell me where is the matter that is absolutely independent of human consensus?

Do you think the universe that existed before humans appeared, and that will exist when humans have gone, somehow depends on human consensus? What sort of blithering drivel is this? It's as though you're seeing things inside out. Why say that the chemical composition of water is a pseudo-reality? I fear for your mental health.

You are really ignorant.
You are the one who is delusional in insisting there is an objective reality of the reality you have experienced empirically.

Note the link from Hoffman.
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

Here is what Seeds picked from the video;

At around the 12:25 minute mark of the video, Hoffman stated the following (this also includes my clarifying [bracketed] interjections):

• “...objects don’t exist as pre-existing things. When I see an apple we like to think that’s because there really is an apple, and I’m saying no no, there’s some other reality out there, but just like the blue icon on your desktop [computer screen] doesn’t resemble the true file [an actual email, for example], the apple does not resemble anything in objective reality – it’s an abstract data structure....”

He’s on the right track, but he seems to have things backwards (at least in the way he worded that quote). And that’s because (IMO) the term “abstract data structure” should be applied to the quantum underpinning of the apple and not to the apple itself.

Anyway, he went on to say:

• “...the point of this is that we create any physical object that we see - in the moment that we see it...”

As I had stated, the term "create" [or co-create] is a very loose term here.
The significance is, reality-as-it-is cannot be independent of human conceptions via experience, perceptions and other senses.

The above views by Hoffman are supported by many current scientists, philosophers and those of the past.

Point is you are ignorant and your insistence is delusional.

What other theory of truth that you can demonstrate that is right?

What we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth, and there's no other court of appeal. To say otherwise is to entertain the metaphysical delusion that the noun truth is the name of a thing of some kind that we don't understand.

And the most important thing we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is that its truth is independent from individual or collective opinion.
We'd laugh any claim that an assertion is true 'because that's the consensus opinion' out of court. But that's precisely your ridiculous consensus theory of truth: this is true because we all (or 73% of us) think it's true. What fucking nonsense.

You should laugh and pity yourself that you are ignorant and delusional 'literally'.

Scientific truths/facts are based on intersubjective consensus upon the scientific FSK with the assumption that is objective reality to those justified truths.
There is no way a hypothesis is confirmed as a scientific truth until it is peered review and accepted by a consensus of scientific in accordance to the requirements of the scientific FSK.
So you are insisting scientific knowledge is fucking nonsense??

Note your that "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth" is non-existent, i.e. an illusion.
There is no way science and you will ever realize the reality of "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth".
Science merely ASSUMES "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth" exists for its convenience to resolve a cognitive dissonance.

Note, scientific facts are knowledge in one perspective, but they also a package of realized-reality-as-it is.
There is no real objective reality of "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth."
There is no ultimate substance that constitute what we call truth - note the counter against 'substance theory'.

You did not answer my question directly above.
What other theory of truth that you can demonstrate that is right?
Rather you are making noises in response.

The terms co-create [I did not say 'invent'] is a bit loose.
The main point is we cannot separate what is reality, i.e. all-there-is from the human conditions because humans are part and parcel of reality.
Reality, i.e. all-there-is is an emergence.

So here's your claim: humans are part of reality, so humans co-create the reality of which they're part. What utter fucking nonsense.

As usual you are the ignorant one which is exposed by your resorting to vulgarity.
Otherwise present a sound argument to counter my views.
Note the Link of Hoffman
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424
then provide rational counter arguments if you don't agree.

In one [only] perspective there is the empirical external world that is independent of the human body, BUT that is only apparent and not objective externalness.
Since humans are part and parcel of reality -all-there-is- the reality is such that humans cannot be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.

Demonstrate to me humans can be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.
YOU CANNOT!

What are you smoking?
Who ever says humans can be independent from the reality of which we're part?
This monstrous straw man seems to have invaded and taken over your mind.
Again, here's the nonsense: we're part of reality, so we co-create that reality. Bollocks.

Again you are exposing your ignorance.
If you agree as implied above that humans are part-and-parcel of the reality human are part thereof, then, whatever the facts-of-reality-are, they cannot be independent of or separated from humans [conception, etc.].
But then, you insist elsewhere, facts are independent of humans individually or collectively.

Just wrong. We can know and describe reality only in our ways of knowing and describing it. That's trivially true. But that doesn't mean we co-create that reality. That's fucking nonsense.

As clarified, the term 'co-create' is used loosely.

Yes humans describe reality but the significance is, humans cannot be independent of reality as it is and which they are a part of, i.e. all-there-is.
Note you are in agreement as above, as implied in your own words'
PH: Who ever says humans can be independent from the reality of which we're part?
So you agree, humans cannot be independent from the reality of which we're part of.

Since there is no absolute independent reality,
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424
thus the specific verified and justified reality of each FSK represent the reality of humans where science is the most credible, thus the standard bearer.

That you yearn for an independent reality that is independent of you [impossible] is due to some desperate psychological existential drive.

To repeat. You've been well and truly suckered and seduced by some excitingly radical-sounding post-truth crap. Remedy: get a grip, try some genuinely skeptical critical thinking, and chuck the crap down the crapper, where it belongs.

On a rigorously philosophical insight, you are the ignorant one who is delusional in clinging to that "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth" which is non-existent in real reality, i.e. an illusion.
This delusional is due to some psychological existential drive within you and the majority of humans.

Don't just keep making noise from an empty-tin [brain], give me rational and sound argument why you think I am delusional?

You are in a mess because you being an ignorant philosophical gnat insist in being arrogantly-right without sound justifications.

And, btw, none of this claptrap does anything to demonstrate that there are moral facts.

Again you are ignorant.
Point is,
Scientific facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically upon the scientific FSK. There are no independent "objective reality of what-constitutes what-we-call-scientific-fact".

Similarly, therefore,
Moral facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically upon the moral FSK. There are no independent "objective reality of what-constitutes what-we-call-moral-fact".

Don't bring in your ineffective 'morally wrong', what I am onto are the moral variance from justified moral facts are norms/standards imperative within a moral framework and system.

[Peter Holmes]

It was the struggle against the intersubjective consensus of pre-scientific assumptions that brought about the triumph of natural science as a reliable source of practical knowledge.

Wrong!!

Scientific facts are grounded on intersubjective consensus upon the scientific FSK.
What are scientific facts are at best polished conjectures.
Generally, Science merely assumed there is an objective reality as a convenience and there is no way science will ever know what is really-real, i.e. the way-things-are.

1. You are mistaken in thinking 'water is H20' is represented by an objective reality but that is merely a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

2. What is more real with 'water [one molecule] is H20' is it comprised of one atom of Oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen entangled with one another grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

3. But that water [one molecule] is H2O is '1 oxygen+2 hydrogen atoms' is still a pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

4. One can dig further but at every stage, that is still pseudo-reality with pseudo-objective-reality grounded on the scientific FSK which is based on intersubjective consensus.

Tell me where is the matter that is absolutely independent of human consensus?

Do you think the universe that existed before humans appeared, and that will exist when humans have gone, somehow depends on human consensus? What sort of blithering drivel is this? It's as though you're seeing things inside out. Why say that the chemical composition of water is a pseudo-reality? I fear for your mental health.

You are really ignorant.
You are the one who is delusional in insisting there is an objective reality of the reality you have experienced empirically.

Note the link from Hoffman.
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

Here is what Seeds picked from the video;

At around the 12:25 minute mark of the video, Hoffman stated the following (this also includes my clarifying [bracketed] interjections):

• “...objects don’t exist as pre-existing things. When I see an apple we like to think that’s because there really is an apple, and I’m saying no no, there’s some other reality out there, but just like the blue icon on your desktop [computer screen] doesn’t resemble the true file [an actual email, for example], the apple does not resemble anything in objective reality – it’s an abstract data structure....”

He’s on the right track, but he seems to have things backwards (at least in the way he worded that quote). And that’s because (IMO) the term “abstract data structure” should be applied to the quantum underpinning of the apple and not to the apple itself.

Anyway, he went on to say:

• “...the point of this is that we create any physical object that we see - in the moment that we see it...”

As I had stated, the term "create" [or co-create] is a very loose term here.
The significance is, reality-as-it-is cannot be independent of human conceptions via experience, perceptions and other senses.

The above views by Hoffman are supported by many current scientists, philosophers and those of the past.

Point is you are ignorant and your insistence is delusional.

What other theory of truth that you can demonstrate that is right?

What we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth, and there's no other court of appeal. To say otherwise is to entertain the metaphysical delusion that the noun truth is the name of a thing of some kind that we don't understand.

And the most important thing we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is that its truth is independent from individual or collective opinion.
We'd laugh any claim that an assertion is true 'because that's the consensus opinion' out of court. But that's precisely your ridiculous consensus theory of truth: this is true because we all (or 73% of us) think it's true. What fucking nonsense.

You should laugh and pity yourself that you are ignorant and delusional 'literally'.

Scientific truths/facts are based on intersubjective consensus upon the scientific FSK with the assumption that is objective reality to those justified truths.
There is no way a hypothesis is confirmed as a scientific truth until it is peered review and accepted by a consensus of scientific in accordance to the requirements of the scientific FSK.
So you are insisting scientific knowledge is fucking nonsense??

Note your that "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth" is non-existent, i.e. an illusion.
There is no way science and you will ever realize the reality of "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth".
Science merely ASSUMES "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth" exists for its convenience to resolve a cognitive dissonance.

Note, scientific facts are knowledge in one perspective, but they also a package of realized-reality-as-it is.
There is no real objective reality of "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth."
There is no ultimate substance that constitute what we call truth - note the counter against 'substance theory'.

You did not answer my question directly above.
What other theory of truth that you can demonstrate that is right?
Rather you are making noises in response.

The terms co-create [I did not say 'invent'] is a bit loose.
The main point is we cannot separate what is reality, i.e. all-there-is from the human conditions because humans are part and parcel of reality.
Reality, i.e. all-there-is is an emergence.

So here's your claim: humans are part of reality, so humans co-create the reality of which they're part. What utter fucking nonsense.

As usual you are the ignorant one which is exposed by your resorting to vulgarity.
Otherwise present a sound argument to counter my views.
Note the Link of Hoffman
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424
then provide rational counter arguments if you don't agree.

In one [only] perspective there is the empirical external world that is independent of the human body, BUT that is only apparent and not objective externalness.
Since humans are part and parcel of reality -all-there-is- the reality is such that humans cannot be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.

Demonstrate to me humans can be ultimately and absolutely be independent of reality -all-there-is-.
YOU CANNOT!

What are you smoking?
Who ever says humans can be independent from the reality of which we're part?
This monstrous straw man seems to have invaded and taken over your mind.
Again, here's the nonsense: we're part of reality, so we co-create that reality. Bollocks.

Again you are exposing your ignorance.
If you agree as implied above that humans are part-and-parcel of the reality human are part thereof, then, whatever the facts-of-reality-are, they cannot be independent of or separated from humans [conception, etc.].
But then, you insist elsewhere, facts are independent of humans individually or collectively.

Just wrong. We can know and describe reality only in our ways of knowing and describing it. That's trivially true. But that doesn't mean we co-create that reality. That's fucking nonsense.

As clarified, the term 'co-create' is used loosely.

Yes humans describe reality but the significance is, humans cannot be independent of reality as it is and which they are a part of, i.e. all-there-is.
Note you are in agreement as above, as implied in your own words'
PH: Who ever says humans can be independent from the reality of which we're part?
So you agree, humans cannot be independent from the reality of which we're part of.

Since there is no absolute independent reality,
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424
thus the specific verified and justified reality of each FSK represent the reality of humans where science is the most credible, thus the standard bearer.

That you yearn for an independent reality that is independent of you [impossible] is due to some desperate psychological existential drive.

To repeat. You've been well and truly suckered and seduced by some excitingly radical-sounding post-truth crap. Remedy: get a grip, try some genuinely skeptical critical thinking, and chuck the crap down the crapper, where it belongs.

On a rigorously philosophical insight, you are the ignorant one who is delusional in clinging to that "what-constitutes what-we-call-truth" which is non-existent in real reality, i.e. an illusion.
This delusional is due to some psychological existential drive within you and the majority of humans.

Don't just keep making noise from an empty-tin [brain], give me rational and sound argument why you think I am delusional?

You are in a mess because you being an ignorant philosophical gnat insist in being arrogantly-right without sound justifications.

And, btw, none of this claptrap does anything to demonstrate that there are moral facts.

Again you are ignorant.
Point is,
Scientific facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically upon the scientific FSK. There are no independent "objective reality of what-constitutes what-we-call-scientific-fact".

Similarly, therefore,
Moral facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically upon the moral FSK. There are no independent "objective reality of what-constitutes what-we-call-moral-fact".

Don't bring in your ineffective 'morally wrong', what I am onto are the moral variance from justified moral facts are norms/standards imperative within a moral framework and system.

So your argument for moral objectivity is as follows.

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosphhically within the moral FSK.
2 Moral rightness and wrongness is conformity with and variance from those moral facts, used as moral standards.
C Therefore morality is objective.

Perhaps you can't see how comical this is - but I hope everyone else can.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So your argument for moral objectivity is as follows.

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosphhically within the moral FSK.
2 Moral rightness and wrongness is conformity with and variance from those moral facts, used as moral standards.
C Therefore morality is objective.

Perhaps you can't see how comical this is - but I hope everyone else can.

Point is you hastily and stupidly invent your own argument out of ignorance. Hope everyone else can see your stupid deception. You had tried such deceptions many times earlier but I have always exposed your scam.

The above is not my argument.

I explained what is Philosophical Objectivity here.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Moral facts as justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK are objective [as defined above], i.e. they are independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.

Thus in my case, the principles and application of morality are grounded on objective moral facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs].

The common counter "Morality is Not Objective" is targeted at Theistic Morality [from an illusory God] and Platonic Morality [empty universals] because they are not grounded on justified facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs].

[Peter Holmes]

So your argument for moral objectivity is as follows.

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosphhically within the moral FSK.
2 Moral rightness and wrongness is conformity with and variance from those moral facts, used as moral standards.
C Therefore morality is objective.

Perhaps you can't see how comical this is - but I hope everyone else can.

Point is you hastily and stupidly invent your own argument out of ignorance. Hope everyone else can see your stupid deception. You had tried such deceptions many times earlier but I have always exposed your scam.

The above is not my argument.

I explained what is Philosophical Objectivity here.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Moral facts as justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK are objective [as defined above], i.e. they are independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.

Thus in my case, the principles and application of morality are grounded on objective moral facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs].

The common counter "Morality is Not Objective" is targeted at Theistic Morality [from an illusory God] and Platonic Morality [empty universals] because they are not grounded on justified facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs].

More comedy. We agree on what objectivity is: independence from opinion when considering the facts. You seem to think that inserting 'individuals' opinions and beliefs' makes a crucial difference, but it doesn't, because what matters is that there are facts.

So here is what you say:

'Moral facts as justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK are objective [as defined above], i.e. they are independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.' And here's my version of your two premises:

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosphhically within the moral FSK.
2 Moral rightness and wrongness is conformity with and variance from those moral facts, used as moral standards.

Now, please explain exactly how I'm misrepresenting your claims. By all means, add your clarifications, or extra premises.

And perhaps your conclusion is this: Therefore, there are moral facts and morality is objective.

But, by all means, please amend that.

In other words, I want you to produce a syllogism that accurately states your argument. Succinct definition of terms would help - don't just reference your other posts. Try to make it a concise and self-contained expression of your position. Or - don't bother. Up to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So your argument for moral objectivity is as follows.

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosphhically within the moral FSK.
2 Moral rightness and wrongness is conformity with and variance from those moral facts, used as moral standards.
C Therefore morality is objective.

Perhaps you can't see how comical this is - but I hope everyone else can.

Point is you hastily and stupidly invent your own argument out of ignorance. Hope everyone else can see your stupid deception. You had tried such deceptions many times earlier but I have always exposed your scam.

The above is not my argument.

I explained what is Philosophical Objectivity here.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Moral facts as justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK are objective [as defined above], i.e. they are independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.

Thus in my case, the principles and application of morality are grounded on objective moral facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs].

The common counter "Morality is Not Objective" is targeted at Theistic Morality [from an illusory God] and Platonic Morality [empty universals] because they are not grounded on justified facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs].

More comedy. We agree on what objectivity is: independence from opinion when considering the facts. You seem to think that inserting 'individuals' opinions and beliefs' makes a crucial difference, but it doesn't, because what matters is that there are facts.

So here is what you say:

'Moral facts as justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK are objective [as defined above], i.e. they are independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.' And here's my version of your two premises:

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosphhically within the moral FSK.
2 Moral rightness and wrongness is conformity with and variance from those moral facts, used as moral standards.

Now, please explain exactly how I'm misrepresenting your claims. By all means, add your clarifications, or extra premises.

And perhaps your conclusion is this: Therefore, there are moral facts and morality is objective.

But, by all means, please amend that.

In other words, I want you to produce a syllogism that accurately states your argument. Succinct definition of terms would help - don't just reference your other posts. Try to make it a concise and self-contained expression of your position. Or - don't bother. Up to you.

Your invented syllogism did not follow at all.

That is the point why I accuse you of not being to understand [not necessary agree with] my points, thus presenting straw men all the times and condemning your own created arguments.

Here is my proper argument [.I have done a similar one in another post];

• 1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],
  
  2. As such moral facts are objective.
  
  3. Objective moral facts are imputed as moral standards within a moral system.
  
  4. A moral system represents morality, i.e. the practices of morals in comparing to moral standards.
  
  5. Therefore morality within is FSK is objective.

Show me where my premises are wrong and the whole argument fallacious?