What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

All wrong, as usual. I wonder why you won't actually address the crux. Perhaps you can't, because it demolishes your whole argument.

To repeat: If it's a moral fact that humans killing humans is morally wrong, then what people (or an empirically verified critical mass of them) do or don't want to do or have done to them is irrelevant. And the same goes for any of your fake moral facts.

Your argument - from what people do or don't want, or from behavioural trends, or from any other fact - demonstrates that there are no moral facts, so that morality can't be objective.

If morality is not objective, then morality doesn't exist. This makes you a nihilist.

So, please explain what it is you are referring to when you speak of when you use the word "morality".

[henry quirk]

All wrong, as usual. I wonder why you won't actually address the crux. Perhaps you can't, because it demolishes your whole argument.

To repeat: If it's a moral fact that humans killing humans is morally wrong, then what people (or an empirically verified critical mass of them) do or don't want to do or have done to them is irrelevant. And the same goes for any of your fake moral facts.

Your argument - from what people do or don't want, or from behavioural trends, or from any other fact - demonstrates that there are no moral facts, so that morality can't be objective.

If morality is not objective, then morality doesn't exist. This makes you a nihilist.

So, please *explain what it is you are referring to when you speak of when you use the word "morality".

*he refers to moral opinion

[Veritas Aequitas]

So we test for the existence of [the moral wrongness of humans killing humans] - the moral fact that you claim exists - by asking people if they want to kill themselves, to be killed, or to kill others. And their answers may produce factual premises, as follows.

1 People don't want to kill themselves.
2 People don't want to be killed.
3 People don't want to kill others.

Now, even if people rank the intensity of their feeling, none of these premises entails, induces or abduces the conclusion: therefore humans killing humans is morally wrong. That conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THOSE PREMISES. So your fake empirical test would fail to establish your conclusion. As a research proposal, it would be thrown out with contempt.

And your last question - should humans kill humans unconditionally? - asks for a moral opinion, leading to the astounding conclusion: people think humans killing humans unconditionally is morally wrong; therefore it's morally wrong.

Now, try to read and think about it very carefully.

If it's a moral fact that humans killing humans is morally wrong, then what people do or don't want to do or have done to them is irrelevant. And the same goes for any of your fake moral facts.

I doubt you'll remember this failure. You'll probably drone on about the need to empirically verify a supposed moral fact, and you'll claim that you've done this a thousand times. What's great about being a goldfish is that everything's always wonderfully new.

Note my emphasis above.
There are many ways to test for the existence of the moral fact mentioned above. As usual you ignore the point and hastily started your condemnation blindly and ignorantly.

What I had presented is one of the easiest inductive method to confirm the existence of the moral fact. This method is very popular within the social sciences where the results are qualified to the methods and its limitations.

In this case, a response by an [one] individual person to a moral question is an opinion or belief which is subjective.
But getting the same answer from 7+ billion or a critical mass of normal individual person within a moral FSK would tantamount and qualify it to be objective, i.e. intersubjective consensus which is how scientific facts as objective are arrived at.

The conclusion of a moral fact within the moral FSK can be further verified and justified empirical results as a consequence of the real moral fact based on the empirical facts;

• -that the majority of people do not willy-nilly kill humans and
  
  -that there is a positive trend in the increase and exponential increase in human population since humans first emerged.
  
  -that to all normal humans, the killings of humans by humans is the most abhorrent evil act which is verifiable to the database of recorded knowledge.

Thus besides the many other methods of verification, justification, testing and confirmation of the theory, the above easy method is sufficient to confirm my theory that moral facts exists is true, thus objective within a moral FSK.

All wrong, as usual. I wonder why you won't actually address the crux. Perhaps you can't, because it demolishes your whole argument.

To repeat: If it's a moral fact that humans killing humans is morally wrong, then what people (or an empirically verified critical mass of them) do or don't want to do or have done to them is irrelevant. And the same goes for any of your fake moral facts.

Your argument - from what people do or don't want, or from behavioural trends, or from any other fact - demonstrates that there are no moral facts, so that morality can't be objective.

I have already argued there are moral facts.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

You have not given any convincing counter to the above other than your linguistic perspective of 'what is fact' which ultimately is an illusion.

You insist there are absolutely-absolute facts which we talk about, but there is no such ultimate fact--in-itself, note,

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Whatever facts we talk about are facts we are the co-creator, thus no pre-existing facts awaiting us to talk about,

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

You are totally ignorant of the above reality, yet arrogantly and blindly claim I am wrong without any solid justifications.

In the above, I have presented the easiest method to establish a moral fact via the social science approach which is reasonable convincing but not the most convincing.

There are other methods that are many more convincing methods to justify moral facts exist which I had presented generally in other posts re tracking the moral facts to their neural correlates and others.

[Peter Holmes]

Note my emphasis above.
There are many ways to test for the existence of the moral fact mentioned above. As usual you ignore the point and hastily started your condemnation blindly and ignorantly.

What I had presented is one of the easiest inductive method to confirm the existence of the moral fact. This method is very popular within the social sciences where the results are qualified to the methods and its limitations.

In this case, a response by an [one] individual person to a moral question is an opinion or belief which is subjective.
But getting the same answer from 7+ billion or a critical mass of normal individual person within a moral FSK would tantamount and qualify it to be objective, i.e. intersubjective consensus which is how scientific facts as objective are arrived at.

The conclusion of a moral fact within the moral FSK can be further verified and justified empirical results as a consequence of the real moral fact based on the empirical facts;

• -that the majority of people do not willy-nilly kill humans and
  
  -that there is a positive trend in the increase and exponential increase in human population since humans first emerged.
  
  -that to all normal humans, the killings of humans by humans is the most abhorrent evil act which is verifiable to the database of recorded knowledge.

Thus besides the many other methods of verification, justification, testing and confirmation of the theory, the above easy method is sufficient to confirm my theory that moral facts exists is true, thus objective within a moral FSK.

All wrong, as usual. I wonder why you won't actually address the crux. Perhaps you can't, because it demolishes your whole argument.

To repeat: If it's a moral fact that humans killing humans is morally wrong, then what people (or an empirically verified critical mass of them) do or don't want to do or have done to them is irrelevant. And the same goes for any of your fake moral facts.

Your argument - from what people do or don't want, or from behavioural trends, or from any other fact - demonstrates that there are no moral facts, so that morality can't be objective.

I have already argued there are moral facts.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

You have not given any convincing counter to the above other than your linguistic perspective of 'what is fact' which ultimately is an illusion.

You insist there are absolutely-absolute facts which we talk about, but there is no such ultimate fact--in-itself, note,

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Whatever facts we talk about are facts we are the co-creator, thus no pre-existing facts awaiting us to talk about,

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

You are totally ignorant of the above reality, yet arrogantly and blindly claim I am wrong without any solid justifications.

In the above, I have presented the easiest method to establish a moral fact via the social science approach which is reasonable convincing but not the most convincing.

There are other methods that are many more convincing methods to justify moral facts exist which I had presented generally in other posts re tracking the moral facts to their neural correlates and others.

1 That you think referencing your fallacious arguments in other posts adds gravitas to your current fallacious argument is entertainingly ridiculous.

2 If we're the co-creators of the reality we're in, who or what is the co-creator, with us, of this reality? Perhaps it's a god, or a demiurge? When you find you can't answer this question - because it's incoherent - perhaps you'll abandon this nonsensical claim.

3 If we create the reality of which we're a part, then we also create our 'selves' - the things that do the creating - and so on, infinitely regressing down the rabbit hole. In other words, you've been suckered by the fashionable post-truth, paradigm-paradigm, polished conjecture, constructivist crap that's been rotting our reasoning for at least seventy years. Exponential metaphysical delusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All wrong, as usual. I wonder why you won't actually address the crux. Perhaps you can't, because it demolishes your whole argument.

To repeat: If it's a moral fact that humans killing humans is morally wrong, then what people (or an empirically verified critical mass of them) do or don't want to do or have done to them is irrelevant. And the same goes for any of your fake moral facts.

Your argument - from what people do or don't want, or from behavioural trends, or from any other fact - demonstrates that there are no moral facts, so that morality can't be objective.

I have already argued there are moral facts.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

You have not given any convincing counter to the above other than your linguistic perspective of 'what is fact' which ultimately is an illusion.

You insist there are absolutely-absolute facts which we talk about, but there is no such ultimate fact--in-itself, note,

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Whatever facts we talk about are facts we are the co-creator, thus no pre-existing facts awaiting us to talk about,

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

You are totally ignorant of the above reality, yet arrogantly and blindly claim I am wrong without any solid justifications.

In the above, I have presented the easiest method to establish a moral fact via the social science approach which is reasonable convincing but not the most convincing.

There are other methods that are many more convincing methods to justify moral facts exist which I had presented generally in other posts re tracking the moral facts to their neural correlates and others.

1 That you think referencing your fallacious arguments in other posts adds gravitas to your current fallacious argument is entertainingly ridiculous.

What do you mean fallacious?
Have you countered them with sound arguments to demonstrate they are fallacious?
As usual you are making noises.
Point is your philosophical database is very shallow and narrow, plus you are too dogmatic and bigoted.

Point is to make one's claims credible one need to introduce as many perspectives into the issue to establish one's claim is coherent with as many perspectives as possible. This I have done.

You are merely relying on the linguistic perspective, i.e. based on words and meanings which are insufficient to represent reality as-it-is.

2 If we're the co-creators of the reality we're in, who or what is the co-creator, with us, of this reality? Perhaps it's a god, or a demiurge? When you find you can't answer this question - because it's incoherent - perhaps you'll abandon this nonsensical claim.

We, i.e. all of us humans are the co-creators.
As I had stated, I don't mean waving a wand, and viola reality appears.
The core principles is reality emerges thus not independent of the human conditions.

3 If we create the reality of which we're a part, then we also create our 'selves' - the things that do the creating - and so on, infinitely regressing down the rabbit hole. In other words, you've been suckered by the fashionable post-truth, paradigm-paradigm, polished conjecture, constructivist crap that's been rotting our reasoning for at least seventy years. Exponential metaphysical delusion.

Yes, we 'create' our self, i.e. the empirical self as an emergence.
Note Hume's claim, the self is nothing more than a bundle of activities.
If your self is not an emergence, then are you claiming something or a God created your self?

[Peter Holmes]

What do you mean fallacious?
Have you countered them with sound arguments to demonstrate they are fallacious?
As usual you are making noises.
Point is your philosophical database is very shallow and narrow, plus you are too dogmatic and bigoted.

Yes, I and others have demonstrated that your claims are false or not shown to be true, and your arguments are unsound or not shown to be sound. That you either don't understand or ignore these demonstrations demonstrates your lack of either wit or intellectual integrity.

Point is to make one's claims credible one need to introduce as many perspectives into the issue to establish one's claim is coherent with as many perspectives as possible. This I have done.

Point is you have to provide evidence for your claims, and sound arguments - neither of which have you provided.

You are merely relying on the linguistic perspective, i.e. based on words and meanings which are insufficient to represent reality as-it-is.

Oh - but you say there is no reality-as-it-is - so what is it that words can't sufficiently represent? Bit of a slip, maybe? Or the realisation that what you've been saying is nonsense?

2 If we're the co-creators of the reality we're in, who or what is the co-creator, with us, of this reality? Perhaps it's a god, or a demiurge? When you find you can't answer this question - because it's incoherent - perhaps you'll abandon this nonsensical claim.

We, i.e. all of us humans are the co-creators.
As I had stated, I don't mean waving a wand, and viola reality appears.
The core principles is reality emerges thus not independent of the human conditions.

Incoherent twaddle. As humans, we experience the reality of which we're a part as humans. But we don't create or co-create that reality. Absurd, mystical nonsense.

3 If we create the reality of which we're a part, then we also create our 'selves' - the things that do the creating - and so on, infinitely regressing down the rabbit hole. In other words, you've been suckered by the fashionable post-truth, paradigm-paradigm, polished conjecture, constructivist crap that's been rotting our reasoning for at least seventy years. Exponential metaphysical delusion.

Yes, we 'create' our self, i.e. the empirical self as an emergence.
Note Hume's claim, the self is nothing more than a bundle of activities.
If your self is not an emergence, then are you claiming something or a God created your self?

More crap dressed up to seem intelligent. You've been well and truly suckered.

[Peter Holmes]

To make coverage assurance double sure, I'm posting here an exchange between Veritas Aequitas and me from elsewhere.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:25 am

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.[/list]

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

Okay. Thanks for this. And here's why your argument is unsound.

1 Your premise #1 merely makes the claim that we're disputing: there are moral facts. It provides neither evidence to support the claim, nor an argument concluding with the claim. And saying that moral facts are 'justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK' - and are therefore objective - also merely makes a claim without providing either evidence or argument. So your premise #1 IS your conclusion, which means your syllogism is a question-begging fallacy.

2 Your premise #2 merely repeats the unsupported claim about objectivity in #1 and is therefore redundant.

3 Your premise #3 merely repeats the unsupported claim in #1 that there are moral facts. So the claim that we adopt these moral facts as standards within a moral system is incoherent. And anyway, the expression 'are imputed as moral standards' is unclear, if not unintelligible.

4 Your premise #4 is incoherent, because a moral system can't be said to 'represent' morality. But if there is a clear meaning inside your expression, it seems trivial and redundant.

5 Your conclusion isn't the conclusion of a syllogism, because it is merely your premise #1.

This 'argument' is a complete disaster, and you provide no evidence to support your 'premise' that there are moral facts. But hey - don't let that give you pause. The crack of doom is a long time coming.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To make coverage assurance double sure, I'm posting here an exchange between Veritas Aequitas and me from elsewhere.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:25 am

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.[/list]

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

Okay. Thanks for this. And here's why your argument is unsound.

1 Your premise #1 merely makes the claim that we're disputing: there are moral facts. It provides neither evidence to support the claim, nor an argument concluding with the claim. And saying that moral facts are 'justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK' - and are therefore objective - also merely makes a claim without providing either evidence or argument. So your premise #1 IS your conclusion, which means your syllogism is a question-begging fallacy.

2 Your premise #2 merely repeats the unsupported claim about objectivity in #1 and is therefore redundant.

3 Your premise #3 merely repeats the unsupported claim in #1 that there are moral facts. So the claim that we adopt these moral facts as standards within a moral system is incoherent. And anyway, the expression 'are imputed as moral standards' is unclear, if not unintelligible.

4 Your premise #4 is incoherent, because a moral system can't be said to 'represent' morality. But if there is a clear meaning inside your expression, it seems trivial and redundant.

5 Your conclusion isn't the conclusion of a syllogism, because it is merely your premise #1.

This 'argument' is a complete disaster, and you provide no evidence to support your 'premise' that there are moral facts. But hey - don't let that give you pause. The crack of doom is a long time coming.

Note my response in the other thread.
All your above are based on ignorance, dogmatism and bigotry.

[Peter Holmes]

To make coverage assurance double sure, I'm posting here an exchange between Veritas Aequitas and me from elsewhere.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:25 am

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.[/list]

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

Okay. Thanks for this. And here's why your argument is unsound.

1 Your premise #1 merely makes the claim that we're disputing: there are moral facts. It provides neither evidence to support the claim, nor an argument concluding with the claim. And saying that moral facts are 'justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK' - and are therefore objective - also merely makes a claim without providing either evidence or argument. So your premise #1 IS your conclusion, which means your syllogism is a question-begging fallacy.

2 Your premise #2 merely repeats the unsupported claim about objectivity in #1 and is therefore redundant.

3 Your premise #3 merely repeats the unsupported claim in #1 that there are moral facts. So the claim that we adopt these moral facts as standards within a moral system is incoherent. And anyway, the expression 'are imputed as moral standards' is unclear, if not unintelligible.

4 Your premise #4 is incoherent, because a moral system can't be said to 'represent' morality. But if there is a clear meaning inside your expression, it seems trivial and redundant.

5 Your conclusion isn't the conclusion of a syllogism, because it is merely your premise #1.

This 'argument' is a complete disaster, and you provide no evidence to support your 'premise' that there are moral facts. But hey - don't let that give you pause. The crack of doom is a long time coming.

Note my response in the other thread.
All your above are based on ignorance, dogmatism and bigotry.

Abuse as much as you like. This is not an argument for moral objectivity, but merely an unjustified claim that there are moral facts. And the idea that adding the condition 'justified empirically and philosphically within the moral FSK' solves your problem is laughable. Sorry. Nul point.

[Skepdick]

*he refers to moral opinion

Of all the opinions he has which ones are the "moral" ones?

[Skepdick]

Oh - but you say there is no reality-as-it-is - so what is it that words can't sufficiently represent?

Oh, so you are saying that there is a reality and that words represent it?

So what do the words "wrong" and "morality" represent?

Bit of a slip, maybe? Or the realisation that what you've been saying is nonsense?

Indeed - you are a bullshitter.

I am glad we could agree.

[henry quirk]

*he refers to moral opinion

Of all the opinions he has which ones are the "moral" ones?

seems to me: the anti-realist position is, the will of the majority makes morality, so I guess you'd have to consult the majority on that one

me: I got no clue what exactly pete finds moral or immoral

[Peter Holmes]

*he refers to moral opinion

Of all the opinions he has which ones are the "moral" ones?

seems to me: the anti-realist position is, the will of the majority makes morality, so I guess you'd have to consult the majority on that one

me: I got no clue what exactly pete finds moral or immoral

Don't be coy, Henry. What you really think is that, because I say there are no moral facts, therefore I can't say anything is morally right or wrong.

But that's nonsense, and we've been over it many times already. Please don't turn into a rote-machine like VA.

Here are two assertions:

1 There are no moral facts.
2 In my opinion, X is morally wrong.

These assertions aren't in any way contradictory, so it's perfectly rational to accept both of them. And that is and has always been our moral predicament - how ever cross it makes you egotistical objectivists.

[henry quirk]

What you really think is that, because I say there are no moral facts, therefore I can't say anything is morally right or wrong.

actually what I think is you, as you reckon things, have no groundin' for your moral assertions...all you can say is in my opinion...

if you reckon correctly, then in my opinion is all any of us can say

if you reckon incorrectly, then...well, we've been there, done that haven't we

[Peter Holmes]

What you really think is that, because I say there are no moral facts, therefore I can't say anything is morally right or wrong.

actually what I think is you, as you reckon things, have no groundin' for your moral assertions...all you can say is in my opinion...

And that's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have good, strong reasons - grounds - for our moral opinions, and for opposing some other moral opinions. For example, I think murder is morally wrong - and I'm glad I live with people most of whom agree - for very obvious reasons.

Your denial that those reasons can have any weight or significance comes from the delusion that there are moral facts. Overcome the delusion, and it's all very simple and clear.