What is Philosophical Objectivity?

[Scott Mayers]

Your above is a straw-man, thus is wrong on how I viewed 'something' as morally objective.

Note my points;

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

What are moral facts has nothing to do with variables [good for them] defined by any subject.

It is expected of those asserting some fallacy to explain how and why it is such, not merely state it as though it suffices to declare. I did not set up anything that apparently hit home with you (or you would have expanded upon what error you think I made.)

Adding the term, "fact" to your "Moral Facts" doesn't make the concept elible to be about 'facts'. It begs the points I have in question.

Morals are NOT 'facts' other than as statements about people's variable opinions.
A 'fact' is a "constant".
I interpret morals as "variables" relative to subjective perception of 'value' with respect to them (ie, 'good to me' versus 'bad to me').

"Facts about morals" would be more appropriate if it is your intent to discuss THAT people have specific claims of appropriate behavior.

You don't have a good grasp of what is morality in general.

Scott: "Morals are NOT 'facts' other than as statements about people's variable opinions."
I believe you did not read the OP thoroughly.

Note I stated therein,
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

What are moral facts is they are universal and generic to ALL humans.
To qualify as Justified True Moral Beliefs, they must be justified and verified empirically and philosophically from within a moral framework and system.
I have already done that a '1000' times in various thread in this section - will not be repeating the explanations.

"Facts" are contentious with respect to history and politics. People argue for whether Hitler killed 6 Million Jews versus 1 Million as if such contentions can be resolved. The MEANING of your 'morals' that I take issue with is that you are asserting some means to declare something SPECIFIC about 'true' morals versus 'false' ones.
There is no such thing as morals that are "independent of individuals' opinions." So there are no 'facts' that are relevant to considered 'objective'.

To assert that moral facts are universal and generic is intentionally confusing. You are being ambigous to reference the FACT THAT people declare morals in statements but are intending to TRANSFER the generic fact to something 'universally' MORAL, such as

"For all X,Y,
X is 'good';
Y is 'bad'"

And this statement,

To qualify as Justified True Moral Beliefs, they must be justified and verified empirically and philosophically from within a moral framework and system.

is loaded with too many things. What is 'justified' mean to you? This to me is one's EMOTIONAL EVALUATION of a JUDGEMENT as being either RIGHT or WRONG. This begs 'morals' as existing apriori. "True Moral Beliefs" is odd to assert. Are you meaning the mere FACT THAT someone declares some moral as 'true'? If so, this agin begs evaluation. We aren't judging whether something has the property of 'being green' here. So how can you expect a moral to be 'observed' at all. You also ignore we already 'observed' contradictions and paradoxes of people's beliefs and actual decisions. So for me, it only takes ONE observation THAT there exists paradoxical options for things as simple like, "do not kill".

All you can do is discuss conditionals and optimizing with some predefined goal in mind. Do you favor ALL the people in the world or ONLY SOME? Do you favor these people in the future context or only now? If you are a democrat, you will favor a majority as 'valuably worthy'; If you are a conservative, you will favor only your local familiar interests of family and loved ones as 'valuably worthy'.

So it comes across that you have some 'ideal' in mind and one that while intentionally fine, is not realistic and definitely politically dependent. Politics is ABOUT creating 'morals'. They are just called "laws" to differentiate the fact that people's morals are relatively 'fixed' and cannot be assimilated realistically. Had some science found some ideal before, politics would be no longer needing a legislative branch. It would only require a codex or 'commandment' book that summarizes the fixed laws in the same way as religions tend to do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You don't have a good grasp of what is morality in general.

Note I stated therein,
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

What are moral facts is they are universal and generic to ALL humans.
To qualify as Justified True Moral Beliefs, they must be justified and verified empirically and philosophically from within a moral framework and system.
I have already done that a '1000' times in various thread in this section - will not be repeating the explanations.

"Facts" are contentious with respect to history and politics. People argue for whether Hitler killed 6 Million Jews versus 1 Million as if such contentions can be resolved. The MEANING of your 'morals' that I take issue with is that you are asserting some means to declare something SPECIFIC about 'true' morals versus 'false' ones.
There is no such thing as morals that are "independent of individuals' opinions." So there are no 'facts' that are relevant to considered 'objective'.

As I had stated you do not have a good grasp of what is morality-proper.
You need to dig deeper into the Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.

Let me give you a hint of the direction I am coming from.

• Here is a generic biological fact within the biological and psychological FSK
  It is a biological fact, All Humans are "programmed" to breathe, else they die.
  Therefore ALL humans ought to breathe.
  The above can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the biological and psychological FSK.

Thus within the moral FSK there are generic moral facts [related to morality] which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral framework and system.

Those individuals and groups who make personal judgments & statements and expressed personal opinions and beliefs about abortion, killings, slavery, rapes and various evil acts [which you refer to] are not acting within the ambit of morality-proper. In a way, they are merely making noises related to moral elements.

To assert that moral facts are universal and generic is intentionally confusing. You are being ambigous to reference the FACT THAT people declare morals in statements but are intending to TRANSFER the generic fact to something 'universally' MORAL, such as

"For all X,Y,
X is 'good';
Y is 'bad'"

And this statement,

To qualify as Justified True Moral Beliefs, they must be justified and verified empirically and philosophically from within a moral framework and system.

is loaded with too many things. What is 'justified' mean to you? This to me is one's EMOTIONAL EVALUATION of a JUDGEMENT as being either RIGHT or WRONG. This begs 'morals' as existing apriori. "True Moral Beliefs" is odd to assert. Are you meaning the mere FACT THAT someone declares some moral as 'true'? If so, this agin begs evaluation. We aren't judging whether something has the property of 'being green' here. So how can you expect a moral to be 'observed' at all. You also ignore we already 'observed' contradictions and paradoxes of people's beliefs and actual decisions. So for me, it only takes ONE observation THAT there exists paradoxical options for things as simple like, "do not kill".

All you can do is discuss conditionals and optimizing with some predefined goal in mind. Do you favor ALL the people in the world or ONLY SOME? Do you favor these people in the future context or only now? If you are a democrat, you will favor a majority as 'valuably worthy'; If you are a conservative, you will favor only your local familiar interests of family and loved ones as 'valuably worthy'.

So it comes across that you have some 'ideal' in mind and one that while intentionally fine, is not realistic and definitely politically dependent. Politics is ABOUT creating 'morals'. They are just called "laws" to differentiate the fact that people's morals are relatively 'fixed' and cannot be assimilated realistically. Had some science found some ideal before, politics would be no longer needing a legislative branch. It would only require a codex or 'commandment' book that summarizes the fixed laws in the same way as religions tend to do.

Note my explanation above.
Your points are off track from what is morality-proper.

[Peter Holmes]

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?

'This is your argument for moral objectivity:

'There are moral facts; therefore morality is objective'.

That's all your fake syllogism amounts to. That you think it's sound is utterly laughable. You are a joke. Or perhaps you really are a troll? Trouble is, trolls usually try to at least seem intelligent.

[Scott Mayers]

As I had stated you do not have a good grasp of what is morality-proper.
You need to dig deeper into the Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.

Let me give you a hint of the direction I am coming from.

• Here is a generic biological fact within the biological and psychological FSK
  It is a biological fact, All Humans are "programmed" to breathe, else they die.
  Therefore ALL humans ought to breathe.
  The above can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the biological and psychological FSK.

Note the underlined CONDITION. You are extending the neutral conditional fact to a SUGGESTION about value for doing so with your use of 'ought'. "Ought" is a suggested opinion of one's internal emotional evaluation between more than one possible set of behaviors that people CHOOSE to do. So, for instance, should one choose to "permit some act that restricts another to breathe?" versus the option, "choose NOT to restrict that person to breathe?" These are options of human behavior dependent upon the capacity of someone asking whether they should or should not do so for some condition. The conditions also requires that some DECISION is required TO behave, like that GIVEN we have to decide between those options at all.

[I'm just waking up and have to get coffee, shake off this headache I am having and will get back to you on the rest. This suffices as an immediate response that needs addressing for you though.]

Edit: I see that you didn't add anything but a sentence or two but did not answer the questions regarding your proprietary terms and in fact just repeated it. I think you mean well but cannot do what I understand you trying to do. You NEED to get into politics, as probably distasteful for you to care to, something that I understand too. But that is where you can attempt to argue DECISION MAKING logic that focuses on optimizing decisions when given choices. It is not a choice to breathe but might be a choice if you were FORCED to DECIDE between two or more options that compete with one another.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated you do not have a good grasp of what is morality-proper.
You need to dig deeper into the Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.

Let me give you a hint of the direction I am coming from.

• Here is a generic biological fact within the biological and psychological FSK
  It is a biological fact, All Humans are "programmed" to breathe, else they die.
  Therefore ALL humans ought to breathe.
  The above can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the biological and psychological FSK.

Note the underlined CONDITION. You are extending the neutral conditional fact to a SUGGESTION about value for doing so with your use of 'ought'.

"Ought" is a suggested opinion of one's internal emotional evaluation between more than one possible set of behaviors that people CHOOSE to do.

So, for instance, should one choose to "permit some act that restricts another to breathe?" versus the option, "choose NOT to restrict that person to breathe?"
These are options of human behavior dependent upon the capacity of someone asking whether they should or should not do so for some condition. The conditions also requires that some DECISION is required TO behave, like that GIVEN we have to decide between those options at all.

You have a very limited and bias meaning of 'ought'.
Note one relevant meaning of ought,

• ought = used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
  -Oxford Dictionary

Point is the 'oughtness-to-breathe' -an imperative - is a biological fact supported by an "evolved programmed" of an autonomic and neural algorithm.

Edit: I see that you didn't add anything but a sentence or two but did not answer the questions regarding your proprietary terms and in fact just repeated it. I think you mean well but cannot do what I understand you trying to do. You NEED to get into politics, as probably distasteful for you to care to, something that I understand too. But that is where you can attempt to argue DECISION MAKING logic that focuses on optimizing decisions when given choices.
It is not a choice to breathe but might be a choice if you were FORCED to DECIDE between two or more options that compete with one another.

I responded to what is relevant from my perspective.

It is a fact of biology, humans has no choice but ought to breathe.
This fact is easily justified empirically via the biology FSK and even common sense.

What I have been doing is to argue for similar fact to the above from the moral perspective based on empirical and philosophical justifications.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

'This is your argument for moral objectivity:

'There are moral facts; therefore morality is objective'.

That's all your fake syllogism amounts to. That you think it's sound is utterly laughable. You are a joke. Or perhaps you really are a troll? Trouble is, trolls usually try to at least seem intelligent.

Making noises again.

You are good at cheating, you deliberately omitted the critical point, i.e.

'There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],
...
therefore morality is objective'.

You are the one who is trolling in the first place with your thread,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
which you think those who claim morality is objective are idiots.

Note the hint I linked, 56% of philosophers surveyed are moral realists, thus morality for them is objective.

Now that you are debunked and busted, instead of presenting sound arguments, you complain others are trolls.

[Scott Mayers]

As I had stated you do not have a good grasp of what is morality-proper.
You need to dig deeper into the Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.

Let me give you a hint of the direction I am coming from.

• Here is a generic biological fact within the biological and psychological FSK
  It is a biological fact, All Humans are "programmed" to breathe, else they die.
  Therefore ALL humans ought to breathe.
  The above can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the biological and psychological FSK.

Note the underlined CONDITION. You are extending the neutral conditional fact to a SUGGESTION about value for doing so with your use of 'ought'.

"Ought" is a suggested opinion of one's internal emotional evaluation between more than one possible set of behaviors that people CHOOSE to do.

So, for instance, should one choose to "permit some act that restricts another to breathe?" versus the option, "choose NOT to restrict that person to breathe?"
These are options of human behavior dependent upon the capacity of someone asking whether they should or should not do so for some condition. The conditions also requires that some DECISION is required TO behave, like that GIVEN we have to decide between those options at all.

You have a very limited and bias meaning of 'ought'.
Note one relevant meaning of ought,

• ought = used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
  -Oxford Dictionary

Point is the 'oughtness-to-breathe' -an imperative - is a biological fact supported by an "evolved programmed" of an autonomic and neural algorithm.

This is very odd for you to extend 'duty' OR 'correctness' to something NECESSARY to biology.
While that given definition is fine, it only supports my understanding, not yours. It even adds that it is "typically when critizing someone's actions" as per my point about DECISIONS!

There is no duty nor correctness to criticize to issues between people about the necessity to breathe.

As the lion is about to eat the gizelle, the gizelle attempts to debate whether the lion 'ought' to eat her:

"Before you do what I think you are going to do, I need you to think ahead, dear lion, do you think you OUGHT to eat me considering it will prevent me from breathing and end my life?"

"Before you begin questioning my morals, do you think I OUGHT to starve and leave me so weak that I too end up breathless in death?"

Edit: I see that you didn't add anything but a sentence or two but did not answer the questions regarding your proprietary terms and in fact just repeated it. I think you mean well but cannot do what I understand you trying to do. You NEED to get into politics, as probably distasteful for you to care to, something that I understand too. But that is where you can attempt to argue DECISION MAKING logic that focuses on optimizing decisions when given choices.
It is not a choice to breathe but might be a choice if you were FORCED to DECIDE between two or more options that compete with one another.

I responded to what is relevant from my perspective.

It is a fact of biology, humans has no choice but ought to breathe.
This fact is easily justified empirically via the biology FSK and even common sense.

What I have been doing is to argue for similar fact to the above from the moral perspective based on empirical and philosophical justifications.

Asserting the FACT that a biological entity requires the need to breathe has no relationship to WHETHER the act is 'necessary' to conserve one's life.

I ask you to NOT beg the terms 'empirical and philosophical justification' for something that is immeasurable to DECISIONS. If you really think that you are being appropriately 'scientific', go to The Skeptic Society's Forum and see how well this goes there. [That's Michael Shermer's Skeptic Magazine offshoot. While he may not necessarily be there to respond, others there may be able to relate to your intentional goals and possibly be able to suggest something that he shares with you that I don't given others there would be more familiar to him (possibly). https://www.skepticforum.com/index.php ]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the underlined CONDITION. You are extending the neutral conditional fact to a SUGGESTION about value for doing so with your use of 'ought'.

"Ought" is a suggested opinion of one's internal emotional evaluation between more than one possible set of behaviors that people CHOOSE to do.

So, for instance, should one choose to "permit some act that restricts another to breathe?" versus the option, "choose NOT to restrict that person to breathe?"
These are options of human behavior dependent upon the capacity of someone asking whether they should or should not do so for some condition. The conditions also requires that some DECISION is required TO behave, like that GIVEN we have to decide between those options at all.

You have a very limited and bias meaning of 'ought'.
Note one relevant meaning of ought,

• ought = used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
  -Oxford Dictionary

Point is the 'oughtness-to-breathe' -an imperative - is a biological fact supported by an "evolved programmed" of an autonomic and neural algorithm.

This is very odd for you to extend 'duty' OR 'correctness' to something NECESSARY to biology.
While that given definition is fine, it only supports my understanding, not yours. It even adds that it is "typically when critizing someone's actions" as per my point about DECISIONS!

There is no duty nor correctness to criticize to issues between people about the necessity to breathe.

You have a problem with confirmation bias.

Note the meaning of "correct"

• Correct= free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.
  -oxford dictionary

Thus 'all humans ought to breathe' is in accordance to the biological fact of the inherent program of the need to breathe.

As the lion is about to eat the gizelle, the gizelle attempts to debate whether the lion 'ought' to eat her:

"Before you do what I think you are going to do, I need you to think ahead, dear lion, do you think you OUGHT to eat me considering it will prevent me from breathing and end my life?"

"Before you begin questioning my morals, do you think I OUGHT to starve and leave me so weak that I too end up breathless in death?"

This is a deflection.
My example of 'the oughtness to breathe' is an analogy to 'moral ought' which must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
As I had stated, you don't have a good grasp of what is morality proper.
Morality proper is confined to humans only and to other living things only where humans has a vested interests in them.

Edit: I see that you didn't add anything but a sentence or two but did not answer the questions regarding your proprietary terms and in fact just repeated it. I think you mean well but cannot do what I understand you trying to do. You NEED to get into politics, as probably distasteful for you to care to, something that I understand too. But that is where you can attempt to argue DECISION MAKING logic that focuses on optimizing decisions when given choices.
It is not a choice to breathe but might be a choice if you were FORCED to DECIDE between two or more options that compete with one another.

I responded to what is relevant from my perspective.

It is a fact of biology, humans has no choice but ought to breathe.
This fact is easily justified empirically via the biology FSK and even common sense.

What I have been doing is to argue for similar fact to the above from the moral perspective based on empirical and philosophical justifications.

Asserting the FACT that a biological entity requires the need to breathe has no relationship to WHETHER the act is 'necessary' to conserve one's life.

It is a fact, are you denying such a biological fact.
Any biological scientist will affirm this fact that human ought to breathe else they die. Even common sense is sufficient to justify that common knowledge.

I ask you to NOT beg the terms 'empirical and philosophical justification' for something that is immeasurable to DECISIONS.
If you really think that you are being appropriately 'scientific', go to The Skeptic Society's Forum and see how well this goes there. [That's Michael Shermer's Skeptic Magazine offshoot. While he may not necessarily be there to respond, others there may be able to relate to your intentional goals and possibly be able to suggest something that he shares with you that I don't given others there would be more familiar to him (possibly). https://www.skepticforum.com/index.php ]

I said again, you don't have a good grasp of what is morality- proper.
Morality proper is not primarily about making moral decisions and moral judgments.
Trolley casuistry problems like "is it moral to kill one or 5" and typical moral decisions are not central to morality.

Note what is morality in general;

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

The central issue with morality is thus how can the body of standard or principles be objective rather than arbitrarily selected by humans or delivered from a God.

This is why, whatever the body of standard and principles, they must be derived from moral facts that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
To ask me not to ground morality to moral facts that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically is so unphilosophical.

Note, in the above, I have to correct your points to my views [.. I believe are sound] which I have already expressed in the many threads [>50?] I have raised in this Ethical Theory section. I don't want to repeat then [to save time], so I suggest you read them.

[Scott Mayers]

I give up. You're sounding like a parrot who can only learn a handful of words that at first sound impressive and makes you think it can think and reason but makes you feel like a fool when you realize that it IS only a parrot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I give up. You're sounding like a parrot who can only learn a handful of words that at first sound impressive and makes you think it can think and reason but makes you feel like a fool when you realize that it IS only a parrot.

Whatever..
The currency within this philosophical forum and what is critical are sound arguments from oneself and those backed by the philosophical community [which you are ignoring].

It is a fact, philosophy is 90% parroting and 10% own arguments with the maxim 'no absolute definite answers'.

Btw, if you read up Hume's Treatise and Enquiry re moral topics and parrot Hume, it will save you a lot of headaches in thinking by yourself re the above points.

A Treatise of Human Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Treatis ... man_Nature

An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enquir ... _of_Morals

It is wiser to be a parrot in this case rather than to reinvent the wheel.

[Peter Holmes]

The currency within this philosophical forum and what is critical are sound arguments from oneself and those backed by the philosophical community [which you are ignoring].

It is a fact, philosophy is 90% parroting and 10% own arguments with the maxim 'no absolute definite answers'.

No, all that matters in philosophy, as in any other discipline, are the following: claims that are - or at least seem to be - true; and arguments that are - or at least seem to be - sound.

If 'the philosphical community' endorses false claims and unsound arguments, then its backing is worse than useless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The currency within this philosophical forum and what is critical are sound arguments from oneself and those backed by the philosophical community [which you are ignoring].

It is a fact, philosophy is 90% parroting and 10% own arguments with the maxim 'no absolute definite answers'.

No, all that matters in philosophy, as in any other discipline, are the following: claims that are - or at least seem to be - true; and arguments that are - or at least seem to be - sound.

If 'the philosophical community' endorses false claims and unsound arguments, then its backing is worse than useless.

The backbone of philosophy thus adopted by those within a philosophical community [genuine not pseudo] ensure critical thinking and open-ended conclusions.

In the philosophical processes, those arguments which are not valid, sound nor reasonable would have been thrown out long ago or severely countered.
Those arguments which are marginally reasonable will soon be downgraded or eroded.

The argument for God exists had been around for a long time, but they are not philosophy-proper rather they are theology and if forced into philosophy, they are pseudo-philosophical or cheapskate philosophy.

[Peter Holmes]

The currency within this philosophical forum and what is critical are sound arguments from oneself and those backed by the philosophical community [which you are ignoring].

It is a fact, philosophy is 90% parroting and 10% own arguments with the maxim 'no absolute definite answers'.

No, all that matters in philosophy, as in any other discipline, are the following: claims that are - or at least seem to be - true; and arguments that are - or at least seem to be - sound.

If 'the philosophical community' endorses false claims and unsound arguments, then its backing is worse than useless.

The backbone of philosophy thus adopted by those within a philosophical community [genuine not pseudo] ensure critical thinking and open-ended conclusions.

In the philosophical processes, those arguments which are not valid, sound nor reasonable would have been thrown out long ago or severely countered.
Those arguments which are marginally reasonable will soon be downgraded or eroded.

The argument for God exists had been around for a long time, but they are not philosophy-proper rather they are theology and if forced into philosophy, they are pseudo-philosophical or cheapskate philosophy.

And one requirement of critical thinking or rational skepticism is the need to acknowledge absence of evidence and unsoundness of argument. You have failed to produce either evidence for the existence of moral facts, or a sound argument for their existence. Yet you cling to your belief with religious fervour, mumbling your doxology for comfort.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.