Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

Of course, morality is subjective. The mind is objective.

What definition of subjective and objective are you using?

The objective is something that exists independent of anything else, the mind. Subjective is something that its existence is due to something else like objective or another subjective, such as any mental state.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever is a fact is verified and justified from a specific FSK.
E.g. whatever is a scientific fact is verified and justified from the Scientific FSK.
E.g. Whatever is a biological fact is verified and justified from the Biology FSK.
Thus whatever is a moral fact is verified and justified from the Moral FSK.

"ALL humans ought to breathe else they die" as verified and justified within the Biology FSK is a biological fact.
Analogously 'No human ought to kill humans else they are evil*' as verified and justified within the Moral FSK is a moral fact.

Claim: what we call a fact exists only within a descriptive context.

If by 'fact' we mean 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then this claim is false. A feature of reality, such as a dog, just is or was the case. The claim that a dog exists only within a descriptive context is ridiculous.

If by 'fact' we mean 'description of a feature of reality that is or was the case', then this claim is true. A description - a truth-claim - is always contextual. There is no such thing as a context-free description.

Where did I ever claim "a fact exists only within a descriptive context."

You are the one who is dogmatic and ignorant where you are insisting a fact exists based on a descriptive context, i.e.
'a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case or state of affairs".
All you have been doing is merely repeating the words and meanings but never deal with what is really real.
Note your view is merely confined to words and language, i.e. linguistics.
You never bother to deal with what-is-that-fact which is corresponding to the said-fact.

Now what I claimed is directed at reality, i.e.
a "fact" is that 'feature of reality' which is verified and justified empirically [evidence-based] and philosophically within a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR].

But, since the fact is justified within a FSK/FSK [humanly constructed], that justified-fact is not absolutely independent of human conditions.

That fact or feature of reality co-exists with humans and do not have absolute independent existence, i.e. as a fact-in-itself.

Note Russell's re the fact of a 'real solid table' out there, where he stated "there may not be a table at all".

... doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.
Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.

Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Don't come with your usual retort, Russell was stupid and dealing with metaphysical nonsense.

You need to understand what Russell [a notable and credible philosopher] was talking about before you condemn him on the above.

But the truth of a description - such as a description of a dog - depends on the existence of the thing being described, not the existence of the description. A description does not create or change the thing being described.
For example, a biological description of the human need to breathe does not make the human need to breathe a reality. That reality is independent from the description.

That is what you are lacking, i.e. re cognizing and realizing the existence of the things being described.
You are merely making statements but did not venture to deal with what-is-the-fact that is existing.

If the fact is a dog, [common sense aside] then it has to be verified and justified via the biology FSK which then its reality has to co-entangle with humans and never in-itself, there is no dog-in-itself which exists independent of the human conditions.

As Russell doubted, perhaps there is no dog at all, i.e. no dog-in-itself.

How can you be so ignorant..
i.e. that it is a biological fact of a reality and a state of affair in reality,
that all human must [ought, need, have to] breathe, else they die -within the biological FSK and FSR.

Can you sense the reality within yourself, i.e. as a human being you must [ought, need, have to] breathe, else you'll die?

The claim that moral facts (features of reality) exist because there is a moral framework and system of knowledge (a moral descriptive context) is obviously ridiculous. No fact (feature of reality) of any kind exists because of a descriptive context.

If moral features of reality exist, then their existence is independent from any descriptive context; a supposed 'moral framework and system of knowledge' can't make them exist - any more than a scientific descriptive context can make a scientific feature of reality exist.

You are off point on the above.

I claimed, as with scientific facts, there are justified true moral facts which are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within moral framework and system of knowledge.
When a fact like a scientific fact is justified within its FSK, it is a reality which is experienced and possible to be experienced.
The description of the scientific fact is not the reality of it.

Similarly, when a moral fact [like a scientific fact] is justified within its moral FSK, it is a reality which is experienced and possible to be experienced.
The description of the moral fact is not the reality of the moral fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever is a fact is verified and justified from a specific FSK.

Facts are defined to be independent of FSKs. Can you point to dictionaries which claim otherwise?

Dictionaries meanings are useful for common use but what is more critical in a philosophy forum are philosophical definitions of a term and its ultimate implications.

Facts of reality of the external world as per our senses are 'obviously' independent of humans but that is only apparent,
what is ultimate with what-is-fact per se is,

• 1. Reality, i.e. all there is comprised of facts of reality.
  2. Humans as facts are part and parcel of reality.
  3. Therefore, ultimately, all facts cannot be independent of humans.

Re facts from FSK,

1. Facts of reality - all-there-is are justified by its respective FSK.
2. FSKs are constructed by humans.
3. Therefore facts cannot be independent of the FSK and humans.

[Peter Holmes]

Of course, morality is subjective. The mind is objective.

What definition of subjective and objective are you using?

The objective is something that exists independent of anything else, the mind. Subjective is something that its existence is due to something else like objective or another subjective, such as any mental state.

I suggest it's confusing to use the modifier 'objective' to describe things such as dogs. What would an objective dog be? How would it be different from a subjective dog? Or, predicatively, can a dog be objective? And this is why the expression 'objective fact' is incoherent - a misattribution - as is the claim 'the mind is objective'.

Instead - what we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So the primary use for 'objective' is to describe a person; someone who relies on facts rather than opinions, feelings, impressions, and so on, is being objective. And, by extension, an objective decision is one made on the basis of facts rather than opinions. The existence and nature of what we call facts is at the heart of this argument. Is there such a thing as a subjective fact? Why is that question incoherent?

(Sidebar: the methodological naturalism of natural science rests on what we call objectivity. Fashionable talk of paradigms, polished conjectures and the wrongness of models is belied in practice all the time by natural scientists, who, contrary to the lazy mantra, do deal with truth, such as the truth of data. That new data may falsify a conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion must be false. Do we think the data could also be false? Do we have no way to verify it? Verification and falsification are two sides of the same coin. What we call truth, facts and objectivity can only be what we say they are.)

It follows, I think, that the 'external/internal' or 'mind-independent/mind-dependent' or 'collective/individual' distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity are misleading. (I reckon they derive from metaphysical furkling down the rabbit hole, as do most philosophical problems.)

Upshot. Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts - moral features of reality - and the claimants incur a burden of proof (as in the need for the claim to be testable and tested.) A burden unmet, so far, to my knowledge.

The fatuous but fashionable - and subversively exciting - claim that what we call a fact is merely an agreement to describe something in a certain way - so that there's no functional difference between the claims 'water is H2O' and 'slavery is morally wrong' - if we call one a fact, there's no reason not to call the other a fact - this nonsense has been swilling around for some time. It means: 'what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.'

And that's both false and self-defeating. The claim 'there are no facts' detonates itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fatuous but fashionable - and subversively exciting - claim that what we call a fact is merely an agreement to describe something in a certain way - so that there's no functional difference between the claims 'water is H2O' and 'slavery is morally wrong' - if we call one a fact, there's no reason not to call the other a fact - this nonsense has been swilling around for some time. It means: 'what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.'

And that's both false and self-defeating. The claim 'there are no facts' detonates itself.

Straw-manning??
Can you show references which philosopher or anyone has claimed,
'slavery is morally wrong' as fact?

Note my stance.
Judgments and Decisions [by individuals or groups] are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

and,

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

[Skepdick]

Instead - what we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.

Begging the question. Pre-supposes fact/opinion distinction.

All of your definitions are viciously circular.

[Peter Holmes]

The fatuous but fashionable - and subversively exciting - claim that what we call a fact is merely an agreement to describe something in a certain way - so that there's no functional difference between the claims 'water is H2O' and 'slavery is morally wrong' - if we call one a fact, there's no reason not to call the other a fact - this nonsense has been swilling around for some time. It means: 'what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.'

And that's both false and self-defeating. The claim 'there are no facts' detonates itself.

Straw-manning??
Can you show references which philosopher or anyone has claimed,
'slavery is morally wrong' as fact?

Note my stance.
Judgments and Decisions [by individuals or groups] are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

and,

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

Talk about missing the whole point!

Okay, for 'slavery is morally wrong', substitute 'humans ought not to kill humans'.

[Skepdick]

Talk about missing the whole point!

Okay, for 'slavery is morally wrong', substitute 'humans ought not to kill humans'.

If average humans are saying it, why aren't philosophers saying it?

Did you suddenly stop caring about conventional use of language?

[bahman]

What definition of subjective and objective are you using?

The objective is something that exists independent of anything else, the mind. Subjective is something that its existence is due to something else like objective or another subjective, such as any mental state.

I suggest it's confusing to use the modifier 'objective' to describe things such as dogs. What would an objective dog be?

The dog that is sitting next to you if you have any.

How would it be different from a subjective dog?

The one who is in your thoughts.

Or, predicatively, can a dog be objective?

We know what is a objective and subjective dog are. At least now when definition is given.

And this is why the expression 'objective fact' is incoherent - a misattribution - as is the claim 'the mind is objective'.

Fact is objective given the new definition of objective, what is true independent of personal opinion. By mind is objective I mean the different meaning of objective and that is coherent.

Instead - what we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.

Fact is objective. An idea could be objective if it is based on facts though.

So the primary use for 'objective' is to describe a person; someone who relies on facts rather than opinions, feelings, impressions, and so on, is being objective. And, by extension, an objective decision is one made on the basis of facts rather than opinions. The existence and nature of what we call facts is at the heart of this argument. Is there such a thing as a subjective fact? Why is that question incoherent?

There is no such a thing as subjective fact given the new definition of subjective, person dependent.

(Sidebar: the methodological naturalism of natural science rests on what we call objectivity. Fashionable talk of paradigms, polished conjectures and the wrongness of models is belied in practice all the time by natural scientists, who, contrary to the lazy mantra, do deal with truth, such as the truth of data. That new data may falsify a conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion must be false. Do we think the data could also be false? Do we have no way to verify it? Verification and falsification are two sides of the same coin. What we call truth, facts and objectivity can only be what we say they are.)

Oh well, this is a different topic.

It follows, I think, that the 'external/internal' or 'mind-independent/mind-dependent' or 'collective/individual' distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity are misleading. (I reckon they derive from metaphysical furkling down the rabbit hole, as do most philosophical problems.)

I don't think so.

Upshot. Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts - moral features of reality - and the claimants incur a burden of proof (as in the need for the claim to be testable and tested.) A burden unmet, so far, to my knowledge.

Equity which is an ethical principle can be understood and derived. But that is the subject of long debate, what we are.

The fatuous but fashionable - and subversively exciting - claim that what we call a fact is merely an agreement to describe something in a certain way - so that there's no functional difference between the claims 'water is H2O' and 'slavery is morally wrong' - if we call one a fact, there's no reason not to call the other a fact - this nonsense has been swilling around for some time. It means: 'what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.'

Oh well, there is a short way between slavery is wrong and the basic ethical principle, we are equal.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course, morality is subjective. The mind is objective.

What definition of subjective and objective are you using?

The objective is something that exists independent of anything else, the mind. Subjective is something that its existence is due to something else like objective or another subjective, such as any mental state.

Okay. Usually "objective" refers to things that are independent of persons, or more specifically their minds.

Re your definition, how are you figuring that minds "exist independently of anything else"?

[bahman]

What definition of subjective and objective are you using?

The objective is something that exists independent of anything else, the mind. Subjective is something that its existence is due to something else like objective or another subjective, such as any mental state.

Okay. Usually "objective" refers to things that are independent of persons, or more specifically their minds.

Hell yeah. That is another definition of objective.

Re your definition, how are you figuring that minds "exist independently of anything else"?

That is true since the mind is free. The story is long but I can tell it if you are interested.

[Terrapin Station]

The objective is something that exists independent of anything else, the mind. Subjective is something that its existence is due to something else like objective or another subjective, such as any mental state.

Okay. Usually "objective" refers to things that are independent of persons, or more specifically their minds.

Hell yeah. That is another definition of objective.

Re your definition, how are you figuring that minds "exist independently of anything else"?

That is true since the mind is free. The story is long but I can tell it if you are interested.

Well, you don't think that minds exist independently of bodies, do you?

[Skepdick]

Okay. Usually "objective" refers to things that are independent of persons, or more specifically their minds.

Person/mind-independent reference.

I can't even begin to fathom what could be like.

[Peter Holmes]

The objective is something that exists independent of anything else, the mind. Subjective is something that its existence is due to something else like objective or another subjective, such as any mental state.

I suggest it's confusing to use the modifier 'objective' to describe things such as dogs. What would an objective dog be?

The dog that is sitting next to you if you have any.

How would it be different from a subjective dog?

The one who is in your thoughts.

Or, predicatively, can a dog be objective?

We know what is a objective and subjective dog are. At least now when definition is given.

And this is why the expression 'objective fact' is incoherent - a misattribution - as is the claim 'the mind is objective'.

Fact is objective given the new definition of objective, what is true independent of personal opinion. By mind is objective I mean the different meaning of objective and that is coherent.

Instead - what we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.

Fact is objective. An idea could be objective if it is based on facts though.

So the primary use for 'objective' is to describe a person; someone who relies on facts rather than opinions, feelings, impressions, and so on, is being objective. And, by extension, an objective decision is one made on the basis of facts rather than opinions. The existence and nature of what we call facts is at the heart of this argument. Is there such a thing as a subjective fact? Why is that question incoherent?

There is no such a thing as subjective fact given the new definition of subjective, person dependent.

(Sidebar: the methodological naturalism of natural science rests on what we call objectivity. Fashionable talk of paradigms, polished conjectures and the wrongness of models is belied in practice all the time by natural scientists, who, contrary to the lazy mantra, do deal with truth, such as the truth of data. That new data may falsify a conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion must be false. Do we think the data could also be false? Do we have no way to verify it? Verification and falsification are two sides of the same coin. What we call truth, facts and objectivity can only be what we say they are.)

Oh well, this is a different topic.

It follows, I think, that the 'external/internal' or 'mind-independent/mind-dependent' or 'collective/individual' distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity are misleading. (I reckon they derive from metaphysical furkling down the rabbit hole, as do most philosophical problems.)

I don't think so.

Upshot. Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts - moral features of reality - and the claimants incur a burden of proof (as in the need for the claim to be testable and tested.) A burden unmet, so far, to my knowledge.

Equity which is an ethical principle can be understood and derived. But that is the subject of long debate, what we are.

The fatuous but fashionable - and subversively exciting - claim that what we call a fact is merely an agreement to describe something in a certain way - so that there's no functional difference between the claims 'water is H2O' and 'slavery is morally wrong' - if we call one a fact, there's no reason not to call the other a fact - this nonsense has been swilling around for some time. It means: 'what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are.'

Oh well, there is a short way between slavery is wrong and the basic ethical principle, we are equal.

Just on the last bit about equity: 'the basic ethical principle, we are equal'.

This looks like a factual assertion with a truth-value, like Henry's supposed basic fact: 'a person owns herself' - which doesn't mention equity or equality. So here are two different 'basic principles', masquerading as unarguable facts, from which moral values and judgements are supposed to follow - as follows:

1 We are equal; therefore everyone should be treated equally - and therefore slavery is morally wrong.
2 A person owns herself; therefore a person should own herself - and therefore slavery is morally wrong.

Point is, leaving aside the truth-value of the factual premises, the conclusions don't logically follow anyway.

[Skepdick]

Point is, leaving aside the truth-value of the factual premises, the conclusions don't logically follow anyway.

The conclusions may or may not follow logically.

It depends on which logic you are prescribing. It depends on the inference rules which you consider as "valid".
And all of that stuff is (as you say) subjective!

This is what intellectual dishonesty looks like in practice. Prescribing social norm on logic while arguing against social norms on morality.

The usual, philosophical bait&switch. What a c.u.n.t!