What could make morality objective?

[Terrapin Station]

you assumed there are pre-existing feature of reality without proofs and justifications they exists as real,

Apparently you believe that empirical claims are provable? Could you give an example of an empirical claim that you think there's proof for?

[Skepdick]

Apparently you believe that empirical claims are provable? Could you give an example of an empirical claim that you think there's proof for?

Apparently you believe that any claims are provable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

You know, I may be an asshole but at least there's three kinds of assholes.

There's only one kind of Philosopher. The lame and predictable kind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

you assumed there are pre-existing feature of reality without proofs and justifications they exists as real,

Apparently you believe that empirical claims are provable? .Could you give an example of an empirical claim that you think there's proof for?

I am surprised such a basic question.

Note there are various meaningd of 'proof', i.e.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof

• Proof
  1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
  2. anything serving as such evidence:
  ...What proof do you have?
  3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
  ...to put a thing to the proof.
  4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
  Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
  the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
  an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
  Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

Scientific facts, truths or knowledge are based on empirical claims that are proven with scientific proofs within the scientific framework and system.
Thus scientific proofs align with meaning 1-4 above.

What is the issue you have with the above?

[Terrapin Station]

you assumed there are pre-existing feature of reality without proofs and justifications they exists as real,

Apparently you believe that empirical claims are provable? .Could you give an example of an empirical claim that you think there's proof for?

I am surprised such a basic question.

Note there are various meaningd of 'proof', i.e.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof

• Proof
  1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
  2. anything serving as such evidence:
  ...What proof do you have?
  3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
  ...to put a thing to the proof.
  4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
  Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
  the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
  an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
  Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

Scientific facts, truths or knowledge are based on empirical claims that are proven with scientific proofs within the scientific framework and system.
Thus scientific proofs align with meaning 1-4 above.

What is the issue you have with the above?

Bzzzt! I asked you to give me an example of an empirical claim that you think there's proof for.

Are you able to do that, or is it beyond your capabilities?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Apparently you believe that empirical claims are provable? .Could you give an example of an empirical claim that you think there's proof for?

I am surprised such a basic question.

Note there are various meaningd of 'proof', i.e.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof

• Proof
  1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
  2. anything serving as such evidence:
  ...What proof do you have?
  3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
  ...to put a thing to the proof.
  4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
  Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
  the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
  an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
  Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

Scientific facts, truths or knowledge are based on empirical claims that are proven with scientific proofs within the scientific framework and system.
Thus scientific proofs align with meaning 1-4 above.

What is the issue you have with the above?

Bzzzt! I asked you to give me an example of an empirical claim that you think there's proof for.

Are you able to do that, or is it beyond your capabilities?

Instead of giving an example I had given you the principles wherefrom you can easily track to an example.

An empirical claim makes a statement about the world.
For example: The moon is made of green cheese.
We need scientific knowledge about the world to test an empirical claim.
Scientific knowledge is public information gained by careful observations and experiments.

What is empirical evidence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Let take the empirical claim,
"The planet Mars exists"

Surely there is no dispute the above empirical claim had been proven to be true with scientific [astronomy] proofs.
You don't agree.

[Terrapin Station]

Instead of giving an example I had given you the principles wherefrom you can easily track to an example.

If I ask you to give me an example, I want you to give me an example, not anything else.

Let take the empirical claim,
"The planet Mars exists"

Surely there is no dispute the above empirical claim had been proven to be true with scientific [astronomy] proofs.
You don't agree.

You wouldn't say that it's impossible for "The planet Mars exists" to be false, would you?

[Skepdick]

You wouldn't say that it's impossible for "The planet Mars exists" to be false, would you?

Surely that depends entirely on the necessary criteria for "existence" to obtain?

Surely that depends on the sufficient criteria for "impossibility"?

And surely that depends on whatever a priory assumptions you've made in order to determine "truth" and "falsity"?

You wouldn't say that it's impossible for "The planet Mars exists" to be false, would you?

But far more importantly. What the hell are you even asking?

Why wouldn't I say it? I can say whatever I want!

It's impossible for "The planet Mars to exist" to be false.
While we are burning down the house... It's impossible for "The planet Mars to exist" to be true.

Both of those things can be said and I have said them. Now what?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Instead of giving an example I had given you the principles wherefrom you can easily track to an example.

If I ask you to give me an example, I want you to give me an example, not anything else.

Let take the empirical claim,
"The planet Mars exists"

Surely there is no dispute the above empirical claim had been proven to be true with scientific [astronomy] proofs.
You don't agree.

You wouldn't say that it's impossible for "The planet Mars exists" to be false, would you?

Somehow you are asking unnecessary stupid questions and I am not sure how it is relevant to the point.

I have already stated "The planet Mars exists" is proven to be true within the scientific [astronomy] FSK.

I don't have the credibility on my own, in this case, to speculate "The planet Mars exists" could be false.
I have put 90% faith in what is claimed by the scientific [astronomy] FSK, whatever they declared as truth, I will accept but not with 100% certainty.

[Peter Holmes]

A detective, on arrival at the scene of the crime: 'Okay, what are the facts?'

Officer in attendance: 'Well, given that a fact is just a social construct, a description whose truth-value would be false in a different context, since because of the Munchausen trilemma, no claim is provable, and facts exist only within a system and framework of knowledge and so are bound up with human conditions and there are no facts-in-themselves - that's a tough question.'

Detective: 'Okay. You're fired. But, before you go - what are the facts?'

Officer: 'Well, one fact is that this murder was morally wrong.'

[Skepdick]

A detective, on arrival at the scene of the crime: 'Okay, what are the facts?'

Peter Holmes: Why are you even here, detective? Criminal Laws are subjective.

Ridicule Troll Buiscuits. --Sold and manufactured by Skepdick

[Terrapin Station]

Somehow you are asking unnecessary stupid questions and I am not sure how it is relevant to the point.

I have already stated "The planet Mars exists" is proven to be true within the scientific [astronomy] FSK.

Look at it this way: if it's not possible for it to be false, then is it a scientific claim? Isn't falsifiability one of the demarcation criteria of the sciences? In other words, isn't it the case that if a claim isn't open to revision, it's not a scientific claim?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Somehow you are asking unnecessary stupid questions and I am not sure how it is relevant to the point.

I have already stated "The planet Mars exists" is proven to be true within the scientific [astronomy] FSK.

Look at it this way: if it's not possible for it to be false, then is it a scientific claim? Isn't falsifiability one of the demarcation criteria of the sciences? In other words, isn't it the case that if a claim isn't open to revision, it's not a scientific claim?

The generally accepted philosophical view is there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false if verified and justified to be so. That of course would include any scientific claims.

My point which I interpreted your question was,
a scientific claim that is accepted the scientific FSK as true cannot be false.
Therefore you and I cannot claim it is false or possibly false.
It is only false if it had been rejected by the scientific FSK officially.

[Terrapin Station]

Somehow you are asking unnecessary stupid questions and I am not sure how it is relevant to the point.

I have already stated "The planet Mars exists" is proven to be true within the scientific [astronomy] FSK.

Look at it this way: if it's not possible for it to be false, then is it a scientific claim? Isn't falsifiability one of the demarcation criteria of the sciences? In other words, isn't it the case that if a claim isn't open to revision, it's not a scientific claim?

The generally accepted philosophical view is there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false if verified and justified to be so. That of course would include any scientific claims.

So if that's the case, how are we asking for proof of realism? Did you just mean any evidence for it, evidence that is not absolutely certain, and where it's possible for it to be false?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Look at it this way: if it's not possible for it to be false, then is it a scientific claim? Isn't falsifiability one of the demarcation criteria of the sciences? In other words, isn't it the case that if a claim isn't open to revision, it's not a scientific claim?

The generally accepted philosophical view is there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false if verified and justified to be so. That of course would include any scientific claims.

So if that's the case, how are we asking for proof of realism?
Did you just mean any evidence for it, evidence that is not absolutely certain, and where it's possible for it to be false?

Not sure of your question?

If the Scientific FSK state, the universe emerged from the BB and humans emerged via evolution, in this case the Scientific FSK's claim cannot be false for those who have faith on the credibility* of the Scientific FSK.
* see viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Theists on the other hand claim God created the universe in 6 days in the beginning and God created man in his own image,
the Scientific FSK would assert the theistic claim is false.

It is not a question of realism in this case.
For the Scientific FSK, the concern is what is realistic and true which would have to be verified and justified with empirical evidence within the requirements, conditions and processes of the scientific FSK. If not, then the claim would be false.

Re realism, that is the issue of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-realism.

[Peter Holmes]

Look at it this way: if it's not possible for it to be false, then is it a scientific claim? Isn't falsifiability one of the demarcation criteria of the sciences? In other words, isn't it the case that if a claim isn't open to revision, it's not a scientific claim?

The generally accepted philosophical view is there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false if verified and justified to be so. That of course would include any scientific claims.

So if that's the case, how are we asking for proof of realism? Did you just mean any evidence for it, evidence that is not absolutely certain, and where it's possible for it to be false?

Quite. In short, the empirical demonstration insisted on and supposedly possible for moral facts.

Another question: how can moral realism and objectivism be reconciled with what is confusingly called philosophical anti-realism? Is this another chimera: moral anti-realism? Anti-realistic moralism?