Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

When we're talking about objectivity, we are not talking about human understanding!

Objectively you are part of "objectivity".

Whether you understand that or not. Whether you opine otherwise or not.

Whether you exclude yourself from the objective by defying yourself as "subjective". Your opinions are part of the objective too.

That you've chosen to classify them the way you've chosen to classify them begs the WHY question.

Objectively there is no such thing as subjectivity.

[Sculptor]

But in the context of human understanding (which we are talking about),

When we're talking about objectivity, we are not talking about human understanding!

Objective stuff is the stuff that's person or more specifically mind-independent. So if we're talking about human understanding, we're not talking about something that's person or mind-independent.

Whilst we can objectively measure . . .

We're not objectively measuring anything. We're measuring the objective extension.

Oh FFS

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectively, it is "just what it is."

That has nothing to do with how anyone perceives it. It doesn't have anything to do with whether there even are any people. That's irrelevant.

Basically, for any talk about objectivity/objective stuff, an easy "trick" to grasp the idea is to imagine that all people cease to exist. What's left is the objective stuff, and however that stuff is after people cease to exist is what that objective stuff is like, objectively.

As soon as you introduce people and how they perceive things, how they conceptualize things, etc. you're going to confuse yourself re talking about objectivity.

You have a very confined sense of what is objectivity re Philosophy.
What you are claiming above is not 'objectivity' per se, but rather 'reality'.
The question is thus, it this reality of yours objective?

Note;

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence. Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it.[1]

Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through Subjectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

That is the problem when you want to strike it out on your own.

I have raised specific threads on what is objectivity [philosophy],

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
7 Dimensions of Objectivity – Mathew Kramer
viewtopic.php?p=471122#p471122

Note in your sense of ultimate objectivity, there is no such thing!
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

[Terrapin Station]

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

That's a very poorly conceived account of what objectivity in philosophy conventionally is, due to a number of issues.

Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it.

Here's one reason why the above is very poorly-conceived. How would we have for something that "calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it" where we're talking about something that is true independent of persons' perceptions, emotions, etc.? One would need to be able to support just how that would work.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

That's a very poorly conceived account of what objectivity in philosophy conventionally is, due to a number of issues.

The above Wiki is very general but still acceptable.
However the above need to be reinforced with the following;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
7 Dimensions of Objectivity – Mathew Kramer
viewtopic.php?p=471122#p471122
Do you have any dispute with the above?

Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it.

Here's one reason why the above is very poorly-conceived. How would we have for something that "calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it" where we're talking about something that is true independent of persons' perceptions, emotions, etc.? One would need to be able to support just how that would work.

As with the above, the WIKI point is very general but reasonable.

In the above I would read 'moral codes' as moral standards based on justified true moral facts from within a credible moral FSK.

I have explained before,
whatever is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK is independent of any individual's or groups' opinions or belief.
Do you dispute this?

But a scientific fact is conditioned and linked to the scientific FSK which is constructed by humans, thus ultimately at the meta-level, scientific facts which are mind-independent are not minds[FSK]-independent.

It the same with justified true moral facts from a credible moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK.

What is well-being? note;

What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

Btw, you don't have to read all the posts in the thread above, the OP is sufficient to convey my intended points.

[Skepdick]

The question is thus, it this reality of yours objective?

Do you even know the difference between nouns and adjectives?

Reality (noun) and objectivity (noun) mean exactly the same thing.

Objective (adjective) when used to describe the noun "reality" in the phrase "Objective reality" means... I have no idea what the fuck it means.

There's no such thing as non-objective reality, so the adjective is superfluous.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The question is thus, it this reality of yours objective?

Do you even know the difference between nouns and adjectives?

Reality (noun) and objectivity (noun) mean exactly the same thing.

Objective (adjective) when used to describe the noun "reality" in the phrase "Objective reality" means... I have no idea what the fuck it means.

There's no such thing as non-objective reality, so the adjective is superfluous.

Principle of Charity.

Commonly, the term 'objectivity' or objective is referred to the claims of what-is-reality to the claimant.

[Skepdick]

Principle of Charity.

Commonly, the term 'objectivity' or objective is referred to the claims of what-is-reality to the claimant.

Then practice your principle! You are not interpreting my words in their most charitable interpretation.

If you had, you would've noticed that I equated "reality" and "objectivity". Which expresses precisely the same sentiment you are expressing.

[Terrapin Station]

As with the above, the WIKI point is very general but reasonable.

In the above I would read 'moral codes' as moral standards based on justified true moral facts from within a credible moral FSK.

I have explained before,
whatever is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK is independent of any individual's or groups' opinions or belief.
Do you dispute this?

But a scientific fact is conditioned and linked to the scientific FSK which is constructed by humans, thus ultimately at the meta-level, scientific facts which are mind-independent are not minds[FSK]-independent.

It the same with justified true moral facts from a credible moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK.

What is well-being? note;

What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

Btw, you don't have to read all the posts in the thread above, the OP is sufficient to convey my intended points.

The only thing that would be acceptable as a response to my comment would be something like this:

"The way that we could have something that 'calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it' where we're talking about something that is true independent of persons' perceptions, emotions, etc. IS ___________________"

And then you fill in the blank.

Are you capable of that challenge?

[Skepdick]

"The way that we could have something that 'calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it' where we're talking about something that is true independent of persons' perceptions, emotions, etc. IS ___________________"

And then you fill in the blank.

Are you capable of that challenge?

Could you give an example of something that is "true independent of any persons' perceptions"?

Are you capable of THAT challenge?

Rhetorical question. We all know that the "challenge" is a game rigged so as to be impossible to satisfy since all observations are observer-dependent.

So if "objectivity" (as you conceive it) is impossible, and yet humans keep using the word "objective" in some nominal sense, then perhaps you just haven't figured out how to use the word "objective" ?

[Terrapin Station]

Could you give an example of something that is "true independent of any persons' perceptions"?

Are you capable of THAT challenge?

If we can't, then (a) nothing is objective per the definition given and/or (b) there's a problem with the definition.

Which was exactly my point.

[Skepdick]

If we can't, then (a) nothing is objective per the definition given and/or (b) there's a problem with the definition.

Which was exactly my point.

Rhetorical question. We all know that the "challenge" is a game rigged so as to be impossible to satisfy since all observations are observer-dependent.

So if "objectivity" (as you conceive it) is impossible, and yet humans keep using the word "objective" in some nominal sense, then perhaps you just haven't figured out how to use the word "objective" ?

So if you know that the definition is wrong (and you seem to be making that point), why do you keep insisting that people satisfy the definition (that you know is wrong).

It sure seems that you are intentionally setting people up for failure.

I am a Skepdick and you are just a dick.

[Terrapin Station]

If we can't, then (a) nothing is objective per the definition given and/or (b) there's a problem with the definition.

Which was exactly my point.

Rhetorical question. We all know that the "challenge" is a game rigged so as to be impossible to satisfy since all observations are observer-dependent.

So if "objectivity" (as you conceive it) is impossible, and yet humans keep using the word "objective" in some nominal sense, then perhaps you just haven't figured out how to use the word "objective" ?

So if you know that the definition is wrong (and you seem to be making that point), why do you keep insisting that people satisfy the definition (that you know is wrong).

It sure seems that you are intentionally setting people up for failure.

I am a Skepdick and you are just a dick.

He's claiming that the definition is a good one.

[Skepdick]

He's claiming that the definition is a good one.

Define "good".

[Terrapin Station]

He's claiming that the definition is a good one.

Define "good".

If you have no idea what even that word refers to, then you're not worth talking to.