What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Peter Holmes wrote:

I haven't used the words 'objectify' or 'reify' so far, let alone as synonyms.

If you understood the words you would understand what they commonly mean.

It's one of those moments where Peter Holmes claims words mean what we use them to mean (prescribing a social norm on the use of words), but then he protests on the use of words which accord with the social norm.

[Peter Holmes]

Any claim of moral rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety - whether with reference to intentions/purposes, or to consequences - or to programming supposedly hard-wired into the human brain - and so on - any such claim can only ever express a moral opinion, even if everyone holds that opinion.

There are no moral facts, but only facts about which there can be moral opinions. Whatever facts we use to explain a moral opinion, it remains an opinion. And others can use the same facts differently, or different facts, to explain a different moral opinion.

I think the quasi-religious determination (desperation?) of moral realists and objectivists to demonstrate the existence of moral facts has at least four related sources: we value what we call objectivity; we associate subjectivity with selfishness and irrationality; we care deeply about our moral values and judgements; and, to be consistent, we apply our moral values and judgements universally - not limited to time and place - so they feel objective. It's an understandable misunderstanding.

[Skepdick]

Any claim of moral rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety - whether with reference to intentions/purposes, or to consequences - or to programming supposedly hard-wired into the human brain - and so on - any such claim can only ever express a moral opinion, even if everyone holds that opinion.

There are no moral facts, but only facts about which there can be moral opinions. Whatever facts we use to explain a moral opinion, it remains an opinion. And others can use the same facts differently, or different facts, to explain a different moral opinion.

I think the quasi-religious determination (desperation?) of moral realists and objectivists to demonstrate the existence of moral facts has at least four related sources: we value what we call objectivity; we associate subjectivity with selfishness and irrationality; we care deeply about our moral values and judgements; and, to be consistent, we apply our moral values and judgements universally - not limited to time and place - so they feel objective. It's an understandable misunderstanding.

Peter Holmes: I am hungry and my left kidney hurts.
Retarded Peter Holmes: Oh, but it's not mind-independent - it's just my subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Any claim of moral rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety - whether with reference to intentions/purposes, or to consequences - or to programming supposedly hard-wired into the human brain - and so on - any such claim can only ever express a moral opinion, even if everyone holds that opinion.

There are no moral facts, but only facts about which there can be moral opinions. Whatever facts we use to explain a moral opinion, it remains an opinion. And others can use the same facts differently, or different facts, to explain a different moral opinion.

I think the quasi-religious determination (desperation?) of moral realists and objectivists to demonstrate the existence of moral facts has at least four related sources: we value what we call objectivity; we associate subjectivity with selfishness and irrationality; we care deeply about our moral values and judgements; and, to be consistent, we apply our moral values and judgements universally - not limited to time and place - so they feel objective. It's an understandable misunderstanding.

Peter Holmes: I am hungry and my left kidney hurts.
Retarded Peter Holmes: Oh, but it's not mind-independent - it's just my subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

Peter Holmes by the roadside encounters a moral fact denier passer-by.
Peter Holmes to passer-by: X raped me violently and I can't move, call 911 for me.
Passer-by: that is only your moral opinion, there are no moral facts - 911? N/A.

[Peter Holmes]

Any claim of moral rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety - whether with reference to intentions/purposes, or to consequences - or to programming supposedly hard-wired into the human brain - and so on - any such claim can only ever express a moral opinion, even if everyone holds that opinion.

There are no moral facts, but only facts about which there can be moral opinions. Whatever facts we use to explain a moral opinion, it remains an opinion. And others can use the same facts differently, or different facts, to explain a different moral opinion.

I think the quasi-religious determination (desperation?) of moral realists and objectivists to demonstrate the existence of moral facts has at least four related sources: we value what we call objectivity; we associate subjectivity with selfishness and irrationality; we care deeply about our moral values and judgements; and, to be consistent, we apply our moral values and judgements universally - not limited to time and place - so they feel objective. It's an understandable misunderstanding.

Peter Holmes: I am hungry and my left kidney hurts.
Retarded Peter Holmes: Oh, but it's not mind-independent - it's just my subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

Peter Holmes by the roadside encounters a moral fact denier passer-by.
Peter Holmes to passer-by: X raped me violently and I can't move, call 911 for me.
Passer-by: that is only your moral opinion, there are no moral facts - 911? N/A.

Gosh. Well. If only I'd realised there's reasoning and evidence of this quality behind the claim that there are moral facts, I'd never have doubted it.

[Skepdick]

Gosh. Well. If only I'd realised there's reasoning and evidence of this quality behind the claim that there are moral facts, I'd never have doubted it.

What sort of reasoning and evidence would convince you that your hunger, thirst and kidney pain are objective?
What sort of evidence would convince you that you OUGHT to breathe is a fact of your autonomous system? Hold your breath for 5 minutes and find out.

What sort of reasoning and evidence would convince you that objectivity as mind-independence is a bogus conception of objectivity?

Seeming as you are so inclined to doubt, why not doubt your own definition/conception?

[Peter Holmes]

We have to breathe or we'll die; therefore we ought to breathe. After all, humans ought to live. Not a matter of opinion.

[Skepdick]

We have to breathe or we'll die; therefore we ought to breathe. After all, humans ought to live. Not a matter of opinion.

Your disagreement is mere lip service.

If it's just a matter of opinion then you should have absolutely no problem committing to the opposing view-point.

Stop breathing.

[Peter Holmes]

People who want to live want to breathe; therefore those people ought to breathe.

People who don't want to live don't want to breathe; therefore those people ought not to breathe.

Conclusion. The criterion for oughtness is what people want. So if people want to kill other people, they ought to do so.

So much for moral objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

People who want to live want to breathe; therefore those people ought to breathe.

People who don't want to live don't want to breathe; therefore those people ought not to breathe.

Conclusion. The criterion for oughtness is what people want. So if people want to kill other people, they ought to do so.

So much for moral objectivity.

I had stated ALL humans are "programmed" with the ought_ness of not to die prematurely.
Thus no 'normal' human would want to die by not breathing or other means.
This '"oughtness" is a generic and universal feature of human nature, thus is an objective fact that is independent of anyone's opinion nor beliefs.
It is also human nature that this 'oughtness' is compelled by 'pains' if not complied.

Those who want to die are the abnormal ones as psychiatric cases [the suicidals, the depressives, and the likes] and this is because their inherent ought_ness of not to die prematurely is weakened or damaged by various reasons.

The oughtness to live and not to die prematurely is a biological fact within the biological FSK.

Similarly the objective inherent and generic Moral oughtness of 'ought-not_ness to kill humans' is a moral fact within the moral FSK, which must be verified and justified as real empirically and philosophically.

[Skepdick]

People who want to live want to breathe; therefore those people ought to breathe.

People who don't want to live don't want to breathe; therefore those people ought not to breathe.

Conclusion. The criterion for oughtness is what people want. So if people want to kill other people, they ought to do so.

No, retard. It's not a criterion FOR morality, it's the driving force OF morality.
If OUGHT and OUGHT NOT were non-causal, then they would be subjective.

You abhor murder, but you aren't willing to act against murder. Your OUGHT NOT is as impotent as an eunuch at a whore house.

So much for moral objectivity.

It's not morality's fault that your notion of objectivity is incoherent.

[Belinda]

We have to breathe or we'll die; therefore we ought to breathe. After all, humans ought to live. Not a matter of opinion.

That is a matter of opinion. One may reasonably pray "Lord, do not forgive us as we know very well what we do ".

[Peter Holmes]

We have to breathe or we'll die; therefore we ought to breathe. After all, humans ought to live. Not a matter of opinion.

That is a matter of opinion. One may reasonably pray "Lord, do not forgive us as we know very well what we do ".

Apart from the bit about prayer - I agree. I was voicing up a deluded moral objectivist.

[Skepdick]

Apart from the bit about prayer - I agree. I was voicing up a deluded moral objectivist.

You keep projecting your delusions onto others and then disassociate yourself from them...

I guess that's one way to make things "objective" - distance yourself from your words and claim them "facts"

[Peter Holmes]

For a long time, something's been festering that I need to vent.

Someone I love was raped. And if the scumbag that did it were caught and eradicated, I'd be happy.

The suggestion that, because I deny the existence of moral facts, I have no right to judge and condemn that scumbag is nauseatingly offensive.

So I say to anyone who has made, or is inclined to make, that argument: you can fuck off back under the rock whence you crawled.

I'm posting this twice, to make assurance double sure.