Is morality objective or subjective?

[Terrapin Station]

But you won't even say what counts as reifying their oughts in the first place.

It's in the word "reification". Making the abstract concrete.

You can't tell what's the reification of OUGHT NOT murder? Stop a murder!
You can't tell what's the reification of improve longevity of human life? Save a life!

Right. So in this case, the person needs to stop what the military is doing?

[Skepdick]

Right. So in this case, the person needs to stop what the military is doing?

Well you want to reify it, don't you?

Otherwise why are you even pointing it out?

[Terrapin Station]

Right. So in this case, the person needs to stop what the military is doing?

Well you want to reify it, don't you?

Otherwise why are you even pointing it out?

It's an example, set forth to try to figure out your view in more detail. The reason for the example, again, is that most moral normatives are about what other people should/shouldn't do, should be allowed/shouldn't be allowed to do, etc.

Examples include men talking about whether women should/shouldn't be able to get, and should or shouldn't get, an abortion, people saying what immigration policy should be despite the fact that they're not immigrants and they're not about to go anywhere, people telling other people what they should/shouldn't be allowed to post on Twitter, even though it's not about what they're posting themselves, etc. etc. Most moral sentiments aren't about ourselves. They're about other people and what we want to allow them to do.

[Skepdick]

It's an example, set forth to try to figure out your view in more detail. The reason for the example, again, is that most moral normatives are about what other people should/shouldn't do, should be allowed/shouldn't be allowed to do, etc.

That's a narrow conception. I would happily expand it to what ought and ought not happen to me, us etc.

It's all born in what we want and do not want't want to experience.

Examples include men talking about whether women should/shouldn't be able to get, and should or shouldn't get, an abortion, people saying what immigration policy should be despite the fact that they're not immigrants and they're not about to go anywhere, people telling other people what they should/shouldn't be allowed to post on Twitter, even though it's not about what they're posting themselves, etc. etc. Most moral sentiments aren't about ourselves. They're about other people and what we want to allow them to do.

By my definition they are.

Murder ought not happen to me (or anyone).
It's the same as we ought not murder.

Smallpox ought not happen to me or anyone.
It's the same as we ought vaccinate.

[Terrapin Station]

It's an example, set forth to try to figure out your view in more detail. The reason for the example, again, is that most moral normatives are about what other people should/shouldn't do, should be allowed/shouldn't be allowed to do, etc.

That's a narrow conception. I would happily expand it to what ought and ought not happen to me, us etc.

It's all born in what we want and do not want't want to experience.

Examples include men talking about whether women should/shouldn't be able to get, and should or shouldn't get, an abortion, people saying what immigration policy should be despite the fact that they're not immigrants and they're not about to go anywhere, people telling other people what they should/shouldn't be allowed to post on Twitter, even though it's not about what they're posting themselves, etc. etc. Most moral sentiments aren't about ourselves. They're about other people and what we want to allow them to do.

By my definition they are.

Murder ought not happen to me (or anyone).
It's the same as we ought not murder.

Smallpox ought not happen to me or anyone.
It's the same as we ought vaccinate.

So just working to influence people, laws, etc.?

But that would often just be talking. Unless you're thinking about men trying to force women to have/not have abortions? What else would they do aside from talking/trying to persuade people?

[Skepdick]

So just working to influence people, laws, etc.?
But that would often just be talking.

So you think influencing your MP and influencing me on a forum is the same thing?

Last I checked talking to regular people was nothing like talking to Philosophers. Most people aren't contrarians for its own sake.

Unless you're thinking about men trying to force women to have/not have abortions?

Isn't that what happens in practice if your oughts are reified in law?

[Terrapin Station]

So just working to influence people, laws, etc.?
But that would often just be talking.

So you think influencing your MP and influencing me on a forum is the same thing?

Last I checked talking to regular people was nothing like talking to Philosophers. Most people aren't contrarians for its own sake.

Unless you're thinking about men trying to force women to have/not have abortions?

Isn't that what happens in practice if your oughts are reified in law?

For example, you think that women ought to be allowed to get an abortion, AND you think that a particular woman ought to/ought not to get an abortion. Those are two different ideas.

[Skepdick]

For example, you think that women ought to be allowed to get an abortion, AND you think that a particular woman ought to/ought not to get an abortion. Those are two different ideas.

Obviously. Everything is "different" to everything else. I thought we established that?

I'd imagine the way you reify those two ideas would differ in practice too... Seeming as they are different in generality/particularity of inpact.

[Terrapin Station]

Last I checked talking to regular people was nothing like talking to Philosophers.

Also, I wouldn't equate people on philosophy boards with philosophers. Most people on philosophy boards do not have philosophy graduate degrees, most have never published philosophy where they had to go through peer review or at least some sort of editorial process, most have never taught, etc.

I've always had the impression that most people on boards like this are computer tech/engineering types, or people with backgrounds in other fields (it's just that there always seems to be a ton of engineering and computer science folks around), if not simply basement dwellers or people more or less on disability, where they either have some level of hobbyist interest in philosophy or they just like to argue (and usually they consider themselves easily able to "win" any argument).

There are some exceptions occasionally, but that's what most people seem to be on these boards. You, for example, obviously have a computer programming background.

[Skepdick]

Also, I wouldn't equate people on philosophy boards with philosophers. Most people on philosophy boards do not have philosophy graduate degrees, most have never published philosophy where they had to go through peer review or at least some sort of editorial process, most have never taught, etc.

Which is the narrow/academic view of Philosophy. In so far as it's narrow - it's not broadly applicable to human affairs.

I've always had the impression that most people on boards like this are computer tech/engineering types, or people with backgrounds in other fields (it's just that there always seems to be a ton of engineering and computer science folks around), if not simply basement dwellers or people more or less on disability, where they either have some level of hobbyist interest in philosophy or they just like to argue (and usually they consider themselves easily able to "win" any argument).

There are some exceptions occasionally, but that's what most people seem to be on these boards. You, for example, obviously have a computer programming background.

Winning arguments (at any cost) is what Plato called eristic. It's lame, and formulaic and undermines dialectic. On the other hand, this is the general behaviour one observes in the public/political sphere too.

There's a general social perception that "being right" is about winning. Dominating. All discourse is framed as a zero-sum game.

It's horseshit, and the fact that some Philosophy is conducted that way goes in the same trashcan. But to my older point. Aumann's agreement theorem is a theorem of game theory to which I subscribe to. Either I am changing my mind or you are, but we will agree (eventually).

[Terrapin Station]

Which is the narrow/academic view of Philosophy. In so far as it's narrow - it's not broadly applicable to human affairs.

It's akin to the difference between academically qualified anthropologists and hairdressers, fast food employees, UPS drivers, computer techs, etc. commenting on anthropology. What the academically qualified anthropologists are doing is broadly applicable to human affairs, but it's not nearly as widespread of a phenomenon as the other folks commenting on anthropological issues.

Winning arguments (at any cost) is what Plato called eristic.

There are exceptions, but (academic) philosophers don't typically look at discussion as a "winning/losing" matter.

[Skepdick]

It's akin to the difference between academically qualified anthropologists and hairdressers, fast food employees, UPS drivers, computer techs, etc. commenting on anthropology. What the academically qualified anthropologists are doing is broadly applicable to human affairs, but it's not nearly as widespread of a phenomenon as the other folks commenting on anthropological issues.

That's how you construct ivory/theoretical towers.

An anthropologist without field experience is not an anthropologist.

I've had the *cough* privilege of hiring PhDs and professors into the business world.
They are so specialised in their narrow domain and indoctrinated in the ways of academia that they somehow fail to see the bigger picture/complexity at play.

[bahman]

It's akin to the difference between academically qualified anthropologists and hairdressers, fast food employees, UPS drivers, computer techs, etc. commenting on anthropology. What the academically qualified anthropologists are doing is broadly applicable to human affairs, but it's not nearly as widespread of a phenomenon as the other folks commenting on anthropological issues.

That's how you construct ivory/theoretical towers.

An anthropologist without field experience is not an anthropologist.

I've had the *cough* privilege of hiring PhDs and professors into the business world.
They are so specialised in their narrow domain and indoctrinated in the ways of academia that they somehow fail to see the bigger picture/complexity at play.

Yeah, focusing on a very narrow domain of knowledge would leave you blind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's nothing normative about statistical normalcy. You keep assuming that there is.

We don't equate statistic normalcy with normative directly.

Note the meaning of 'normative'

Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

In this case, we have to verify and justify whatever has statistic normalcy qualify to be a normative as defined above.

I want to just focus on this for a moment, because I think this is at the heart of the disagreement here.

If Joe Smith says, "One ought to not supply alcohol to minors," that doesn't imply that one ought to not supply alcohol to minors.

If Joe Smith, Alice Jones and Frank Jackson say, "One ought to not supply alcohol to minors," that doesn't imply that one ought to not supply alcohol to minors.

If we have a society consisting of, say, 100 million people, and there's a group 10,000 strong that says, "One ought to not supply alcohol to minors," that doesn't imply that one ought to not supply alcohol to minors.

And in that society, if 99,999,998 people say "One ought to not supply alcohol to minors," that doesn't imply that one ought to not supply alcohol to minors.

No matter how many people we're talking about, no matter what percentage of a society we're talking about, the fact that they say one ought to not do something doesn't imply that one ought to not do that thing.

Now, we could say with the last example that the society in question has an evaluative standard, where they're going to judge people negatively (and where they're probably going to have laws in line with this) if they supply alcohol to minors, but this doesn't make it a fact, and it doesn't make it true, that (at least in that society) one ought to not supply alcohol to minors.

You are way off tangent with my 'what is morality-proper'.
I have already mentioned this many times, i.e.

• Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
  Personal judgments and decisions made by individuals [in real life or from thought experiments] related to moral elements are not Morality Per se.
  These are subjective opinions and beliefs of the individual[s] and they are not moral facts.

Thus your "If Joe Smith says, 'One ought to not supply alcohol to minors,' " is not morality proper because it is not claimed to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK as a moral fact.
That is an individual's [Joe's] opinion. Even if Joe's religion or government insist and impose on all followers/citizens, such an 'ought' it is still an opinion and it is not a moral fact.

Even if 100% of all human agrees [could be like the once Flat-Earth-Theory] to it, but it is still not a moral fact until it had been verified and justified empirically and philosophical within a moral FSK.

Note my point earlier;
The Generic Morality-Proper FSK.
viewtopic.php?p=498101#p498101

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral oughts are not about thinking.

Moral oughts only obtain via thinking. They occur nowhere else.

This isn't to say that for a particular person, their moral oughts do not in some way depend at least partially upon their DNA, but they don't obtain in their DNA. They only obtain via their brain functioning in a manner that amounts to a conscious thought a la "x ought to do y."

What is fundamental to moral oughts are not their manifested-thinking and feelings but the inherent state of inhibition represented by neuronal combination and activities within the brain/mind of the individual.

This inhibiting program is totally dependent on the DNA/RNA codes to manufacture the right neurons and combine them correctly to generate a state of 'oughtness' in the brain and body.

Note this analogy;

[

• quote]Acrophobia is an extreme or irrational fear or phobia of heights, especially when one is not particularly high up. It belongs to a category of specific phobias, called space and motion discomfort, that share both similar causes and options for treatment.
  Most people experience a degree of natural fear when exposed to heights, known as the fear of falling.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrophobia
  [/quote]
  
  As above, the majority of people has an inherent 'ought-not-to' in their brain to avoid being in places of exposed heights.
  
  The oughtness to avoid standing on the edge of tall building, cliffs and the likes are embedded inherently and established from the inherent DNA/RNA codes.
  Whatever thoughts and feelings are manifested from the inherently embedded ought-not-to be a position of dangerous heights.
  
  Those minorities who are not scared of height has "defective" program re 'ought-not-to be near exposed heights'.
  This is defective or abnormality is observed in professional mountain/cliff climbers, builders of tall building, etc.
  
  Note the case of Alex Honnold who climbed El Capitan in Yosemite, a cliff of 3000+ feet without ropes at all.
  MRI imagings showed he has an 'abnormal' brain re the inhibition of heights.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDR9lMDPA30

Similarly, there are 'oughtness' re moral facts just like the inherent oughtness in Acrophobia.

The unfortunate thing with you is you are so ignorant in all these relevant information and facts, but so arrogant with your dogmatic views.
I suggest you read Rorty's Philosophy of The Mirror of Nature [mentioned by PantFlasher] which will definitely loosen your dogmatism.