Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

........
I choose to pay little attention to what if anything transcends what can be conceived which is why I call myself an atheist with regard to transcendent 'facts'. You , however believe in the existence of transcendent 'facts' but only if they are what you choose to name as 'moral' facts.

You are right that Peter believes in the existence of transcendent 'facts' i.e. facts that exist beyond the human conditions.
This is why Kant would call him an Empirical Idealist, i.e. what is ultimately empirically real to him is idealistic [transcendental] - i.e. mere words and names like 'that which is the case' 'a matter of a fact, state of affairs.

On the other hand, we Empirical Realists, i.e. whatever that is cognized [humanly] as real empirically and philosophically [not blindly] within a specific FSK is that which is real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

However I don't claim what you accuse me of, that "rocks and stones and trees and dogs - are not outside the brains of social animals ... ". I believe there may be something 'out there' but that you can't know what is the rock, stone, tree, or dog in itself. Indeed differentiation between entities for all we can know may not be true of what if anything transcends the animated brain. I choose to pay little attention to what if anything transcends what can be conceived which is why I call myself an atheist with regard to transcendent 'facts'. You , however believe in the existence of transcendent 'facts' but only if they are what you choose to name as 'moral' facts.

Among your selection of entities, the dog alone exists for itself because the dog is a subject of experience.

Okay. You believe there may be things outside our brains, and I think there's no reason to doubt that there are, or that we have brains in the first place. I think the delusion that there are thing-in-themselves, to which we can have no access, has been and is profoundly intellectually harmful. When we say there are facts - features of reality - independent from perception or opinion, that is not a 'transcendent' claim. There are no transcendent facts, so you're an 'atheist' with regard to a fiction - as am I.

What we call a dog does not exist BECAUSE it can be experienced. That's an idealist delusion. It just exists, as do we.

You are lost and don't realize you are chasing something [supposedly factual] that is transcendent.

When we say there are facts - features of reality - independent from perception or opinion, that is not a 'transcendent' claim.

You missed out the critical point in your above,

When YOU say there are facts - features of reality - independent from perception or opinion, to YOU they [supposedly facts of reality] they are also independent of the human-interacted-FSK, i.e. transcendent just as other metaphysical illusions.
These are the absolutely absolute things-in-themselves which you are claiming.

That is why you had cut off the chain from your anchor of reality [sensibility - rationality] and floats unanchored into la la land and toyed with the things-in-themselves.

This was what Kant said of Plato; [mine]

• It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses [cut off the chain of reality], as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas [empirical idealism], in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding [la la land of woo woo].
  CPR A5 B9

You assumed the 'moral facts' I claimed are the same as your transcendent ideas, thus creating your own mess. But note ..,

When I say there are say there are facts - features of reality - independent from perception or opinion - the individuals' mind, they are not independent of the anchor of reality [sensibility - rationality] i.e. the specific FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Either

(1) It entails a community for it to be a fact that our solely-existing person has the opinion they do, in which case it wouldn't be a fact that they have the opinion they do, as there is no community

You slided in "solely-existing person" which is an impossibility in reality.

1. It entails a community [FSK] for whatever to be a fact.
In this case it require a community to confirm individual X is expressing an opinion.
Thus it is a fact that individual-X expressed [said out loud] an opinion.

Or

(2) It doesn't entail a community for it to be a fact that our solely-existing person has the opinion they do, in which case it can be a fact that they have the opinion they do.

You can't have it both ways.

Note your sliding and error between "solely-existing person" and "they."

If it doesn't entail a community [FSK] then there is no verified and justified fact that individual-X expressed an opinion.
If there is no community [FSK]in this case, it is merely via common sense that individual-X is making some noises, etc.

Note the general principle, i.e.
whatever is a fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a FSK [of various degrees of credibility].

Your above slidings has introduced the rhetorical wayward terms 'community' and 'solely-existing person.'

So last Tuesday, almost a week ago, I asked you this (I'm copy-pasting here, though with some added bolding/italicizing):

"Imagine one person exists and that's it. That one person thinks to herself--'That's a lovely sunrise.' Is it a fact that she thought to herself 'That's a lovely sunrise'?"

You had answered that it's a fact that she thinks, "That's a lovely sunrise."

Maybe you didn't understand that I was asking you to imagine a scenario where ONLY one person exists? (Although in that case how did you parse "and that's it"?)

Re "they," I routinely use "they" as a singular generic third-person pronoun.

I did not anticipate at all your point is about only one person exists and there is no one else, which is an impossibility in reality.

It would have been more clear if you have stated "..ONLY one person exists and there are no others.'
If that is the case, I would not have agreed with such an unrealistic scenario.

Even in that misunderstanding, I only stated,
the fact is 'the fact that she is thinking' assuming there is community and related FSK.

Whatever note the general principle;
..whatever is a fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a community grounded FSK [of various degrees of credibility].

[Peter Holmes]

........
I choose to pay little attention to what if anything transcends what can be conceived which is why I call myself an atheist with regard to transcendent 'facts'. You , however believe in the existence of transcendent 'facts' but only if they are what you choose to name as 'moral' facts.

You are right that Peter believes in the existence of transcendent 'facts' i.e. facts that exist beyond the human conditions.
This is why Kant would call him an Empirical Idealist, i.e. what is ultimately empirically real to him is idealistic [transcendental] - i.e. mere words and names like 'that which is the case' 'a matter of a fact, state of affairs.

On the other hand, we Empirical Realists, i.e. whatever that is cognized [humanly] as real empirically and philosophically [not blindly] within a specific FSK is that which is real.

The universe existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone. It existed, exists and will exist 'beyond human conditions' - whatever that means. And its existence was not, is not and will not be transcendent - whatever that means.

Your nonsense comes from mistaking our ways of describing reality for the reality that we describe. Our descriptions are necessarily human, of course. We can have no other perspective. But the non-human WHAT that we describe is 'beyond human conditions'. Of course. What sort of idiocy would it be to think otherwise?

[Belinda]

Belinda wrote:
Peter Holmes wrote:

The universe existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone. It existed, exists and will exist 'beyond human conditions' - whatever that means. And its existence was not, is not and will not be transcendent - whatever that means.

I agree because I choose that particular frame of understanding. If , on the other hand,I am disinterestedly metaphysical I declare I am agnostic.

Your nonsense comes from mistaking our ways of describing reality for the reality that we describe. Our descriptions are necessarily human, of course. We can have no other perspective. But the non-human WHAT that we describe is 'beyond human conditions'. Of course. What sort of idiocy would it be to think otherwise?

I agree .Transcendent reality (by definition of 'transcendent') cannot be captured by language except perhaps accidentally and unintentionally.

[Peter Holmes]

Belinda wrote:
Peter Holmes wrote:

The universe existed before humans turned up, and will exist after we're gone. It existed, exists and will exist 'beyond human conditions' - whatever that means. And its existence was not, is not and will not be transcendent - whatever that means.

I agree because I choose that particular frame of understanding. If , on the other hand,I am disinterestedly metaphysical I declare I am agnostic.

Your nonsense comes from mistaking our ways of describing reality for the reality that we describe. Our descriptions are necessarily human, of course. We can have no other perspective. But the non-human WHAT that we describe is 'beyond human conditions'. Of course. What sort of idiocy would it be to think otherwise?

I agree .Transcendent reality (by definition of 'transcendent') cannot be captured by language except perhaps accidentally and unintentionally.

Nope. Transcendent reality - whatever it is - either does or doesn't exist. The 'frame of reference' is irrelevant - as is language. All you're doing is repeating the claim - which is all anyone can do.

[Skepdick]

Nope. Transcendent reality - whatever it is - either does or doesn't exist.

How are you using the word "exists"?

The 'frame of reference' is irrelevant - as is language.

So what doe "exist" mean, outside of language?

Don't tell me. Show me.

[Terrapin Station]

I did not anticipate at all your point is about only one person exists and there is no one else, which is an impossibility in reality.

It would have been more clear if you have stated "..ONLY one person exists and there are no others.'
If that is the case, I would not have agreed with such an unrealistic scenario.

Even in that misunderstanding, I only stated,
the fact is 'the fact that she is thinking' assuming there is community and related FSK.

Whatever note the general principle;
..whatever is a fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a community grounded FSK [of various degrees of credibility].

So first, it doesn't matter whether it's practically impossible. It's a thought experiment and you're supposed to use your imagination.

At that, it wouldn't be impossible. Let's say that a group of astronauts are on a Mars mission, or a deep space mission or something. Something happens on the mission where all wind up dead except for one. Meanwhile, a huge asteroid, or another planet's rogue satellite that can't be diverted is on a collision course with Earth and winds up destroying it. The lone astronaut is the last surviving person.

So on your view, nothing that astronaut does from that point, subjective phenomena or not, can be a fact. It's not a fact that the astronaut in question pushes a particular button, it's not a fact that the astronaut is at a particular location, it's not a fact that they think, "Holy crap--I'm the last person alive," and so on. Is this what you'd argue?

[Terrapin Station]

I agree because I choose that particular frame of understanding.

Personally I can't choose what to believe. What Peter said is the only option that has good reasons for belief. Hence I can't help but believe it.

[Skepdick]

Personally I can't choose what to believe. What Peter said is the only option that has good reasons for belief. Hence I can't help but believe it.

That's a moral claim.

Every options has reasons for belief.

Why are these reasons "good" ?

Indeed you can, and you have chosen. According to your ineffable standards of "goodness".

[Terrapin Station]

That's a moral claim.

No it isn't. "Good" is evaluative, but not necessarily evaluative of morality. When I say that a Frank Zappa album is good, I'm not saying that it's morally good. Same when I say that a donut is good.

[Skepdick]

No it isn't. "Good" is evaluative, but not necessarily evaluative of morality. When I say that a Frank Zappa album is good, I'm not saying that it's morally good. Same when I say that a donut is good.

You are expressing a value-judgment in the linguistic form of an adjective.

You believe in the good/non-good distinction and you prefer one over the other.

It's a choice based on a value-judgment, therefore a moral choice.

[Terrapin Station]

No it isn't. "Good" is evaluative, but not necessarily evaluative of morality. When I say that a Frank Zappa album is good, I'm not saying that it's morally good. Same when I say that a donut is good.

You are expressing a value-judgment in the linguistic form of an adjective.

You believe in the good/non-good distinction and you prefer one over the other.

It's a choice based on a value-judgment, therefore a moral choice.

Not all value judgments or preferences are moral. Morality has to do with interpersonal behavior that one feels is permissible, impermissible, obligatory, etc. Tons of value judgments/preferences have nothing to do with that. When I say that I think a donut is good I'm making a value judgment, implying a preference, but it doesn't have anything to do with interpersonal behavior.

[Skepdick]

Not all value judgments or preferences are moral.

No shit.

The good ones are moral.
The rest are immoral.

Morality has to do with interpersonal behavior that one feels is permissible, impermissible, obligatory, etc.

And inter-personally having "good reasons" for your beliefs is permissible. Obligatory.
Having "no good reasons" for your beliefs is impermissible.

The Philosophical game of "correcting others' beliefs" given permissible norms of thought/belief...

Moral game.

Tons of value judgments/preferences have nothing to do with that. When I say that I think a donut is good I'm making a value judgment, implying a preference, but it doesn't have anything to do with interpersonal behavior.

But you aren't talking about donuts.

You are talking about "good reasons".

[Terrapin Station]

Not all value judgments or preferences are moral.

No shit.

The good ones are moral.
The rest are immoral.

How are you so smart/knowledgeable about some stuff but so clueless about this?

Value judgments about interpersonal behavior (that (a) one thinks are more significant than etiquette and (b) that one is saying are acceptable/unacceptable, permissible/impermissible, recommendable/not recommendable, etc.) are moral judgments, regardless of what the evaluation is.

So:

"It is good to help an elderly person with mobility issues across the street" is a moral judgment (as long as it meets criterion (a) for the person in question)

and

"It is bad to commit murder" is a moral judgment, too. The fact that we're saying it's bad doesn't make it not a moral judgment.

But:

"That donut is good"

and

"That painting is bad"

are not moral judgments, because they don't have anything to do with interpersonal behavior.

"Good" doesn't indicate that something is a moral judgment. "Good" is only a moral judgment when it has to do with interpersonal behavior (as explained above).