What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The claim that morality is for man, not animals, is about as clear a demonstration of the subjectivity of morality that there can be.

It's nothing but an opinion - and an utterly appalling and disgusting one at that, in my opinion.

And absolutely nothing in reality can show that opinion to be true or false, because moral assertions do not make factual claims with a truth-value that's independent from opinion. All we can do is express the opinion and explain why we hold it.

Then how did opinions related to science are accepted as objective scientific facts and truths [true or false] via the scientific FSK, albeit they are at best merely polished 'opinions' aka conjectures?

You totally ignored the above point which I had raised '1000s' of times.

If we can convert scientific opinions to scientific facts via the 'credible' scientific FSK,
then, we can also convert moral opinions to moral facts via a credible moral FSK.
I have claimed my proposed moral FSK has near equivalent credibility to that of the scientific FSK.

Claim: cruelty to animals is morally wrong. Claim: cruelty to animals is not morally wrong.

This is not an issue.
Even in Science, we have disputed opposite opinions.
E.g. Einstein did not agree with the initial opinions of the pioneers of QM, but the latter prevailed after polishing these QM opinions subsequently till it is accepted at present.
It is the same with the Big Bang theory and many other scientific theories which began as opinions and the most polished one were accepted while other were rejected.

If it's possible (rationally) for two people to hold directly contradictory moral opinions, those opinions can't be matters of fact that can be settled by an appeal to evidence.

There are no moral facts, so morality isn't and can't be objective. It really is simple - if distressing for moral objectivists/egotists.

As mentioned, during the history of Science, various people have had held opposite and contrary opinions, but then some subsequently prevailed as scientific facts and truths conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

There is no difference between moral opinions and scientific & other opinions.
These opinions are polished as facts within the specific FSK.
Scientific opinions are polished as scientific facts within the scientific FSK.

At present there are many types of moral opinions within their respective moral FSK, e.g. utilitarianism, deontology, theistic, Consequentialism, etc.
Unfortunately these moral FSKs are not effective in generating objective moral facts rather their moral claims are merely relative and subjective.

However the moral FSK [Kantian influenced] I proposed generate objective moral principles via a credible FSK that heavily relied upon scientific facts plus heavy philosophical reasonings.

[Age]

We can do that later. Explain why lying is morally wrong. Or confess that you can't get that from a source of nothing other than "man owns himself".

As I explained already, your moral thing is just another example of one of these reductive moral theories that attempts to recreate the entire gumbo of moral everything from a single ingredient. If you have nothing but freedom is good to work with, then you left out lying is bad and hypocrisy is wrong.

It's so lame watching the sophists struggle for control of the narrative.

Why don't YOU explain why a non-reductive moral theory is better than a reductive one.
Why don't YOU explain why an objective moral theory is beter than a subjective one.

Why don't you tell us what standards; or authority you are implicitly appealing to in evaluating and rejecting moral theories?

It's just boresome watching you self-appoint yourself as the arbiter without making your criteria explicit.

A descriptive theory would include the messy stuff in morality, a reductive theory discards it, Henry's reductive theory discards far too much, yours is even worse because you have already boasted that your moral theory has no need for the concepts of right and wrong.

An objective moral theory would be lovely if it were possible, Pete's explained plenty of times why that isn't an available option.

But, 'morality', like Truth, is ALREADY 'objective'. 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, have just NOT YET worked out how to REACH and SEE 'objectivity', itself.

And, when, and if, 'you' DO, then 'you' will ALSO come to SEE how to work out what is ACTUALLY 'morally objective', and IRREFUTABLY True.

Also, while 'you' keep LOOKING to just formulate 'theories', instead of just LOOKING AT what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, then 'you' WILL continue MISSING to SEE what is ACTUALLY True.

By the way, some of what is False and Wrong in "peter holmes's" 'opinions', and CLAIMS, here has ALREADY been POINTED OUT and SHOWN.

The 'others' will come to light later on.

And his post above explains quite clearly why subjective moral fact doesn't acheive the obvious purpose for which we invoke the concept of a fact.

But what is explained, "quite clearly", does NOT fit in, with NOR PROVE true,
what "peter holmes" 'tries' so hard to prove true.

Everybody in the world participates every day in moral activity, conversation and reasoning. If your theory is so alien to that way of life that you have to discard entire regions of the vocabulary then your input hasn't been valuable except in so far as its failings are something to learn from.

The real game is to work something that isn't covered by the theory but which the author of said theory can't accept they have left out without a fight. Henry and VA are weirdly happy to agree that sexually misusing goats isn't immoral, but now we have Henry on record saying that lying is immoral, that's something his own moral theory doesn't seem to support though. So my purpose here is to show that Henry cannot account for the badness of lying with his reductive theory, and that therefore his theory isn't even sufficient for his own needs.

[Age]

flash,

Explain why lying is morally wrong.

Flash lied to profit (to get sumthin' -- respect, attention, kudos -- he couldn't get honestly): theft.

Flash lied to besmirch (to deprive another of reputation): theft.

What EXACTLY was, SUPPOSEDLY, 'stolen' here?

my purpose here is to show that Henry cannot account for the badness of lying

You failed...again.

When, exactly, did "flashdangerpants" 'fail' here, again?

And, have you YET accounted for the 'badness of lying'?

If yes, then when, EXACTLY?

But if no, then "flashdangerpants" has NOT YET 'failed', correct?

[Sculptor]

download.jpg

Way to misunderstand the point.

Even if you could perfectly represent the entity in some format all you've done is you've made a copy of it. Thats what description does. It copies.

Well dah!

[Age]

It's so lame watching the sophists struggle for control of the narrative.

Why don't YOU explain why a non-reductive moral theory is better than a reductive one.
Why don't YOU explain why an objective moral theory is beter than a subjective one.

Why don't you tell us what standards; or authority you are implicitly appealing to in evaluating and rejecting moral theories?

It's just boresome watching you self-appoint yourself as the arbiter without making your criteria explicit.

A descriptive theory would include the messy stuff in morality, a reductive theory discards it, Henry's reductive theory discards far too much, yours is even worse because you have already boasted that your moral theory has no need for the concepts of right and wrong.

An objective moral theory would be lovely if it were possible, Pete's explained plenty of times why that isn't an available option. And his post above explains quite clearly why subjective moral fact doesn't acheive the obvious purpose for which we invoke the concept of a fact.

Everybody in the world participates every day in moral activity, conversation and reasoning. If your theory is so alien to that way of life that you have to discard entire regions of the vocabulary then your input hasn't been valuable except in so far as its failings are something to learn from.

The real game is to work something that isn't covered by the theory but which the author of said theory can't accept they have left out without a fight. Henry and VA are weirdly happy to agree that sexually misusing goats isn't immoral, but now we have Henry on record saying that lying is immoral, that's something his own moral theory doesn't seem to support though. So my purpose here is to show that Henry cannot account for the badness of lying with his reductive theory, and that therefore his theory isn't even sufficient for his own needs.

I think Flash's argument is spot on, and nicely expressed.

What's boresome is moral objectivists maintaining their faith-position with no evidence to back it up, and completely refuted arguments.

What is just as boring is 'you', human beings, who BELIEVE that there is NO 'moral objectivity' AT ALL, which, by the way, they can NOT back up nor support with ANY ACTUAL PROOF, but just 'try to' CLAIM this is true because 'opinions' are not facts, and especially when they have NOT YET even REALIZED that their CLAIM here is just an 'opinion', itself, and therefore this MAKES their CLAIM NOT a fact AT ALL.

The resort to ad hominems and abuse is evidence of failure. (I apologise for my failings in that respect.)

If the resort to ad hominems and abuse is evidence of failure, and you are apologizing for the ad hominems or abuse you have made or done, then are you PROVING that 'what you have been saying' here is evidence of your OWN failure to back up and support your OWN claim that there is NO 'moral objectivity'?

[Age]

P1 A woman belongs to herself.
P2 A woman may need to lie in order to maintain her self-ownership.
C Therefore lying is not necessarily morally wrong.

QED

Fwa.

I might lie to save jews in my attic: defense of self and others is moral.

But WHY would you lie, especially when you would NOT necessarily 'HAVE TO'?

[Age]

flash,

Explain why lying is morally wrong.

Flash lied to profit (to get sumthin' -- respect, attention, kudos -- he couldn't get honestly): theft.

Flash lied to besmirch (to deprive another of reputation): theft.

my purpose here is to show that Henry cannot account for the badness of lying

You failed...again.

What property did you lose?

My reputation (such as it is) is mine, yes?

But who OWNS the 'reputation' you have?

Do NOT forget that the ACTUAL 'reputation' you have can be VERY DIFFERENT to "others", from what you IMAGINE your 'reputation' is.

For example, the 'reputation' you have among some is that 'you ARE a liar', and among "others" is that 'you are UNABLE to back up and support some of your CLAIMS, and among even "others" 'you are VERY HYPOCRITICAL and you CONTRADICT some of what you say and claim'. So, are these YOUR 'reputations', or do these 'reputations' OF YOU 'belong' to "others"?

Do you REALLY want those 'reputations', of 'you', to be 'yours'?

You lie to besmirch: you injure me, you deprive me of what is mine.

How old are you?

How have you been 'damaged', EXACTLY?

How have you been 'injured', EXACTLY?

What was 'yours', which you BELIEVE 'you' have been 'deprived' of, EXACTLY? And,

Do you always allow "others" to have this much 'control' OVER 'you'?

You lie to profit (to gain sumthin' you can't come by honestly) you deprive someone of the opportunity to assess you honestly.

Try again.

This appears to be ALL 'about you'.

If you did NOT answer before, REALLY how old are 'you', "henry quirk"?

[Age]

My reputation (such as it is) is mine, yes?

You lie to besmirch: you injure me, you deprive me of what is mine.

You lie to profit (to gain sumthin' you can't come by honestly) you deprive someone of the opportunity to assess you honestly.

Try again.

So tell us more about this reputation of yours. What is your reputation Henry?

No, let's talk about yours.

WHY do you NOT want to talk about YOUR 'reputation'? After all it was YOU who brought 'it' up.

[Age]

a piss taking bastard who can't keep any conversation serious for five minutes

you left out lyin'

But is that THEIR 'reputation', or, is that THE 'reputation' you 'trying to' put ON 'them'?

[Age]

a piss taking bastard who can't keep any conversation serious for five minutes

you left out lyin'

Okay then. Now your reputation. What is it? What is this treasure from which I have plundered?

Does the car owner have to explain to the car thief the nature of the car, or its value?

Of course not.

All he has to say is: it's mine, leave it be.

But what IS THE 'reputation', which is, supposedly, "MINE", from YOUR perspective, and which you also CLAIM has been taken/stolen FROM you?

[Age]

The claim that morality is for man, not animals, is about as clear a demonstration of the subjectivity of morality that there can be.

It's nothing but an opinion - and an utterly appalling and disgusting one at that, in my opinion.

And absolutely nothing in reality can show that opinion to be true or false, because moral assertions do not make factual claims with a truth-value that's independent from opinion. All we can do is express the opinion and explain why we hold it.

Then how did opinions related to science are accepted as objective scientific facts and truths [true or false] via the scientific FSK, albeit they are at best merely polished 'opinions' aka conjectures?

You totally ignored the above point which I had raised '1000s' of times.

"peter holmes" IGNORES what is POINTED OUT and SHOWN, just like 'you', "veritas aequitas", DO because ANY thing that OPPOSES one's currently HELD BELIEFS 'has to be' IGNORED, otherwise one would 'have to' CHANGE their views AND BELIEFS.

And, 'you', adult human beings, HATE doing this. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True throughout this forum.

If we can convert scientific opinions to scientific facts via the 'credible' scientific FSK,
then, we can also convert moral opinions to moral facts via a credible moral FSK.
I have claimed my proposed moral FSK has near equivalent credibility to that of the scientific FSK.

So, WHY do you NOT just PROVE 'your proposal' WORKS by just PROVIDING some ACTUAL EXAMPLES?

If YOUR proposal for a moral fsk can produce 'moral facts', then OBVIOUSLY ANY 'moral fact' that could be found through YOUR proposed fsk would HAVE TO BE IRREFUTABLE.

Which would OBVIOUSLY be VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE to PROVE True. So, WHY do you NOT just do this?

Claim: cruelty to animals is morally wrong. Claim: cruelty to animals is not morally wrong.

This is not an issue.
Even in Science, we have disputed opposite opinions.

And this DISPUTE ONLY happens and occurs because 'you', adult human beings, ASSUME or BELIEVE 'things' are true BEFORE you FIND OUT, IRREFUTABLY.

E.g. Einstein did not agree with the initial opinions of the pioneers of QM, but the latter prevailed after polishing these QM opinions subsequently till it is accepted at present.
It is the same with the Big Bang theory and many other scientific theories which began as opinions and the most polished one were accepted while other were rejected.

LOL MORE PROOF of WHY human beings, in the days when this was being written, were SO SLOW to FIND OUT what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

So-called "polished OPINIONS" become ASSUMED or BELIEVED to be true BEFORE what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' is UNCOVERED.

If it's possible (rationally) for two people to hold directly contradictory moral opinions, those opinions can't be matters of fact that can be settled by an appeal to evidence.

There are no moral facts, so morality isn't and can't be objective. It really is simple - if distressing for moral objectivists/egotists.

As mentioned, during the history of Science, various people have had held opposite and contrary opinions, but then some subsequently prevailed as scientific facts and truths conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

LOL Do you REALLY BELIEVE that the "big bang" THEORY is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct?

Your INABILITY to answer and CLARIFY this question Honestly PROVES what I have SAID and CLAIMED here.

There is no difference between moral opinions and scientific & other opinions.
These opinions are polished as facts within the specific FSK.

Is the 'polished' word here just a DISGUISE for what are REALLY NOT ACTUAL Facts, but just PRETEND "facts" some people USE to 'TRY TO' back up and support their currently held ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS?

Scientific opinions are polished as scientific facts within the scientific FSK.

But if the "polished opinions" are REALLY Facts or NOT can be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY PROVED, and IRREFUTABLY.

But, OF COURSE, ONLY when the "polished opinions" are PRESENTED here, for us to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

At present there are many types of moral opinions within their respective moral FSK, e.g. utilitarianism, deontology, theistic, Consequentialism, etc.
Unfortunately these moral FSKs are not effective in generating objective moral facts rather their moral claims are merely relative and subjective.

However the moral FSK [Kantian influenced] I proposed generate objective moral principles via a credible FSK that heavily relied upon scientific facts plus heavy philosophical reasonings.

Instead of just CONTINUALLY "talking about" 'it', WHY NOT just PRODUCE or CREATE 'it'?

You do CLAIM, after all, that 'it' is POSSIBLE.

[Atla]

FIND OUT what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS

What's the difference between "the" ACTUAL Truth and "thee" ACTUAL Truth?

[Age]

FIND OUT what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS

What's the difference between "the" ACTUAL Truth and "thee" ACTUAL Truth?

In essence, there is NO REAL difference, but I just use the 'thee' word to reinforce that 'that Truth', which is being spoken of, is IRREFUTABLY the One and ONLY Truth, FOREVER MORE.

[Atla]

FIND OUT what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS

What's the difference between "the" ACTUAL Truth and "thee" ACTUAL Truth?

In essence, there is NO REAL difference, but I just use the 'thee' word to reinforce that 'that Truth', which is being spoken of, is IRREFUTABLY the One and ONLY Truth, FOREVER MORE.

If people could just all agree on the same truth, which is also thee ACTUAL Truth of the Universe. We could all leave in peace and harmony.

[Age]

What's the difference between "the" ACTUAL Truth and "thee" ACTUAL Truth?

In essence, there is NO REAL difference, but I just use the 'thee' word to reinforce that 'that Truth', which is being spoken of, is IRREFUTABLY the One and ONLY Truth, FOREVER MORE.

If people could just all agree on the same truth, which is also thee ACTUAL Truth of the Universe. We could all leave in peace and harmony.

If you say so. But what is "thee ACTUAL Truth of the Universe", EXACTLY?

Also, when you say 'leave' here do you mean that when 'you' "die" you could all leave 'Life', Itself, in peace and harmony?

If yes, then how, EXACTLY, would just 'knowing' what "thee ACTUAL Truth of the Universe" IS would that then allow all of 'you' to 'leave life' in peace and harmony?

But if that was NOT what you were talking about, and MEANT, then, to me, there is NOTHING I have said, NOR MEANT, in regards to; "If people could just all agree on the same truth".

To me, what 'it' is that ALL agree on or with is just thee Truth. Now, if ANY one can NOT understand the DIFFERENCE here, then, if you just ask the questions you want CLARIFIED, and I see them, then I WILL CLARIFY.

Also, what EVERY one agrees on or with is NOT necessarily what 'thee ACTUAL Truth of the Universe' IS.

And, if, and WHEN, EVERY one is 'agreeing' on and with 'things', then they can, and WILL BE, 'living' in peace and harmony.