What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Making the concepts manifest in the outer world as objects, in the form of structures, institutions, and systems.

The fact that we can and do act collectively (socially/legally/politically) on a moral opinion doesn't make that moral opinion a fact. That's not what 'moral objectivity' means. Moral objectivists claim there are moral facts regardless of - and independent from - social structures, institutions and systems.

[popeye1945]

Making the concepts manifest in the outer world as objects, in the form of structures, institutions, and systems.

The fact that we can and do act collectively (socially/legally/politically) on a moral opinion doesn't make that moral opinion a fact. That's not what 'moral objectivity' means. Moral objectivists claim there are moral facts regardless of - and independent from - social structures, institutions and systems.

All meaning belongs to a conscious subject, it is quite impossible for meaning to be found in the outside world which is not bestowed upon it by a conscious subject. Any idea that moral facts/ objective meaning can exist in the absence of a conscious subject is non-sense. Thanks for the heads up, I never realized the absurd nature of the question.

[Peter Holmes]

Making the concepts manifest in the outer world as objects, in the form of structures, institutions, and systems.

The fact that we can and do act collectively (socially/legally/politically) on a moral opinion doesn't make that moral opinion a fact. That's not what 'moral objectivity' means. Moral objectivists claim there are moral facts regardless of - and independent from - social structures, institutions and systems.

All meaning belongs to a conscious subject, it is quite impossible for meaning to be found in the outside world which is not bestowed upon it by a conscious subject. Any idea that moral facts/ objective meaning can exist in the absence of a conscious subject is non-sense. Thanks for the heads up, I never realized the absurd nature of the question.

(I think we've been here already, but...)

I agree that morality isn't and can't be objective, but I don't agree with your reason for thinking that. Your claim - 'all meaning belongs to a conscious subject' - objectifies what we call 'meaning' as a thing of some kind that can therefore belong to someone. And that's a metaphysical delusion, in my opinion.

[popeye1945]

All meaning belongs to a conscious subject, it is quite impossible for meaning to be found in the outside world which is not bestowed upon it by a conscious subject. Any idea that moral facts/ objective meaning can exist in the absence of a conscious subject is non-sense. Thanks for the heads up, I never realized the absurd nature of the question.
[/quote]
(I think we've been here already, but...)

I agree that morality isn't and can't be objective, but I don't agree with your reason for thinking that. Your claim - 'all meaning belongs to a conscious subject' - objectifies what we call 'meaning' as a thing of some kind that can therefore belong to someone. And that's a metaphysical delusion, in my opinion.
[/quote]

Peter,

Explain to me then how object can have meaning independent of a conscious subject. Apparent reality itself is a biological readout in that biology is the measure of all things. As Schopenhaure stated long ago, subject and object stands or falls together, meaning take one away and the other ceases to be. Things can only be known cognitively, therefore all of apparent reality is a subjective experience, that experience/knowledge is then bestowed upon a meaningless physical world.

[Skepdick]

That's not what 'moral objectivity' means.

You literally keep arguing that words can only mean whatever we use them to mean.

And then you keep protesting that people use "objective morality" to means something other than what you want it to mean.

Moral objectivists claim there are moral facts regardless of - and independent from - social structures, institutions and systems.

Why do you think that?

Some moral objectivist may claim that.
Some moral objectivists may not claim that.

You seem to have some normative idea of what "moral objectivism" means...

Almost as if you believe in normative meaning - normative semantics. Super-awkward for a guy arguing against normative facts.

[Atla]

OR, there will be a LIFE CHANGING EVENT, which means that 'you' WILL BE the last AND first 'generation' who ACTUALLY CHANGED, for the better, which IN TURN WILL be the beginning of the CREATION of a MUCH BETTER 'life' and 'world', FOR EVERY one.

I KNOW what is about to happen. But you WILL just have to WAIT and SEE, correct?

Ok, so a life changing event is coming, that will fix everything. How do you know the future so well?

Because I ALREADY KNOW what WORKS, WILL BENEFIT EVERY one, and because of HOW MUCH 'it' IS Truly WANTED.

I ALSO KNOW HOW MUCH a LOT of 'you' will 'try to' FIGHT AGAINST 'it', BUT thee Truth ALWAYS comes OUT, 'in the end'.

in fact ALL of 'you' used to be and 'liked being good', 'preferred to live in peace and harmony over exploiting others'

Not according to recorded history.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' are SO BLINDED by YOUR OWN BELIEFS can 'you' NOT even just STOP and LOOK and CLARIFY, BEFORE 'you' JUMP to ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS.

'you', ONCE MORE, VERY CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY are NOT comprehending NOR understanding absolutely ANY thing in regards to what I am ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

Now, WHOSE FAULT is 'this'?

And if this was before recorded history, then how do you know the distant past so well?

WHY did 'you' go OFF ANOTHER completely Wrong 'tangent', ONCE AGAIN?

'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY did NEED to CHANGE the WAY 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

WHEN 'you' DO, then 'you' can START to SEE what thee ACTUAL of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

You're the one clueless about human nature, about the past and the present. Your teaching about the future is just empty wishful thinking, anyone can do that.

[Age]

Ok, so a life changing event is coming, that will fix everything. How do you know the future so well?

Because I ALREADY KNOW what WORKS, WILL BENEFIT EVERY one, and because of HOW MUCH 'it' IS Truly WANTED.

I ALSO KNOW HOW MUCH a LOT of 'you' will 'try to' FIGHT AGAINST 'it', BUT thee Truth ALWAYS comes OUT, 'in the end'.

Not according to recorded history.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' are SO BLINDED by YOUR OWN BELIEFS can 'you' NOT even just STOP and LOOK and CLARIFY, BEFORE 'you' JUMP to ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS.

'you', ONCE MORE, VERY CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY are NOT comprehending NOR understanding absolutely ANY thing in regards to what I am ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

Now, WHOSE FAULT is 'this'?

And if this was before recorded history, then how do you know the distant past so well?

WHY did 'you' go OFF ANOTHER completely Wrong 'tangent', ONCE AGAIN?

'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY did NEED to CHANGE the WAY 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

WHEN 'you' DO, then 'you' can START to SEE what thee ACTUAL of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

You're the one clueless about human nature, about the past and the present.

Are you BRAVE enough to put your CLAIM here to the test?

If yes, then go ahead.

Until then you are AGAIN here saying NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.

You sound, literally, like the Truly clueless one here, You say, "you're the one who is clueless", but then provide absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support YOUR CLAIM.

And, whenever I question or challenge you over YOUR CLAIM, you provide absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

So, what IS 'human nature', which you CLAIM I am CLUELESS about. Let us SEE just how MUCH of a CLUE you have, or how CLUELESS it is YOU who REALLY IS here.

Also, what is 'it', which you CLAIM I am CLUELESS about in regards to 'the past' and 'the present'?

AGAIN, let us SEE if you REALLY do have ANY CLUE, AT ALL.

Your lack of answering AND clarifying, by the way, REVEALS the True extent of YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING here.

Your teaching about the future is just empty wishful thinking, anyone can do that.

Can they?

Let us SEE you try and do it.

By the way, are you REALLY that STILL that STUPID.

WHEN did I EVER even BEGIN to START 'teaching' about 'the future'?

Also, let NOT the readers FORGET your complete and utter LACK OF ALL ABILITY to answer and clarify the CLARIFYING questions that I have ALREADY posed to you, PREVIOUSLY.

[Age]

Making the concepts manifest in the outer world as objects, in the form of structures, institutions, and systems.

The fact that we can and do act collectively (socially/legally/politically) on a moral opinion doesn't make that moral opinion a fact.

LOOK, OBVIOUSLY when one calls some 'thing' a 'moral opinion' and BELIEVES that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in the WHOLE Universe that could make an 'opinion' or absolutely ANY thing 'moral' a Fact, then what you say here is true, to that 'one' who calls and BELIEVES 'things' that way.

But how 'you', "peter holmes", define and BELIEVE 'things' is NOT necessarily the True, Right, AND Correct way, correct?

Or, do you, literally, think and BELIEVE that the way you LOOK AT and SEE 'things' is the ONLY True, Right, AND Correct way?

Once you LEARN and UNDERSTAND what is the ACTUAL Truth of 'things', then you WILL be ABLE to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for how they Truly ARE. But, until then, you are absolutely FREE to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' absolutely ANY 'way' that you want to.

That's not what 'moral objectivity' means.

What does 'moral objectivity' MEAN, (or refer to), to you?

Moral objectivists claim there are moral facts regardless of - and independent from - social structures, institutions and systems.

So what?

So-called "moral subjectivists" CLAIM 'things' as well.

But OBVIOUSLY just CLAIMING 'things' does NOT make them True, Right, NOR Correct.

So, BOTH of 'you' so-called "objectivists" AND "subjectivists" either have IRREFUTABLE PROOF for your OWN CLAIMS or 'you' do NOT. And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN NONE of 'you' have provided ANY ACTUAL PROOF so far.

[Age]

The fact that we can and do act collectively (socially/legally/politically) on a moral opinion doesn't make that moral opinion a fact. That's not what 'moral objectivity' means. Moral objectivists claim there are moral facts regardless of - and independent from - social structures, institutions and systems.

All meaning belongs to a conscious subject, it is quite impossible for meaning to be found in the outside world which is not bestowed upon it by a conscious subject. Any idea that moral facts/ objective meaning can exist in the absence of a conscious subject is non-sense. Thanks for the heads up, I never realized the absurd nature of the question.

(I think we've been here already, but...)

I agree that morality isn't and can't be objective, but I don't agree with your reason for thinking that.

WHY do you agree that 'morality', itself, IS NOT and CAN NOT BE 'objective'?

IF you EVER decide to DELVE into WHY you AGREE to this, then what WILL BE CLEARLY SEEN is the FAULTY REASONING behind what you AGREE with here.

But you are absolutely FREE to NOT be OPEN and Honest here, and so NEVER find out what thee ACTUAL Truth is here.

Your claim - 'all meaning belongs to a conscious subject' - objectifies what we call 'meaning' as a thing of some kind that can therefore belong to someone. And that's a metaphysical delusion, in my opinion.

You making CLAIMS like; " what 'we' call 'meaning' ", is just a DELUSION, itself. That is; IF you EVER get around to working out who and/or what the 'we' IS, EXACTLY?

[Age]

All meaning belongs to a conscious subject, it is quite impossible for meaning to be found in the outside world which is not bestowed upon it by a conscious subject. Any idea that moral facts/ objective meaning can exist in the absence of a conscious subject is non-sense. Thanks for the heads up, I never realized the absurd nature of the question.

(I think we've been here already, but...)

I agree that morality isn't and can't be objective, but I don't agree with your reason for thinking that. Your claim - 'all meaning belongs to a conscious subject' - objectifies what we call 'meaning' as a thing of some kind that can therefore belong to someone. And that's a metaphysical delusion, in my opinion.
[/quote]

Peter,

Explain to me then how object can have meaning independent of a conscious subject.[/quote]

What WILL BE SEEN is "peter holmes" COULD NOT.

Apparent reality itself is a biological readout in that biology is the measure of all things. As Schopenhaure stated long ago, subject and object stands or falls together, meaning take one away and the other ceases to be. Things can only be known cognitively, therefore all of apparent reality is a subjective experience, that experience/knowledge is then bestowed upon a meaningless physical world.

And, when this IS UNDERSTOOD, then what 'it' IS that ACTUALLY makes 'morality' OBJECTIVE can and WILL come-to-light.

And then, from that 'knowing', EVEN MORE 'knowledge' CAN and WILL come-to-light.

[Age]

That's not what 'moral objectivity' means.

You literally keep arguing that words can only mean whatever we use them to mean.

And then you keep protesting that people use "objective morality" to means something other than what you want it to mean.

GREAT OBSERVATION, and presented VERY CLEARLY.

Moral objectivists claim there are moral facts regardless of - and independent from - social structures, institutions and systems.

Why do you think that?

Some moral objectivist may claim that.
Some moral objectivists may not claim that.

You seem to have some normative idea of what "moral objectivism" means...

Almost as if you believe in normative meaning - normative semantics. Super-awkward for a guy arguing against normative facts.

Even 'dictionaries', which are the collective SOURCE for so-called "normal definitions and meanings", are NOT in AGREEMENT on what is 'the' 'normal meaning nor definition' for A word, let alone a WHOLE book of WORDS.

[Peter Holmes]

Do we all agree that saying something is so doesn't make it so?

For example, saying water is H2O doesn't make water H2O. Water's being H2O has nothing to do with what anyone says or believes. For example, water was H2O before humans appeared, and will be H2O after we disappear.

Given the way we (English speakers) use those signs in context, 'water is H2O' is a true factual assertion. And, given the same condition, 'water is not H2O' is a false factual assertion.

Does anyone disagree so far? And if so, please explain why you disagree.

[Skepdick]

Do we all agree that saying something is so doesn't make it so?

For example, saying water is H2O doesn't make water H2O. Water's being H2O has nothing to do with what anyone says or believes. For example, water was H2O before humans appeared, and will be H2O after we disappear.

Given the way we (English speakers) use those signs in context, 'water is H2O' is a true factual assertion. And, given the same condition, 'water is not H2O' is a false factual assertion.

Does anyone disagree so far? And if so, please explain why you disagree.

Water was not H2O until Mendeleev invented chemistry, and until the designations "H" and "O" were specified as "atom with one proton" and "atom with eight protons".

Water is and will always be water. In the context of the language in which water is water.
Water is and will always be H2O. In the context of the language of chemistry.
Water is and will always be a complex wave equation. In the context of the language of Quantim Physics.

Assuming the chemistry perspective is neither here nor there.

Water is H2O.
Steam is H2O.
Ice is H2O.

So then in the context of the language of chemistry (and by the law of transitivity) Water is steam; steam is ice; and ice is water. And that's just not true!

If we are going to be describing water using the language of some incomplete, reductionist scientific discipline then why did you choose chemistry in particualar?
Why did you choose a language in which atoms are considered elementary?
Why didn't you choose a language where quarks, bosons, leptons and electrons are considered elementary?

Dfferent descriptive contexts exist for the exact same thing. If a description is true in one context, and false in another context then you have to tell us why you've chosen the context that you've chosen!

[Age]

Do we all agree that saying something is so doesn't make it so?

I do NOT KNOW about ALL here, but I KNOW I DO AGREE here.

For example, saying water is H2O doesn't make water H2O. Water's being H2O has nothing to do with what anyone says or believes. For example, water was H2O before humans appeared, and will be H2O after we disappear.

That is ONLY if 'you', human beings, AGREE on what 'water' IS, EXACTLY, and what 'H20' IS, EXACTLY, ALSO.

Given the way we (English speakers) use those signs in context, 'water is H2O' is a true factual assertion.

ONLY because these are the signs and symbols 'you', consciously subjective and experiencing thinking human beings, USE.

And, the signs and symbols you USE are ALL because of your OWN personal subjective opinions.

So, if 'water' IS 'H2O' is a 'true factual assertion', to, and from, you, then, you will HAVE TO also accept that, 'making slaves of human beings' IS 'morally wrong' is a 'true factual assertion', to, and from, "others", correct?

Or, will you NOT 'accept' this?

If you will NOT accept this, then what makes YOUR 'assertion' a, supposed, 'true factual assertion' and the other one NOT a 'true factual assertion'.

And, given the same condition, 'water is not H2O' is a false factual assertion.

So, 'NOT making slaves of human beings' is a false factual assertion, to you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Does anyone disagree so far?

'Disagree' with 'what', EXACTLY?

I AGREE that some of 'you', human beings, name some 'thing', 'water', and then say that that 'thing', known as 'water', is 'H20'.

But I DISAGREE with how you can call some of your OWN 'opinions' 'true factual assertions' but then you want to also ASSERT that the 'opinions' of "others", regarding 'moral' issues, can NEVER be 'true factual assertions', EVER.

If you do NOT YET, consciously, KNOW what is ACTUALLY morally Right and Wrong in Life, then so be it. But your ASSERTION that NO one forever more can KNOW a True Fact regarding moral issues is just your OWN 'opinion' ONLY. And, according to your OWN "logic" your opinion can NEVER be a true fact, correct?

And if so, please explain why you disagree.

Hopefully, I did ALREADY.

[Age]

Do we all agree that saying something is so doesn't make it so?

For example, saying water is H2O doesn't make water H2O. Water's being H2O has nothing to do with what anyone says or believes. For example, water was H2O before humans appeared, and will be H2O after we disappear.

Given the way we (English speakers) use those signs in context, 'water is H2O' is a true factual assertion. And, given the same condition, 'water is not H2O' is a false factual assertion.

Does anyone disagree so far? And if so, please explain why you disagree.

Water was not H2O until Mendeleev invented chemistry, and until the designations "H" and "O" were specified as "atom with one proton" and "atom with eight protons".

Water is and will always be water. In the context of the language in which water is water.
Water is and will always be H2O. In the context of the language of chemistry.
Water is and will always be a complex wave equation. In the context of the language of Quantim Physics.

Assuming the chemistry perspective is neither here nor there.

Water is H2O.
Steam is H2O.
Ice is H2O.

So then in the context of the language of chemistry (and by the law of transitivity) Water is steam; steam is ice; and ice is water. And that's just not true!

If we are going to be describing water using the language of some incomplete, reductionist scientific discipline then why did you choose chemistry in particualar?
Why did you choose a language in which atoms are considered elementary?
Why didn't you choose a language where quarks, bosons, leptons and electrons are considered elementary?

Dfferent descriptive contexts exist for the exact same thing. If a description is true in one context, and false in another context then you have to tell us why you've chosen the context that you've chosen!

All great points, and questions, again.