Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

Yes True, and has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

But, the VERY REASON WHY 'you', adult human beings, have NOT YET SEEN the PROOF, and NOT just 'evidence', NOR the 'sound AND valid arguments' is because your VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS PREVENT STOP 'you' from SEEING 'them'.

And, if you want to PROVE your CLAIM here True, then just find us someone who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES the OPPOSITE of you, and PROVIDE the 'evidence and sound valid argument' for YOUR "side", and let us SEE if the "other" can SEE and ACCEPTS your 'demonstration for 'its' existence'.

GOOD LUCK with that one, by the way.

You 'demonstrating the existence that there is NO 'moral objective' by providing 'evidence and sound argument' for your claim that, "There is absolutely NO 'moral objective' AT ALL", let us NOT FORGET is NOT WORKING AT ALL here.

Which, REALLY, counters your OWN CLAIM here that if ANY 'thing' exists, then "evidence and sound argument can demonstrate its existence". So, this either MEANS that your CLAIM here is False and Wrong, OR, that 'moral objective' ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.



If you can find a human being who BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES some 'thing', and while they are HOLDING ONTO that BELIEF or DISBELIEF, you can PRESENT some 'thing' that makes them CHANGE "sides", then will you let me KNOW what you did PLEASE?


OF COURSE IT IS. So, WHY did you bring 'this' up and into the discussion here now?



LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did you bring such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS notion into this discussion?


I am NOT.

Are you a DISBELIEVER?

This would CERTAINLY EXPLAIN a LOT.

By the way, are you EVER going to define what the word 'objective' MEANS, or REFERS TO, to you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way, there ARE 'moral facts'. And, HOW TO FIND, and/or OBTAIN, them has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED.

The burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant.

And, it is you who has CLAIMED, "There are NEVER EVER ANY moral facts, forever more".

Have you got ACTUAL PROOF for this?

If yes, then will you PROVIDE 'it'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Or, is that CLAIM just an OPINION of YOURS?

You claim there are moral facts.

Yes I HAVE.

So the burden of proof for that claim is yours.

If you say so.

Is the so-called 'burden of proof' for your claim, yours also?

Or, do 'things' change now?

And I don't think you've met that burden of proof.

And this is because, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, the process of how Truth, Facts, and 'objectivity' is reached is NOT being done here.

I have even asked you to provide a definition of the word 'objective', so that NO one could accuse me of being 'selective' in my explanations.

You just claim that you have.

And you just claim that you have ALSO.

So do it here, now.

LOL

TELL 'me' WHAT TO DO, and I will SHOW 'you' WHAT I WILL DO.

Assert what you think is a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Are you REALLY this BLIND.

I have TOLD you that there is NOTHING that can be said that is NOT an 'opinion', because of what the WORDS ARE, that are used to EXPLAIN the the Universe, and the way It works.

Go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you.

LOL

How about you PROVE that "There are absolutely NO moral facts WHATSOEVER forever more". After all this is YOUR CLAIM. So, WHERE IS your PROOF for this CLAIM?

Also, WHEN will you UNDERSTAND that how one SEES and USES 'words', that is; how one DEFINES a 'word', CHANGES absolutely ALL and EVERY 'meaning'.

So, how 'you' define and use the words 'moral facts' is NOT how "others" define and use those words, which LEAVES US IN THE POSITION of;

WHO is Right?

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE makes YOUR OWN 'views' (and thus YOUR OWN 'opinions') thee IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct ones?

So, "go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you".

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect. It amounts to this: Truth is that which is irrefutable; and that which is irrefutable is what everyone agrees is true. Sorry - nul point.

And to repeat: is the claim that facts are opinions a fact or an opinion?

Let me help you out. If it's a fact - a true factual assertion regardless of opinion - then it isn't an opinion, so what it claims is false. But if it's an opinion - because facts are opinions - then I reject that opinion, as do English speakers who make a clear distinction between what we call facts and opinions. So your claim, that facts are opinions, is incoherent. Nul point.

Your whole argument is based on a couple of flimsy and easily debunked premises. Back to the drawing board.

[Skepdick]

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect. It amounts to this: Truth is that which is irrefutable; and that which is irrefutable is what everyone agrees is true. Sorry - nul point.

But you are the one who keeps advocating for the consensus theory with respect to the use of language.

Words only mean what we use them to mean. Blah blah blah. You keep repeating this like a stuck record.

So the term "red" could only mean what we use it to mean.

We could use "red" to mean this color.
We could use "red" to mean this color.

It is only by consensus that the term "red" is used to mean this color.

Have you changed your mind all of a sudden?

[RCSaunders]

Good grief! A hundred and fifty five posts and what morality is even supposed to be is never identified, and this ding-dong idiot is claiming it's been proven objective? If it has, so has astrology.

Good grief. You are closer to the grave than to the vagina and you still don't understand that the notion of "identity", or the process of identification is entirely abstract.

Nobody has yet come to identify what identity IS!

The Mathematicians claim that identity is equivalent to equality, yet physicists disagree.

So what!?

[Skepdick]

Good grief! A hundred and fifty five posts and what morality is even supposed to be is never identified, and this ding-dong idiot is claiming it's been proven objective? If it has, so has astrology.

Good grief. You are closer to the grave than to the vagina and you still don't understand that the notion of "identity", or the process of identification is entirely abstract.

Nobody has yet come to identify what identity IS!

The Mathematicians claim that identity is equivalent to equality, yet physicists disagree.

So what!?

To paraphrase your own words...

If "identity" cannot be identified then it might as well be astrology.

[RCSaunders]

The problem is the word, "moral." No one has identified what moral refers to. What does the phrase, "moral fact," refer to?

The words, "right," and, "wrong," certainly can have factual meanings when they refer to objectives or purposes or goals. That which achieves or accomplishes the objective, purpose, or goal is right, and that which hinders or prevents achieving or accomplishing the goal or objective is wrong. If the word, "moral," is going to have a meaning, isn't it necessary to identify some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which a thing is "morally," right or wrong, and doesn't that objective, purpose or goal have to be truly objective, not some ideological floating abstraction, like, "the good of mankind," or, "the good of society."

Not sure, but maybe you're referring to the 'subjective goal/objective means' argument, which I think informs, for example, Sam Harris's approach. The argument is that morality can be objective, in the sense that, given a goal, there are objectively better and worse ways to achieve it.

I think this is misleading, because goal-consistency is morally neutral. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y' says nothing about the moral rightness or wrongness of either the goal or the action. And moral objectivism is specifically the claim that both moral goals and the means to achieve them are, as it were, intrinsically right or wrong.

I don't understand what a 'truly objective' moral goal could be. Can you explain that, and how having one may establish moral objectivity? It seems to me that the choice of a moral goal must always be subjective - a matter of opinion.

Sorry if I've misconstrued your point.

If you think I'm defending some view of morality, you are missing my point. I cannot think of one view of morality which is not either based on some mystic absolute (moral is whatever God says, evolution determined, or some other mystic authority just declares is right) or some form of consensus or social convention (it what's society approves, is culturally accepted, what is traditional, or whatever everyone agrees to, or what is good for, "society.") All nonsense.

My point is that no view of morality ever identifies what morality is supposed to be for. If there were such a thing as morality, what would applying its principles achieve?

There are a couple of issues here, as far as I'm concerned:

1. The idea of morality assumes human beings are volitional beings, that is, that they consciously choose their behavior. If that premise is rejected, any discussion of morality is pointless, even if there were such a thing. Someone who has not choice in what they do does need to know what is right or wrong, since they have no choice in the matter.

2. If there were such a thing as morality, it would have to be some set of values by which one could evaluate possible choices to make one's that achieved a desired goal or objective. Since nothing matters or has any value except to individual human beings, any so-called moral values would have to be those that furthered the life and success of individual human beings.

There is a very important third point, bit I'll stop here.

[Peter Holmes]

The problem is the word, "moral." No one has identified what moral refers to. What does the phrase, "moral fact," refer to?

The words, "right," and, "wrong," certainly can have factual meanings when they refer to objectives or purposes or goals. That which achieves or accomplishes the objective, purpose, or goal is right, and that which hinders or prevents achieving or accomplishing the goal or objective is wrong. If the word, "moral," is going to have a meaning, isn't it necessary to identify some objective, purpose, or goal relative to which a thing is "morally," right or wrong, and doesn't that objective, purpose or goal have to be truly objective, not some ideological floating abstraction, like, "the good of mankind," or, "the good of society."

Not sure, but maybe you're referring to the 'subjective goal/objective means' argument, which I think informs, for example, Sam Harris's approach. The argument is that morality can be objective, in the sense that, given a goal, there are objectively better and worse ways to achieve it.

I think this is misleading, because goal-consistency is morally neutral. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y' says nothing about the moral rightness or wrongness of either the goal or the action. And moral objectivism is specifically the claim that both moral goals and the means to achieve them are, as it were, intrinsically right or wrong.

I don't understand what a 'truly objective' moral goal could be. Can you explain that, and how having one may establish moral objectivity? It seems to me that the choice of a moral goal must always be subjective - a matter of opinion.

Sorry if I've misconstrued your point.

If you think I'm defending some view of morality, you are missing my point. I cannot think of one view of morality which is not either based on some mystic absolute (moral is whatever God says, evolution determined, or some other mystic authority just declares is right) or some form of consensus or social convention (it what's society approves, is culturally accepted, what is traditional, or whatever everyone agrees to, or what is good for, "society.") All nonsense.

My point is that no view of morality ever identifies what morality is supposed to be for. If there were such a thing as morality, what would applying its principles achieve?

There are a couple of issues here, as far as I'm concerned:

1. The idea of morality assumes human beings are volitional beings, that is, that they consciously choose their behavior. If that premise is rejected, any discussion of morality is pointless, even if there were such a thing. Someone who has not choice in what they do does need to know what is right or wrong, since they have no choice in the matter.

2. If there were such a thing as morality, it would have to be some set of values by which one could evaluate possible choices to make one's that achieved a desired goal or objective. Since nothing matters or has any value except to individual human beings, any so-called moral values would have to be those that furthered the life and success of individual human beings.

There is a very important third point, bit I'll stop here.

Thanks. It seems to me that in your #2 you are indeed defending or advocating a view of morality, assuming there is such a thing, which boils down to individual goal-consistency. Is that right? Do you think something is morally right or wrong to the degree it promotes or harms the life and success of an individual? (There seem to be obvious problems with that view.)

[RCSaunders]

Not sure, but maybe you're referring to the 'subjective goal/objective means' argument, which I think informs, for example, Sam Harris's approach. The argument is that morality can be objective, in the sense that, given a goal, there are objectively better and worse ways to achieve it.

I think this is misleading, because goal-consistency is morally neutral. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y' says nothing about the moral rightness or wrongness of either the goal or the action. And moral objectivism is specifically the claim that both moral goals and the means to achieve them are, as it were, intrinsically right or wrong.

I don't understand what a 'truly objective' moral goal could be. Can you explain that, and how having one may establish moral objectivity? It seems to me that the choice of a moral goal must always be subjective - a matter of opinion.

Sorry if I've misconstrued your point.

If you think I'm defending some view of morality, you are missing my point. I cannot think of one view of morality which is not either based on some mystic absolute (moral is whatever God says, evolution determined, or some other mystic authority just declares is right) or some form of consensus or social convention (it what's society approves, is culturally accepted, what is traditional, or whatever everyone agrees to, or what is good for, "society.") All nonsense.

My point is that no view of morality ever identifies what morality is supposed to be for. If there were such a thing as morality, what would applying its principles achieve?

There are a couple of issues here, as far as I'm concerned:

1. The idea of morality assumes human beings are volitional beings, that is, that they consciously choose their behavior. If that premise is rejected, any discussion of morality is pointless, even if there were such a thing. Someone who has not choice in what they do does need to know what is right or wrong, since they have no choice in the matter.

2. If there were such a thing as morality, it would have to be some set of values by which one could evaluate possible choices to make one's that achieved a desired goal or objective. Since nothing matters or has any value except to individual human beings, any so-called moral values would have to be those that furthered the life and success of individual human beings.

There is a very important third point, bit I'll stop here.

Thanks. It seems to me that in your #2 you are indeed defending or advocating a view of morality, assuming there is such a thing, which boils down to individual goal-consistency. Is that right? Do you think something is morally right or wrong to the degree it promotes or harms the life and success of an individual? (There seem to be obvious problems with that view.)

I am not defending any view of morality. There was a time when the word might have been useful, but I am convinced the word has been so corrupted and the view that morality is either some social thing or some kind of dictated or intrinsic thing that it is worse then useless (and actually very dangerous).

Nevertheless, if an individual's life matters to them, and they choose to discover the best way for them to live to achieve their own success and happiness and a fulfilled life as a human being, there are principles based on the requirements of one's nature as a human being,that, no matter how one chooses to live, those principles must be observed or failure is certain.

Principles are not dictates, not proscription or prescriptions for any particular kinds of behavior, and like scientific principles, do not dictate any specific actions, but describe which actions will have which results. Just as the principles of chemistry cannot tell one whether to use those principles to make plastic or medicine, but the same principles must be used to make either, because neither can be made in violation of those principle, principles for living a human life cannot tell someone what to do, but do determine which actions will result in success no matter what one's personal objectives are.

Electricity has a very well defined nature. From Ohm's law to solid state electronics, the principles those fields describe must be observed in any electronic circuit or device if they are going to work, and any design, no matter how different they are, that defies or violates those principles will fail. Until it is recognized that human beings have specific natures that determines what will and will not be beneficial to one, no matter how different they or their objectives are, as that kind of being, both physiologically and psychologically, there are no moral principles or values. If what is good or bad, in principle, for individual human beings is not identified, what is good or bad for human beings collectively can never be known.

[Peter Holmes]

If you think I'm defending some view of morality, you are missing my point. I cannot think of one view of morality which is not either based on some mystic absolute (moral is whatever God says, evolution determined, or some other mystic authority just declares is right) or some form of consensus or social convention (it what's society approves, is culturally accepted, what is traditional, or whatever everyone agrees to, or what is good for, "society.") All nonsense.

My point is that no view of morality ever identifies what morality is supposed to be for. If there were such a thing as morality, what would applying its principles achieve?

There are a couple of issues here, as far as I'm concerned:

1. The idea of morality assumes human beings are volitional beings, that is, that they consciously choose their behavior. If that premise is rejected, any discussion of morality is pointless, even if there were such a thing. Someone who has not choice in what they do does need to know what is right or wrong, since they have no choice in the matter.

2. If there were such a thing as morality, it would have to be some set of values by which one could evaluate possible choices to make one's that achieved a desired goal or objective. Since nothing matters or has any value except to individual human beings, any so-called moral values would have to be those that furthered the life and success of individual human beings.

There is a very important third point, bit I'll stop here.

Thanks. It seems to me that in your #2 you are indeed defending or advocating a view of morality, assuming there is such a thing, which boils down to individual goal-consistency. Is that right? Do you think something is morally right or wrong to the degree it promotes or harms the life and success of an individual? (There seem to be obvious problems with that view.)

I am not defending any view of morality. There was a time when the word might have been useful, but I am convinced the word has been so corrupted and the view that morality is either some social thing or some kind of dictated or intrinsic thing that it is worse then useless (and actually very dangerous).

Nevertheless, if an individual's life matters to them, and they choose to discover the best way for them to live to achieve their own success and happiness and a fulfilled life as a human being, there are principles based on the requirements of one's nature as a human being,that, no matter how one chooses to live, those principles must be observed or failure is certain.

Principles are not dictates, not proscription or prescriptions for any particular kinds of behavior, and like scientific principles, do not dictate any specific actions, but describe which actions will have which results. Just as the principles of chemistry cannot tell one whether to use those principles to make plastic or medicine, but the same principles must be used to make either, because neither can be made in violation of those principle, principles for living a human life cannot tell someone what to do, but do determine which actions will result in success no matter what one's personal objectives are.

Electricity has a very well defined nature. From Ohm's law to solid state electronics, the principles those fields describe must be observed in any electronic circuit or device if they are going to work, and any design, no matter how different they are, that defies or violates those principles will fail. Until it is recognized that human beings have specific natures that determines what will and will not be beneficial to one, no matter how different they or their objectives are, as that kind of being, both physiologically and psychologically, there are no moral principles or values. If what is good or bad, in principle, for individual human beings is not identified, what is good or bad for human beings collectively can never be known.

Thanks again. We'll have to disagree, cos I think you are advocating a view of morality, one 'based on the requirements of one's nature as a human being' - which strikes me as (suspiciously) Aristotelian. I think the following shows this:

'Until it is recognized that human beings have specific natures that determines what will and will not be beneficial to one, no matter how different they or their objectives are, as that kind of being, both physiologically and psychologically, there are no moral principles or values.'

And I think this is a mistake, because it premises a supposed 'human nature', about which there is and will always be profound disagreement. It's not that, unlike electricity, which 'has well-defined nature', human nature is poorly- or un-defined. It's a fiction altogether - an invention designed to justify one or another moral code.

But, as I say, we'll have to disagree. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

[RCSaunders]

Thanks. It seems to me that in your #2 you are indeed defending or advocating a view of morality, assuming there is such a thing, which boils down to individual goal-consistency. Is that right? Do you think something is morally right or wrong to the degree it promotes or harms the life and success of an individual? (There seem to be obvious problems with that view.)

I am not defending any view of morality. There was a time when the word might have been useful, but I am convinced the word has been so corrupted and the view that morality is either some social thing or some kind of dictated or intrinsic thing that it is worse then useless (and actually very dangerous).

Nevertheless, if an individual's life matters to them, and they choose to discover the best way for them to live to achieve their own success and happiness and a fulfilled life as a human being, there are principles based on the requirements of one's nature as a human being,that, no matter how one chooses to live, those principles must be observed or failure is certain.

Principles are not dictates, not proscription or prescriptions for any particular kinds of behavior, and like scientific principles, do not dictate any specific actions, but describe which actions will have which results. Just as the principles of chemistry cannot tell one whether to use those principles to make plastic or medicine, but the same principles must be used to make either, because neither can be made in violation of those principle, principles for living a human life cannot tell someone what to do, but do determine which actions will result in success no matter what one's personal objectives are.

Electricity has a very well defined nature. From Ohm's law to solid state electronics, the principles those fields describe must be observed in any electronic circuit or device if they are going to work, and any design, no matter how different they are, that defies or violates those principles will fail. Until it is recognized that human beings have specific natures that determines what will and will not be beneficial to one, no matter how different they or their objectives are, as that kind of being, both physiologically and psychologically, there are no moral principles or values. If what is good or bad, in principle, for individual human beings is not identified, what is good or bad for human beings collectively can never be known.

Thanks again. We'll have to disagree, cos I think you are advocating a view of morality, one 'based on the requirements of one's nature as a human being' - which strikes me as (suspiciously) Aristotelian. I think the following shows this:

Of course we don't have to agree. Whether or not there are objective principles which can be applied to human life will not be determined by agreement. If there are such principles those who know and use them will succeed and those who are ignorant of them (or defy them) will fail (just as those who know the principles of farming succeed in farming when those who don't fail).

Until it is recognized that human beings have specific natures that determines what will and will not be beneficial to one, no matter how different they or their objectives are, as that kind of being, both physiologically and psychologically, there are no moral principles or values.

And I think this is a mistake, because it premises a supposed 'human nature', about which there is and will always be profound disagreement.

No one has to agree with a principle to make it so. Look how long it took to convince the world that infection was caused by organisms.

It's not that, unlike electricity, which 'has well-defined nature', human nature is poorly- or un-defined. It's a fiction altogether - an invention designed to justify one or another moral code.

Well, if you really think there is no difference between organisms that use language, must have knowledge to live, must consciously choose their behavior and have discussions about values, purposes, and meaning which no other organism can or does, than of course you will see nothing unique about human nature. In which case, you are right, we are just not going to agree.

A cow doesn't need to learn what food is, and what isn't--a human being does. No animal has to learn what constitutes food, how acquire it, or prepare it if it needs to be prepared (squirrels removing nuts from shells for example)--it's instinct provides it with the appropriate behavior to automatically achieve all those things. A human being must discover (or learn from others) what food is, what is not food (would be harmful to eat), how acquire and prepare it and then must choose to take the action required to obtain, prepare, and eat it. None of it is automatic as it is for all other animals.

The same is true for every other aspect of human life. That is how a human life is unique as an organism.

[Peter Holmes]

I am not defending any view of morality. There was a time when the word might have been useful, but I am convinced the word has been so corrupted and the view that morality is either some social thing or some kind of dictated or intrinsic thing that it is worse then useless (and actually very dangerous).

Nevertheless, if an individual's life matters to them, and they choose to discover the best way for them to live to achieve their own success and happiness and a fulfilled life as a human being, there are principles based on the requirements of one's nature as a human being,that, no matter how one chooses to live, those principles must be observed or failure is certain.

Principles are not dictates, not proscription or prescriptions for any particular kinds of behavior, and like scientific principles, do not dictate any specific actions, but describe which actions will have which results. Just as the principles of chemistry cannot tell one whether to use those principles to make plastic or medicine, but the same principles must be used to make either, because neither can be made in violation of those principle, principles for living a human life cannot tell someone what to do, but do determine which actions will result in success no matter what one's personal objectives are.

Electricity has a very well defined nature. From Ohm's law to solid state electronics, the principles those fields describe must be observed in any electronic circuit or device if they are going to work, and any design, no matter how different they are, that defies or violates those principles will fail. Until it is recognized that human beings have specific natures that determines what will and will not be beneficial to one, no matter how different they or their objectives are, as that kind of being, both physiologically and psychologically, there are no moral principles or values. If what is good or bad, in principle, for individual human beings is not identified, what is good or bad for human beings collectively can never be known.

Thanks again. We'll have to disagree, cos I think you are advocating a view of morality, one 'based on the requirements of one's nature as a human being' - which strikes me as (suspiciously) Aristotelian. I think the following shows this:

Of course we don't have to agree. Whether or not there are objective principles which can be applied to human life will not be determined by agreement. If there are such principles those who know and use them will succeed and those who are ignorant of them (or defy them) will fail (just as those who know the principles of farming succeed in farming when those who don't fail).

Until it is recognized that human beings have specific natures that determines what will and will not be beneficial to one, no matter how different they or their objectives are, as that kind of being, both physiologically and psychologically, there are no moral principles or values.

And I think this is a mistake, because it premises a supposed 'human nature', about which there is and will always be profound disagreement.

No one has to agree with a principle to make it so. Look how long it took to convince the world that infection was caused by organisms.

It's not that, unlike electricity, which 'has well-defined nature', human nature is poorly- or un-defined. It's a fiction altogether - an invention designed to justify one or another moral code.

Well, if you really think there is no difference between organisms that use language, must have knowledge to live, must consciously choose their behavior and have discussions about values, purposes, and meaning which no other organism can or does, than of course you will see nothing unique about human nature. In which case, you are right, we are just not going to agree.

A cow doesn't need to learn what food is, and what isn't--a human being does. No animal has to learn what constitutes food, how acquire it, or prepare it if it needs to be prepared (squirrels removing nuts from shells for example)--it's instinct provides it with the appropriate behavior to automatically achieve all those things. A human being must discover (or learn from others) what food is, what is not food (would be harmful to eat), how acquire and prepare it and then must choose to take the action required to obtain, prepare, and eat it. None of it is automatic as it is for all other animals.

The same is true for every other aspect of human life. That is how a human life is unique as an organism.

Okay, but I think you miss my point. None of the differences between humans and other animals has moral significance. None of them explains or clarifies the difference between moral rightness and wrongness, which is the issue here. For example, a premise such as 'humans need knowledge' doesn't entail the conclusion 'therefore, humans should have knowledge'. That doesn't follow - it's just an opinion.

[RCSaunders]

Thanks again. We'll have to disagree, cos I think you are advocating a view of morality, one 'based on the requirements of one's nature as a human being' - which strikes me as (suspiciously) Aristotelian. I think the following shows this:

Of course we don't have to agree. Whether or not there are objective principles which can be applied to human life will not be determined by agreement. If there are such principles those who know and use them will succeed and those who are ignorant of them (or defy them) will fail (just as those who know the principles of farming succeed in farming when those who don't fail).

And I think this is a mistake, because it premises a supposed 'human nature', about which there is and will always be profound disagreement.

No one has to agree with a principle to make it so. Look how long it took to convince the world that infection was caused by organisms.

It's not that, unlike electricity, which 'has well-defined nature', human nature is poorly- or un-defined. It's a fiction altogether - an invention designed to justify one or another moral code.

Well, if you really think there is no difference between organisms that use language, must have knowledge to live, must consciously choose their behavior and have discussions about values, purposes, and meaning which no other organism can or does, than of course you will see nothing unique about human nature. In which case, you are right, we are just not going to agree.

A cow doesn't need to learn what food is, and what isn't--a human being does. No animal has to learn what constitutes food, how acquire it, or prepare it if it needs to be prepared (squirrels removing nuts from shells for example)--it's instinct provides it with the appropriate behavior to automatically achieve all those things. A human being must discover (or learn from others) what food is, what is not food (would be harmful to eat), how acquire and prepare it and then must choose to take the action required to obtain, prepare, and eat it. None of it is automatic as it is for all other animals.

The same is true for every other aspect of human life. That is how a human life is unique as an organism.

Okay, but I think you miss my point. None of the differences between humans and other animals has moral significance.

For any definition or view of morality I know, you are right. Your own use of the word implies what is wrong with the word. e.g.

None of them explains or clarifies the difference between moral rightness and wrongness, which is the issue here. For example, a premise such as 'humans need knowledge' doesn't entail the conclusion 'therefore, humans should have knowledge'. That doesn't follow - it's just an opinion.

A value is not intrinsic or inherent. All values are relationships. A thing is only good, right, important, or necessary relative to some objective, purpose, end, or goal. What one, "ought," to do in any situation is what will achieve or advance the objective, purpose, end, or goal, and what they ought not do is whatever will prevent or inhibit achieving the objective, purpose, end, or goal. If one's own life and success as a human being are the objective or goal, what one ought to do is whatever will achieve that goal, and what will achieve that goal for a human being must conform to the requirements of human nature, or is certain to fail. It's not a matter of opinion.

There are no guarantees, and there is no judge to say, "if you don't do what you ought to do you are a bad (immoral) person." But the reality is failure to conform to the requirements of one's own nature as a human being guarantees failure, which is real justice.

[Age]

The burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant.

And, it is you who has CLAIMED, "There are NEVER EVER ANY moral facts, forever more".

Have you got ACTUAL PROOF for this?

If yes, then will you PROVIDE 'it'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Or, is that CLAIM just an OPINION of YOURS?

You claim there are moral facts.

Yes I HAVE.

So the burden of proof for that claim is yours.

If you say so.

Is the so-called 'burden of proof' for your claim, yours also?

Or, do 'things' change now?

And I don't think you've met that burden of proof.

And this is because, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, the process of how Truth, Facts, and 'objectivity' is reached is NOT being done here.

I have even asked you to provide a definition of the word 'objective', so that NO one could accuse me of being 'selective' in my explanations.

You just claim that you have.

And you just claim that you have ALSO.

So do it here, now.

LOL

TELL 'me' WHAT TO DO, and I will SHOW 'you' WHAT I WILL DO.

Assert what you think is a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Are you REALLY this BLIND.

I have TOLD you that there is NOTHING that can be said that is NOT an 'opinion', because of what the WORDS ARE, that are used to EXPLAIN the the Universe, and the way It works.

Go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you.

LOL

How about you PROVE that "There are absolutely NO moral facts WHATSOEVER forever more". After all this is YOUR CLAIM. So, WHERE IS your PROOF for this CLAIM?

Also, WHEN will you UNDERSTAND that how one SEES and USES 'words', that is; how one DEFINES a 'word', CHANGES absolutely ALL and EVERY 'meaning'.

So, how 'you' define and use the words 'moral facts' is NOT how "others" define and use those words, which LEAVES US IN THE POSITION of;

WHO is Right?

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE makes YOUR OWN 'views' (and thus YOUR OWN 'opinions') thee IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct ones?

So, "go on. Stump up. Or just carry on blathering. Up to you".

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect.

If you would like to have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion about what you have ALREADY provided with a False, Wrong, and Incorrect name and label to, then we can and WILL. I will THEN be provided with the OPPORTUNITY to put across, what I have to say in relation to 'this'. Otherwise you are FREE to REMAIN ignorant of my views, and so REMAIN in your currently HELD BELIEFS here, and NOT discuss ANY thing AT ALL here.

Oh, and by the way, what I HAVE TO SAY can NOT be 'incorrect' AT ALL, nor EVER. But you will NEVER come to KNOW this Fact as long as you keep your current view, ASSUMPTION, and BELIEF here.

It amounts to this: Truth is that which is irrefutable; and that which is irrefutable is what everyone agrees is true. Sorry - nul point.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that this one has completely and utterly MISSED MY POINT.

And to repeat: is the claim that facts are opinions a fact or an opinion?

If I recall correctly it was I who posed a very similar question, TO YOU.

Which we are ALL STILL WAITING FOR.

Has ANY one CLAIMED, "facts are opinions"? In the sens that you are IMAGINING here?

If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?

WHEN, and if, you START answering my questions, then I would feel obliged to START answering your questions.

So, how about you TELL EVERY one here, 'How do you separate a 'fact' from an 'opinion'.

Let me help you out. If it's a fact - a true factual assertion regardless of opinion - then it isn't an opinion, so what it claims is false.

So what?

I have NEVER made that CLAIM, and if I HAVE, then it is NOT in the 'sense' that you are thinking or imagining. And, until you START CLARIFYING, BEFORE you START JUMPING to ASSUMPTIONS and/or CONCLUSIONS, then you will NEVER be even ABLE to just GRASP what I ACTUALLY MEAN here.

Oh, and by the way, you HAVE TO HAVE a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion in order to be able to OBTAIN what the "other" Truly MEANS in what they SAY.

But if it's an opinion - because facts are opinions - then I reject that opinion, as do English speakers who make a clear distinction between what we call facts and opinions.

ONCE AGAIN, you JUMP to ASSUMPTIONS, and even CONCLUSIONS, of what the "other" is SAYING and MEANING, without even spending the time to HAVE A DISCUSSION with them, to GAIN CLARITY FIRST.

Also, and ONCE AGAIN, you use the, "in my group" fallacy, of so-called "english speakers", as though EVERY "english" speaker THINKS and VIEWS 'things' the EXACT SAME way 'you' do. Which is just TOTAL ABSURDITY to say the least.

Now, how about to TELL ALL of us here what makes a 'fact' a 'fact' and what makes an 'opinion' an 'opinion' and how ALL of us AGREE UPON and ACCEPT how we ALL should and would make the DISTINCTION between a 'fact' and an 'opinion'.

See, as "skepdick" has ALREADY POINTED OUT here; 'what is H20' is NOT a 'fact' to some people as 'water' is ACTUALLY made up of far more fundamental 'things'. So, as you were questioned before, 'WHY do you STOP at just 'H20'?

In other words, it is just your OWN 'opinion' that 'water is H20' is a 'fact'. To "others" there is FAR MORE to this.

So your claim, that facts are opinions, is incoherent. Nul point.

LOL You have NOT even HAD a discussion WITH ME about ANY thing here.

You have just JUMPED to this "CONCLUSION" based SOLELY on your very OWN OPINIONS.

I have ALREADY asked you previously what you are basing your VIEWS on EXACTLY?

AND, AGAIN, WE AWAIT YOUR REPLY to the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I POSE TO YOU.

Also, did you MISS where I have explained WHY some views and claims are INCOHERENT to SOME of 'you', human beings.

The CLAIM is NOT necessarily 'incoherent' in and of itself, but they can be VERY 'incoherent' to one who BELIEVES OTHERWISE.

See, the CLAIM, 'God exists', is VERY 'incoherent' to one who currently BELIEVES OTHERWISE. But, VERY 'coherent' to one who ALREADY BELIEVES it is true. And, vice-versa, the CLAIM, 'God does NOT exist', is VERY ' coherent' to one who ALREADY BELIEVES it is true. But, VERY 'incoherent' to one who currently BELIEVES OTHERWISE.

So, to just make this VERY CLEAR HERE, your CLAIM that, "the claim facts are opinions, is incoherent, and a nul point", is NOT necessarily 'incoherent' AT ALL. YES it IS your OWN CLAIM and 'opinion', but these opinions are based on your ALREADY GAINED BELIEF of what is ALREADY true and right.

If your CLAIM here is ACTUALLY absolutely True, Right, AND Correct, then we just HAVE TO WAIT and SEE.

There is ONE WAY to SEE, FIND OUT, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW what is ACTUALLY True here, and also what is ACTUALLY 'coherent' and 'incoherent' here. But considering the Fact that you do NOT YET KNOW 'this way', we WILL just HAVE TO, literally, WAIT, for you, and SEE.

Also, and by the way, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is the LENGTHS these human beings would go to, in the days when this was being written, to "TRY TO' "justify" that their ALREADY HELD CURRENT BELIEFS are ACTUALLY True, Right, or Correct. As can be SEEN and PROVED True here, they will, literally, say just about ANY 'thing' to back up and support their current BELIEFS.

It does NOT matter how False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect their BELIEFS ARE, they will "fight to the death" over them. Just like those who BELIEVED that the sun really does revolve around the earth, they would SAY and DO just about ANY 'thing' to back up and support, or 'try to' "make", their BELIEF true and right.

Even up to the days when this was being written some people STILL BELIEVED that 'the earth IS flat', and the PROOFS of just how many different 'things' will SAY and DO to 'try to' "prove" or "make" their BELIEFS true and right can be CLEARLY SEEN.

This one here BELIEVES WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'morality', itself, could NEVER EVER be 'objective', and so will SAY the 'things' that it does here.

But what can be CLEARLY SEEN is we are STILL WAITING for a definition of the 'objective' word from this one.

Your whole argument is based on a couple of flimsy and easily debunked premises. Back to the drawing board.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If you would like to have a discussion WITH ME, then I am MORE THAN WILLING TO.

All you have to do is, literally, just SAY 'the word'.

And, what we have here is A PRIME EXAMPLE of the BELIEVING BRAIN at work.

By the way you have NOT EVEN HEARD my 'whole argument'. As I have ALREADY STATED, and have ALREADY PROVED True, we are WAITING FOR YOU.

[Age]

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect.

then I reject that opinion, as do English speakers who make a clear distinction between what we call facts and opinions.

The CONTRADICTION, here, is OBVIOUS.

And,

The HYPOCRISY, here, SPEAKS for ITSELF.

[Peter Holmes]

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect.

then I reject that opinion, as do English speakers who make a clear distinction between what we call facts and opinions.

The CONTRADICTION, here, is OBVIOUS.

And,

The HYPOCRISY, here, SPEAKS for ITSELF.

Spell out the contradiction and hypocrisy. I genuinely don't understand what you mean. No block caps and coat-trailing, please. Keep calm and drink tea.

[Age]

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect.

then I reject that opinion, as do English speakers who make a clear distinction between what we call facts and opinions.

The CONTRADICTION, here, is OBVIOUS.

And,

The HYPOCRISY, here, SPEAKS for ITSELF.

Spell out the contradiction and hypocrisy. I genuinely don't understand what you mean. No block caps and coat-trailing, please. Keep calm and drink tea.

STOP TELLING me WHAT TO DO. Ask politely. AND, then I might oblige.

ALSO, if you STOPPED ASSUMING, then you MIGHT START UNDERSTANDING.

You wrote:

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect. Although I have NEVER advocated ANY so-called "consensus theory", what you are essentially saying here is ANY reasoning AT ALL based on, if there is a 'consensus', then the 'consensus' making truth is just INCORRECT.

However, then you 'try to' use the reasoning that it is BECAUSE OF 'consensus' between "english speakers" that makes the CLEAR DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions'.

Therefore, this MEANS that you are being CONTRADICTORY, and a HYPOCRITE, if you say and CLAIM, which you do, that 'consensus' does NOT make ANY 'thing' true, BUT it is 'consensus' that makes the DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions' true.

Do you UNDERSTAND, now?

If NOT, then are you ABLE to EXPLAIN what 'it' is EXACTLY, that you, supposedly, can NOT YET SEE? But, which "other" "english speakers" can VERY CLEARLY SEE, and also UNDERSTAND by the way.