What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

At what point is the oxygen Henry inhales a part of Henry?

When I incorporate them oxy-molecules into my tissues and not before. Simply bein' inside my lungs isn't enough.

That's an honest reply anyway.

Honest and accurate.

[Belinda]

When I incorporate them oxy-molecules into my tissues and not before. Simply bein' inside my lungs isn't enough.

That's an honest reply anyway.

Honest and accurate.

Your thinking is accurate as far as it goes but you lack imagination.

[henry quirk]

That's an honest reply anyway.

Honest and accurate.

Your thinking is accurate as far as it goes but you lack imagination.

I have oodles of imagination, which I keep out of my ontology.

What is, is.

[Peter Holmes]

What is definitely is. And that we humans perceive, know and talk about what is in a human way doen't change what is.

But what is can never entail what ought to be. What we think ought to be is a choice, decision, or judgement that we make individually and/or collectively.

That's why morality - what we think is morally right and wrong - isn't and can't be objective. And those who claim there are moral facts often do so in order to justify imposing their moral opinions on others. The struggle over abortion rights in America is a prime example.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=571340 time=1651973601 user_id=15099]
What is definitely is. And that we humans perceive, know and talk about what is in a human way doen't change what is.

But what is can never entail what ought to be. What we think ought to be is a choice, decision, or judgement that we make individually and/or collectively.

That's why morality - what we think is morally right and wrong - isn't and can't be objective. And those who claim there are moral facts often do so in order to justify imposing their moral opinions on others. The struggle over abortion rights in America is a prime example.
[/quote]

No. Moral fact: survival is a prerequisite for all other goals. Moral fact: truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals. Moral fact: sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals. Moral fact: moral facts are contingent upon shared priorities. Now that your can dump your subjective charade, can we get to fixing real problems with these real answers?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is definitely is. And that we humans perceive, know and talk about what is in a human way doen't change what is.

"is' is merely a copula.
What-is definitely is [a copula].
You just cannot leave what is suspended as a copula.

Actually you are aligning with theists thinking where they claim,
God is!

Rather,
What-is definitely is what?
So, what-is is what any specific FSK said it is.
That apple is an apple via the common sense FSK.
That apple is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
That apple is a X-fact conditioned upon the X-FSK.

There is no way you can state the fact of an apple [or any thing] without qualifying the specific FSK that grounds it.

Therefore it is necessarily, moral facts exist as conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.

Theists can claim God is [exists] is a fact, i.e. a theistic fact conditioned upon a theistic FSK. But in this case, the theistic FSK has zero credibility thus a zero-credible-fact.
Fact as defined here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

But what is can never entail what ought to be. What we think ought to be is a choice, decision, or judgement that we make individually and/or collectively.

Logical true no ought can directly be derived from is. It is a fallacy of equivocation.
Since ought and ought-not are inherent within all humans as conditioned within a moral FSK, their existence as is will emerge as 'ought'.

That's why morality - what we think is morally right and wrong - isn't and can't be objective. And those who claim there are moral facts often do so in order to justify imposing their moral opinions on others. The struggle over abortion rights in America is a prime example.

In the case of abortion rights, what they claim are facts from God not as natural facts.
As such they insist such divine moral facts must be imposed on others. This [unjustified abortion rights] is pseudo morality not morality proper.

[Peter Holmes]

What is definitely is. And that we humans perceive, know and talk about what is in a human way doen't change what is.

"is' is merely a copula.
What-is definitely is [a copula].
You just cannot leave what is suspended as a copula.

Actually you are aligning with theists thinking where they claim,
God is!

Rather,
What-is definitely is what?
So, what-is is what any specific FSK said it is.
That apple is an apple via the common sense FSK.
That apple is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
That apple is a X-fact conditioned upon the X-FSK.

There is no way you can state the fact of an apple [or any thing] without qualifying the specific FSK that grounds it.

Therefore it is necessarily, moral facts exist as conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.

Theists can claim God is [exists] is a fact, i.e. a theistic fact conditioned upon a theistic FSK. But in this case, the theistic FSK has zero credibility thus a zero-credible-fact.
Fact as defined here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

But what is can never entail what ought to be. What we think ought to be is a choice, decision, or judgement that we make individually and/or collectively.

Logical true no ought can directly be derived from is. It is a fallacy of equivocation.
Since ought and ought-not are inherent within all humans as conditioned within a moral FSK, their existence as is will emerge as 'ought'.

That's why morality - what we think is morally right and wrong - isn't and can't be objective. And those who claim there are moral facts often do so in order to justify imposing their moral opinions on others. The struggle over abortion rights in America is a prime example.

In the case of abortion rights, what they claim are facts from God not as natural facts.
As such they insist such divine moral facts must be imposed on others. This [unjustified abortion rights] is pseudo morality not morality proper.

1 'What is definitely is' means 'that which exists definitely exists'. (I was echoing and agreeing with Henry.)

2 We can describe features of reality in different ways. So any truth-claim is contextual - dependent on a descriptive context. This is trivially true and inconsequential.

3 A description is credible only if it describe what actually exists. And what actually exists doesn't depend on any description. An apple is not an apple simply because we call it an apple. Existence comes before the credibility of a framework and system of knowledge. No existence means no credibility. The credibility of an FSK comes from the demonstrable existence of what it describes. It is not the other way around.

4 A supposed morality FSK is your question-begging invention. You do nothing but claim: there is a credible morality FSK; therefore, there are moral facts'. And you claim this is analogous to saying: 'there is a credible physics FSK; therefore, there are physics facts'. And that you can't see this is arse-about-face - cart-before-the-horse - idiocy explains the chronic failure of your argument.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is definitely is. And that we humans perceive, know and talk about what is in a human way doen't change what is.

"is' is merely a copula.
What-is definitely is [a copula].
You just cannot leave what is suspended as a copula.

Actually you are aligning with theists thinking where they claim,
God is!

Rather,
What-is definitely is what?
So, what-is is what any specific FSK said it is.
That apple is an apple via the common sense FSK.
That apple is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
That apple is a X-fact conditioned upon the X-FSK.

There is no way you can state the fact of an apple [or any thing] without qualifying the specific FSK that grounds it.

Therefore it is necessarily, moral facts exist as conditioned upon a credible moral FSK.

Theists can claim God is [exists] is a fact, i.e. a theistic fact conditioned upon a theistic FSK. But in this case, the theistic FSK has zero credibility thus a zero-credible-fact.
Fact as defined here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

But what is can never entail what ought to be. What we think ought to be is a choice, decision, or judgement that we make individually and/or collectively.

Logical true no ought can directly be derived from is. It is a fallacy of equivocation.
Since ought and ought-not are inherent within all humans as conditioned within a moral FSK, their existence as is will emerge as 'ought'.

That's why morality - what we think is morally right and wrong - isn't and can't be objective. And those who claim there are moral facts often do so in order to justify imposing their moral opinions on others. The struggle over abortion rights in America is a prime example.

In the case of abortion rights, what they claim are facts from God not as natural facts.
As such they insist such divine moral facts must be imposed on others. This [unjustified abortion rights] is pseudo morality not morality proper.

1 'What is definitely is' means 'that which exists definitely exists'. (I was echoing and agreeing with Henry.)

2 We can describe features of reality in different ways. So any truth-claim is contextual - dependent on a descriptive context. This is trivially true and inconsequential.

3 A description is credible only if it describe what actually exists. And what actually exists doesn't depend on any description. An apple is not an apple simply because we call it an apple. Existence comes before the credibility of a framework and system of knowledge. No existence means no credibility. The credibility of an FSK comes from the demonstrable existence of what it describes. It is not the other way around.

Nope! you got it wrong.

A FSK do not merely describe which is merely some subsequent acts.
A FSK entangles with the person[s] and enable the emergence & realization of the apple, thereafter the ability to describe what is an apple.

Here is an illustration of the emergence of reality with entanglement of the human conditions.

The rotating mask illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0

The emergence of the reality of a convex mask is 'real' and even you know for a fact that it is concave. It is the the specific FSK that enable the reality to emerge.
In this experiment note the process of real life emergence that is going on within your system. This is critical as a direct personal experience of emergence.
In the above there is the emergence [1] and realization [2] and any description [3] of it is subsequent.
What you are countering is merely [3] as the description but you are ignorant of the reality of the emergence[1] and realization [2] processes as demonstrated above.

In the above case, it is easy to understand the illusion.

But whatever emerge as real to you at present could just be like the above i.e. an illusion but there is no way one can detect the basis of the illusion like the illustration above.
All you have is the specific FSK that enable the emergence of a reality to you.

As such whatever I claim as objective moral fact as an emergence is related to process 1 and 2 above. The description of the moral fact is not significant to the issue.

Your limitation is your thinking is too superficial and can only focus on describing [the description] the outputs of a FSK but not able to comprehend the complex mechanics of a FSK that entail the whole evolutionary self of the individuals and groups.

Btw, there is no prescription involved in my proposed moral FSK but each morally-evolved person [only in the future] will act morally spontaneously without compulsion.

4 A supposed morality FSK is your question-begging invention. You do nothing but claim: there is a credible morality FSK; therefore, there are moral facts'. And you claim this is analogous to saying: 'there is a credible physics FSK; therefore, there are physics facts'.
And that you can't see this is arse-about-face - cart-before-the-horse - idiocy explains the chronic failure of your argument.

What is wrong with this?
'there is a credible physics FSK; therefore, there are physics facts'.
Are you insulting all the physicist then and now?
The physics FSK is a sub-FSK of the scientific FSK.
You deny the existence of a scientific FSK enabling the emergence of scientific facts?

Scientific facts from the scientific FSK is the most credible at present [note also mathematics].
Do you deny this?

I have claimed that my proposed moral FSK will rely on inputs from the scientific FSK and thus will be near equivalent to the scientific FSK in terms of credibility.
What is your rational counter to it, not just any of your arse-centered counters.

[Peter Holmes]

4 A supposed morality FSK is your question-begging invention. You do nothing but claim: there is a credible morality FSK; therefore, there are moral facts'. And you claim this is analogous to saying: 'there is a credible physics FSK; therefore, there are physics facts'.
And that you can't see this is arse-about-face - cart-before-the-horse - idiocy explains the chronic failure of your argument.

What is wrong with this?
'there is a credible physics FSK; therefore, there are physics facts'.

Pay attention, and try to think very, very hard. It's because there are physics facts - physical features of reality - that the physics FSK is credible. The physics FSK doesn't create those physical features of reality. How hard is this to understand?

I have claimed that my proposed moral FSK will rely on inputs from the scientific FSK and thus will be near equivalent to the scientific FSK in terms of credibility.

Yes, you have argued that, and your argument is fallacious. You've failed to demonstrate any connection between a scientific fact and a moral conclusion. And that's for the inescapable logical reason that a factual assertion - such as 'humans must breathe or they die' - can't entail a moral conclusion.

There is no 'near equivalence' between non-moral and moral assertions. They're chalk and cheese, either side of the is-ought barrier. So invoking factual 'credibility' begs the question. A moral assertion has no factual truth-value, so all we can do is accept it or not.

I still wonder at how long it will take for the penny to drop for you - and at the impenetrability of the block in your reasoning.

[Veritas Aequitas]

4 A supposed morality FSK is your question-begging invention. You do nothing but claim: there is a credible morality FSK; therefore, there are moral facts'. And you claim this is analogous to saying: 'there is a credible physics FSK; therefore, there are physics facts'.
And that you can't see this is arse-about-face - cart-before-the-horse - idiocy explains the chronic failure of your argument.

What is wrong with this?
'there is a credible physics FSK; therefore, there are physics facts'.

Pay attention, and try to think very, very hard. It's because there are physics facts - physical features of reality - that the physics FSK is credible. The physics FSK doesn't create those physical features of reality. How hard is this to understand?

You are too arrogant with your ignorance.

Note this from the horses mouth of physicists, Hawking for example,

• Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
  It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
  The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

The above imply what is true of physical facts is only dependent on the model used, i.e. the physics FSK.

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
Implication is reality only emerge out of some specific human entangled FSK

There is no real physical reality preceding any model of physics, i.e. model-dependent-realism.

The famous Physicist who think like you was Einstein a philosophical realist, but his physic is outdated by Quantum Physics which rely on Model-dependent realism.

You cannot be that arrogant based on archaic knowledge of Physics.
You need to update yourself on the latest knowledge on physics.

I have claimed that my proposed moral FSK will rely on inputs from the scientific FSK and thus will be near equivalent to the scientific FSK in terms of credibility.

Yes, you have argued that, and your argument is fallacious. You've failed to demonstrate any connection between a scientific fact and a moral conclusion. And that's for the inescapable logical reason that a factual assertion - such as 'humans must breathe or they die' - can't entail a moral conclusion.

There is no 'near equivalence' between non-moral and moral assertions. They're chalk and cheese, either side of the is-ought barrier. So invoking factual 'credibility' begs the question. A moral assertion has no factual truth-value, so all we can do is accept it or not.

I still wonder at how long it will take for the penny to drop for you - and at the impenetrability of the block in your reasoning.

I understand and agree re your perspective from Hume, i.e. there can be no direct 'ought' from 'is'.
What Hume stated was there can be no rules of ought from is to be imposed on any individual via an external authority. But this is based on very limited knowledge of reality.

As I had stated elsewhere, Hume was ignorant of the moral potential of oughtness from within the individual that spontaneous execute this ought voluntarily without any external compulsion.
This is the point you are ignorant of but rather prefer to be dogmatic with your archaic thinking.

Yes, the scientific fact 'humans must breathe or they die' - cannot entail a moral conclusion [rule, etc.] that should be imposed on individuals from an external authority.

However the above scientific fact within all humans is combined with the moral potential within an internal moral FSK where the individual [when morally matured] will spontaneously execute this ought voluntarily without any external compulsion.

You don't seem to be able to see the difference but keep sticking to your strawman [archaic thinking], i.e. moral statements are descriptive and cannot be imposed on any individuals from an external authority.
I have not argued on such a basis at all, thus you forever strawman!

[Peter Holmes]

What is wrong with this?
'there is a credible physics FSK; therefore, there are physics facts'.

Pay attention, and try to think very, very hard. It's because there are physics facts - physical features of reality - that the physics FSK is credible. The physics FSK doesn't create those physical features of reality. How hard is this to understand?

You are too arrogant with your ignorance.

Note this from the horses mouth of physicists, Hawking for example,

• Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
  It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
  The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

The above imply what is true of physical facts is only dependent on the model used, i.e. the physics FSK.

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
Implication is reality only emerge out of some specific human entangled FSK

There is no real physical reality preceding any model of physics, i.e. model-dependent-realism.

The famous Physicist who think like you was Einstein a philosophical realist, but his physic is outdated by Quantum Physics which rely on Model-dependent realism.

You cannot be that arrogant based on archaic knowledge of Physics.
You need to update yourself on the latest knowledge on physics.

I have claimed that my proposed moral FSK will rely on inputs from the scientific FSK and thus will be near equivalent to the scientific FSK in terms of credibility.

Yes, you have argued that, and your argument is fallacious. You've failed to demonstrate any connection between a scientific fact and a moral conclusion. And that's for the inescapable logical reason that a factual assertion - such as 'humans must breathe or they die' - can't entail a moral conclusion.

There is no 'near equivalence' between non-moral and moral assertions. They're chalk and cheese, either side of the is-ought barrier. So invoking factual 'credibility' begs the question. A moral assertion has no factual truth-value, so all we can do is accept it or not.

I still wonder at how long it will take for the penny to drop for you - and at the impenetrability of the block in your reasoning.

I understand and agree re your perspective from Hume, i.e. there can be no direct 'ought' from 'is'.
What Hume stated was there can be no rules of ought from is to be imposed on any individual via an external authority. But this is based on very limited knowledge of reality.

As I had stated elsewhere, Hume was ignorant of the moral potential of oughtness from within the individual that spontaneous execute this ought voluntarily without any external compulsion.
This is the point you are ignorant of but rather prefer to be dogmatic with your archaic thinking.

Yes, the scientific fact 'humans must breathe or they die' - cannot entail a moral conclusion [rule, etc.] that should be imposed on individuals from an external authority.

However the above scientific fact within all humans is combined with the moral potential within an internal moral FSK where the individual [when morally matured] will spontaneously execute this ought voluntarily without any external compulsion.

You don't seem to be able to see the difference but keep sticking to your strawman [archaic thinking], i.e. moral statements are descriptive and cannot be imposed on any individuals from an external authority.
I have not argued on such a basis at all, thus you forever strawman!

No, you make the same mistake over and over again. Even if it is a fact that humans have the programming or potential to behave in a certain way, that fact can't entail the moral conclusion that we ought to behave in that way.

You agree that a fact can't entail a moral conclusion. And that strikes me as progress. Now, hold on to that and stick to it consistently. What the fact is makes no difference.

And the stuff about imposition by an external authority is utterly irrelevant. That's a red herring.

[Belinda]

Honest and accurate.

Your thinking is accurate as far as it goes but you lack imagination.

I have oodles of imagination, which I keep out of my ontology.

What is, is.

Yes, but how do you know "what is" ?
Imagine if your senses were deceiving you.

[Peter Holmes]

What is definitely is. And that we humans perceive, know and talk about what is in a human way doen't change what is.

But what is can never entail what ought to be. What we think ought to be is a choice, decision, or judgement that we make individually and/or collectively.

That's why morality - what we think is morally right and wrong - isn't and can't be objective. And those who claim there are moral facts often do so in order to justify imposing their moral opinions on others. The struggle over abortion rights in America is a prime example.

No. Moral fact: survival is a prerequisite for all other goals. Moral fact: truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals. Moral fact: sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals. Moral fact: moral facts are contingent upon shared priorities. Now that your can dump your subjective charade, can we get to fixing real problems with these real answers?

You are confused. A moral assertion is one that claims something is morally right or wrong / good or bad (evil), or that something should or ought / shouldn't or oughtn't to be the case because it's morally right or wrong, etc.

None of those premises are moral assertions at all, so they can't be moral facts. Try again.

[FlashDangerpants]

What is definitely is. And that we humans perceive, know and talk about what is in a human way doen't change what is.

But what is can never entail what ought to be. What we think ought to be is a choice, decision, or judgement that we make individually and/or collectively.

That's why morality - what we think is morally right and wrong - isn't and can't be objective. And those who claim there are moral facts often do so in order to justify imposing their moral opinions on others. The struggle over abortion rights in America is a prime example.

No. Moral fact: survival is a prerequisite for all other goals. Moral fact: truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals. Moral fact: sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals. Moral fact: moral facts are contingent upon shared priorities. Now that your can dump your subjective charade, can we get to fixing real problems with these real answers?

Those are assertions of practical fact: To gain benefit X one must accomplish input Y.
A moral fact would have the form: X is good.

And to head you off from your next mistake in advance, if you try to combine a moral with a practical assertion you end up with a hypothetical imperative along the line of "If you want to be trusted, you should always tell the truth" which cannot be converted into a source of moral fact because they assume a moral fact in the first clause.

[Peter Holmes]

Agreed, Flash, with a reservation. The antecedent 'if you want to be trusted...' doesn't itself make a moral claim - though I agree, it may assume the moral assertion that it's right to want to be trusted.

But yep, the consequent 'should' doesn't make a moral claim either - it's merely instrumental. And objectively measurable goal-consistency has no moral implication: 'if we want X, we should do Y' says nothing about the moral rightness or wrongness of X or Y.