What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

WHAT LIE?

You have NOT SHOWN that I have lied ANYWHERE here.

Of course I have.

Okay, if you SAY, and BELIEVE, you have, then you MUST OF, correct?

Stop lying.

Why, is that how you think?

[Age]

Of course I have.

Okay, if you SAY, and BELIEVE, you have, then you MUST OF, correct?

Stop lying.

Why, is that how you think?

Why what?

And is that how I think in regards to what, EXACTLY?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As far as moral facts are concerned I have justified them as matter-of-fact throughout this thread and others.

Meanwhile, you haven't presented one sound argument for the existence of - grammatical chimera! - a moral fact. And we've shown you 'a thousand times' why such a monster can't exist.

What??
Problem is you are stuck in an ancient evolutionary trait of metaphysical realism, thus has selective attention disorder of not being able to understand [not necessary agree with] what is moral facts from the anti-realist perspective which is based on scientific facts.

So far I have raise nearly a 100 threads targeting and culminating is countering your OP 'there are no objective moral fact' and justifying 'there are moral facts'.

Note I wrote this in the other thread;

I have argued the most credible facts are the scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also the mathematical FSK] based on acceptable criteria.
My proposed moral FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts will be of near equivalence to the scientific FSK.
My moral FSK as credible is valid in principle and I agree I will have to justify this near-equivalence.

Note I have mentioned this a 000s times already, my moral facts are not based on individuals or groups opinions or beliefs on moral issues,
but rather they are moral facts emerging from the moral FSK are based on a matter-of-fact of moral potentiality as justified by science and are represented by physical neural correlates in the brain and body.

Note this thread:
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
Awaits your counter.

[Sculptor]

WHEN did I EVER say here that there was an objective moral fact?

And If one wants to WATCH and SEE one 'dancing', then just LOOK AT how much effort went into NOT ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I posed above here.

So you agree that morality is subjective and relative.

GREAT.
That is one convert.
Easy isn't it - when you decide to be honest.

This is the SECOND ASSUMPTION you have made here,in just two posts to me.

Oh, and by the way, BOTH have been completely and utterly Wrong AND Incorrect.

SO you do not think morality is objective.
And you do not think morality is subjective.

Do you even know what sort of thing morality is?

[Sculptor]

As far as moral facts are concerned I have justified them as matter-of-fact throughout this thread and others.

Meanwhile, you haven't presented one sound argument for the existence of - grammatical chimera! - a moral fact. And we've shown you 'a thousand times' why such a monster can't exist.

What??
Problem is you are stuck in an ancient evolutionary trait of metaphysical realism, thus has selective attention disorder of not being able to understand [not necessary agree with] what is moral facts from the anti-realist perspective which is based on scientific facts.

So far I have raise nearly a 100 threads targeting and culminating is countering your OP 'there are no objective moral fact' and justifying 'there are moral facts'.

Note I wrote this in the other thread;

I have argued the most credible facts are the scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also the mathematical FSK] based on acceptable criteria.
My proposed moral FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts will be of near equivalence to the scientific FSK.
My moral FSK as credible is valid in principle and I agree I will have to justify this near-equivalence.

That is the most funny diversionary tactic yet.
"I can't answer that question, because reality is all wrong!

[Iwannaplato]

If you read the ACTUAL WORDS I USED, you might SEE things in a different light.

I read the actual words you used. Perhaps you could rephrase what you said, so that I understand better what you meant. And perhaps use a different example from God.

I do NOT disagree with what you say here.

Great.

When you say, "cherry picked" here are you inferring that I should have used EVERY example instead?

No, the criticism cherry picked does not entail the suggestion that all examples must be used.

You have completely MISSED and MISUNDERSTOOD what was getting at.

OK, now I know that. Perhaps the way you wrote it could have been clearer. Perhaps it is all my fault for missing the meaning of something clearly presented. Let's see.


So could you rephrase the following...

I SAID it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist.

Could you rephrase that sentence which seems like a general rule.

Perhaps with some other examples, since it refers to ANY thing.

[Iwannaplato]

Is talking ABOUT someone, instead of CHALLENGING them DIRECTLY, the sign of maturity, or immaturity?

Those are not mutually exclusive actions and further it might depend on one's history with someone. For example, repeatedly challenging some people could very well be a sign of immaturity.

[Peter Holmes]

Meanwhile, you haven't presented one sound argument for the existence of - grammatical chimera! - a moral fact. And we've shown you 'a thousand times' why such a monster can't exist.

What??
Problem is you are stuck in an ancient evolutionary trait of metaphysical realism, thus has selective attention disorder of not being able to understand [not necessary agree with] what is moral facts from the anti-realist perspective which is based on scientific facts.

So far I have raise nearly a 100 threads targeting and culminating is countering your OP 'there are no objective moral fact' and justifying 'there are moral facts'.

Note I wrote this in the other thread;

I have argued the most credible facts are the scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also the mathematical FSK] based on acceptable criteria.
My proposed moral FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts will be of near equivalence to the scientific FSK.
My moral FSK as credible is valid in principle and I agree I will have to justify this near-equivalence.

That is the most funny diversionary tactic yet.
"I can't answer that question, because reality is all wrong!

Questions for Kantians and other anti-realists.

Are reality-as-it-really-is, and the absolute truth of assertions about reality, things that could exist, but happen not to?

If, as I think, the answer is no - then what's the purpose of denying their existence? And what's the purpose of contrasting them with what we call reality and true assertions about that reality?

Kant was wrong, and anti-realism is a profound mistake.

And meanwhile, an anti-realist argument for moral realism is absurd.

[Iwannaplato]

And meanwhile, an anti-realist argument for moral realism is absurd.

I've been pointing this out to VA for a while. LOL.
(as a side note: I see he still responds to you. And you can get pretty snarky with him. I am pretty sure he has me on 'foe'. Which of us is doing something wrong?)

[Peter Holmes]

And meanwhile, an anti-realist argument for moral realism is absurd.

I've been pointing this out to VA for a while. LOL.
(as a side note: I see he still responds to you. And you can get pretty snarky with him. I am pretty sure he has me on 'foe'. Which of us is doing something wrong?)

Could just be that s/he and I have a long snarky history. Or maybe - you're cutting through the bs better than I do - and s/he doesn't like it.

But anyway, I'm enjoying and learning from your approach - and others may benefit from our back-and-forth, even if the VAn doesn't.

[Age]

So you agree that morality is subjective and relative.

GREAT.
That is one convert.
Easy isn't it - when you decide to be honest.

This is the SECOND ASSUMPTION you have made here,in just two posts to me.

Oh, and by the way, BOTH have been completely and utterly Wrong AND Incorrect.

SO you do not think morality is objective.
And you do not think morality is subjective.

Do you even know what sort of thing morality is?

LOL

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here could NOT be MORE Wrong, AGAIN.

This is your third post to me here now and the third ASSUMPTION that IS TOTALLY Wrong.

So, I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that you CLARIFY what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct, BEFORE you even begin to make these most ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, like you have been here.

[FlashDangerpants]

And meanwhile, an anti-realist argument for moral realism is absurd.

I've been pointing this out to VA for a while. LOL.
(as a side note: I see he still responds to you. And you can get pretty snarky with him. I am pretty sure he has me on 'foe'. Which of us is doing something wrong?)

Could just be that s/he and I have a long snarky history. Or maybe - you're cutting through the bs better than I do - and s/he doesn't like it.

But anyway, I'm enjoying and learning from your approach - and others may benefit from our back-and-forth, even if the VAn doesn't.

VA has everything invested in you as his primary enemy so he can't put you on ignore no matter what you say to him.

Mister wannaplato did mention that he does the same stuff on other forums, have they all gone the same way with only one person on his angry list?

[Peter Holmes]

I've been pointing this out to VA for a while. LOL.
(as a side note: I see he still responds to you. And you can get pretty snarky with him. I am pretty sure he has me on 'foe'. Which of us is doing something wrong?)

Could just be that s/he and I have a long snarky history. Or maybe - you're cutting through the bs better than I do - and s/he doesn't like it.

But anyway, I'm enjoying and learning from your approach - and others may benefit from our back-and-forth, even if the VAn doesn't.

VA has everything invested in you as his primary enemy so he can't put you on ignore no matter what you say to him.

Mister wannaplato did mention that he does the same stuff on other forums, have they all gone the same way with only one person on his angry list?

Hey, Flash. Has VA got you on ignore? I think I may be envious.

Btw: how do you put people on ignore?

[FlashDangerpants]

Could just be that s/he and I have a long snarky history. Or maybe - you're cutting through the bs better than I do - and s/he doesn't like it.

But anyway, I'm enjoying and learning from your approach - and others may benefit from our back-and-forth, even if the VAn doesn't.

VA has everything invested in you as his primary enemy so he can't put you on ignore no matter what you say to him.

Mister wannaplato did mention that he does the same stuff on other forums, have they all gone the same way with only one person on his angry list?

Hey, Flash. Has VA got you on ignore? I think I may be envious.

Btw: how do you put people on ignore?

Oh yeah, he put me on foe a couple of years back, and then he double-foed me a week or two ago.
The only functional difference is that he never refers to you by name I'm afraid.

If you really hate someone (Age for instance), you can click on their name link and add them to an enemies list to ignore them.

There's a friend list there too, nobody has ever mentioned what it does.

[Age]

If you read the ACTUAL WORDS I USED, you might SEE things in a different light.

I read the actual words you used. Perhaps you could rephrase what you said, so that I understand better what you meant. And perhaps use a different example from God.

I was talking about and referring to something different from what you are thinking about here.

If you would like us to go back and trace 'our steps', so you can grasp a full understanding here, then I am more than willing to.

I do NOT disagree with what you say here.

Great.

When you say, "cherry picked" here are you inferring that I should have used EVERY example instead?

No, the criticism cherry picked does not entail the suggestion that all examples must be used.

So, how many examples would you like from me here before my words are judged as being 'cherry picked'?

You have completely MISSED and MISUNDERSTOOD what was getting at.

OK, now I know that. Perhaps the way you wrote it could have been clearer.

OF COURSE, but finding the right words so that what is wanted to be conveyed is UNDERSTOOD, FULLY, by EVERY one takes some time to learn, and master.

Perhaps it is all my fault for missing the meaning of something clearly presented.

WHY would you ASSUME it is ALL your fault here?

And the WORDS, themselves, being 'clearly presented', in printed form on a screen, NEVER means NOR implies the message or meaning being conveyed will EVER be understood, fully nor even partly nor AT ALL.

Let's see.


So could you rephrase the following...

I SAID it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing to one who BELIEVES that 'that' does NOT exist.

Could you rephrase that sentence which seems like a general rule.

Perhaps with some other examples, since it refers to ANY thing.

To rephrase;

It is IMPOSSIBLE to produce ANY thing, to one WHILE they BELIEVE that 'that' does NOT exist.

Or, how about,

WHILE one is BELIEVING some thing is true, or false, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to SHOW them otherwise. This is because WHILE one is BELIEVING (in) some thing, then they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing contrary to what they BELIEVE (in).

Or, maybe,

Would you BELIEVE in some thing if it was, knowingly, NOT real Or NOT true? Or, would you BELIEVE some thing was true, or false, if it was NOT, or even maybe NOT?

If yes, then what would they be, EXACTLY?

Now, for other examples;

WHILE, let us say, you BELIEVED the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, or the Universe began and/or is expanding, then while in that moment you would NOT be OPEN to ANY thing opposing.

Or, if while you BELIEVED that 'we', human beings, could NEVER live in a peaceful world, then, in that moment, you would NOT be OPEN to LISTENING TO nor LEARNING HOW that works nor how it REALLY IS POSSIBLE.

However, if you were OPEN to the OPPOSITE of ANY of those things, then you would NOT be BELIEVING them to be true. Unless, of course, you can show HOW when you BELIEVE some thing IS TRUE, you are ALSO, at the exact same moment, OPEN to 'it' NOT being true AT ALL.

And, if you think you could SHOW this, then maybe you would like to begin by giving us an example of some thing that you BELIEVE, wholeheartedly, is true but you ALSO ACCEPT that it is ACTUALLY NOT or ACTUALLY might NOT be true AT ALL.