What could make morality objective?

[popeye1945]

To be objective, that in question needs to be an object, in other words, it needs to be material.

[Skepdick]

To be objective, that in question needs to be an object, in other words, it needs to be material.

Lets pretend that's true for the sake of making fun of you.

Gravity is neither an object, nor material. So gravity is not objective.
Energy is neither an object, nor material. So energy is not objective.
Light, fire and sound are not objects, nor material. So they are not objective.

Fucking. Genius.

Morality is a natural force. A phenomenon. The phenomenon responsible for the continued measurable, qualitative and quantitative improvement of human life.

It's as objective as gravity.

[popeye1945]

To be objective, that in question needs to be an object, in other words, it needs to be material.

Lets pretend that's true for the sake of making fun of you.

Gravity is neither an object, nor material. So gravity is not objective.
Energy is neither an object, nor material. So energy is not objective.
Light, fire and sound are not objects, nor material. So they are not objective.

Fucking. Genius.

Morality is a natural force. A phenomenon. The phenomenon responsible for the continued measurable, qualitative and quantitative improvement of human life.

It's as objective as gravity.

The physicists tell us it is all energy, but the energy in our apparent reality has manifested as object/s. The energy which is not manifested is not a thing not an object. All meaning belongs to a conscious subject, thoughts, feelings and sentiments are not material things. If you write a book about your feelings the book is an object. The term objective derives from the term object. Gravity is not an object but an energy field, an area of energy.

[Skepdick]

The physicists tell us it is all energy, but the energy in our apparent reality has manifested as object/s. The energy which is not manifested is not a thing not an object. All meaning belongs to a conscious subject, thoughts, feelings and sentiments are not material things. If you write a book about your feelings the book is an object. The term objective derives from the term object. Gravity is not an object but an energy field, an area of energy.

Blah blah blah blah. "The conscious subject" is still an object in the objectively objective reality! This is objectively true.

The more you babble about physics - the further and further you are moving away from understanding the problem with the question in the OP.

Read the question!

What could make morality objective?

Spend a few seconds understanding the sense in which the words are being used; understand what it is that the OP is asking about morality (in particular); then understand the general meaning of "What could make X objective?" (where X is any English noun); and understand what asking the question implies about X itself.

Now replace the noun "morality" with the nouns gravity, or energy.

What could make energy objective?
What could make gravity objective?

It sure seems to me those questions are stupid, presumptious and utterly misguided. The questions are wrong!

Perhaps you want to argue that energy and gravity are not objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Question: What could make energy and gravity objective?
Answer: Empirical evidence that they are actually existing features of reality, independent from opinion.

Question: What could make morality objective?
Answer: Empirical evidence that moral rightness and wrongness are actually existing features of reality, independent from opinion.

Collapse of moral realism and objectivism.

[Skepdick]

Question: What could make energy and gravity objective?
Answer: Empirical evidence that they are actually existing features of reality, independent from opinion.

Question: What could make morality objective?
Answer: Empirical evidence that moral rightness and wrongness are actually existing features of reality, independent from opinion.

Q.E.D An obvious double standard! Who are you trying to fool - yourself; or everyone else?

Why did you split morality into parts, but not gravity; or energy?
Why couldn't you just use the exact same answer/grammar for gravity, energy and morality?

Question: What could make morality, energy and gravity objective?
Answer: Empirical evidence that morality, energy and gravity are actually existing feature of reality, independent from opinion.

Is consistency getting in the way of your mental gymnastics?

Collapse of moral realism and objectivism.

And yet - the empirical evidence that morality is an existing feature of reality, independent from opinion has been presented to you.

Over

And over

And over

Real, measurable, improvement in the quality and quantity of human life. Exactly like real, measurable acceleration of falling apples.

If gravity and energy are objective; then so is morality.

[popeye1945]

Your knowledge of the world is utterly subjective, all meaning is subjective, ask yourself then, but by what means by what vehicle could subjective content become objective content, what could be the source, if not the conscious/subjective subject?

[Skepdick]

Your knowledge of the world is utterly subjective, all meaning is subjective, ask yourself then, but by what means by what vehicle could subjective content become objective content, what could be the source, if not the conscious/subjective subject?

You haven't understood a word of what has been said. Yes, all knowledge is ultimately subjective. All meaning is subjective.

All that 1st order stuff is not interesting. We are talking about 2nd (and higher) order reasoning - the conscious subjects use the word "objective" in all sorts of ways to meaningfully talk about the world. Ask yourself then, what does "objective" mean to conscious subjects?

I could use the word "ojective" to say meaningful things like "Objectively speaking, there are pixels on your screen arranged as English words and you are busy reading them right now.". And since that's precisely what's happening - the statement is objectively true.

Another way we use the word is to say things like "Gravity is objective".
And yet another way we can use the word "objective" is to say "Morality is objective".

I can, and I do say that. And I've given you my reasons for doing so.

[popeye1945]

Your knowledge of the world is utterly subjective, all meaning is subjective, ask yourself then, but by what means by what vehicle could subjective content become objective content, what could be the source, if not the conscious/subjective subject?

You haven't understood a word of what has been said. Yes, all knowledge is ultimately subjective. Meaning is subjective.

But the conscious subjects use the word "objective" in all sorts of ways to talk about the world. Ask yourself then, what does "objective" mean to conscious subjects?

One of the ways we the word "ojective" is to say meaningful things like "Objectively, right now there are pixels on your screen arranged as English words and you are reading them."

Another way we use the word is to say things like "Gravity is objective".

You do none of this without your subjective biology, for biology is the measure and meaning of all things. Subject and object stand or fall together. You need to ask yourself in the absence of a conscious subject, what is objective? There is nothing!! Remember, you can only know the world on a subjective level, it is the body being affected by the energies of the physical world that informs the subjective experience and those energies are not necessarily in object form.

[Skepdick]

You need to ask yourself in the absence of a conscious subject, what is objective?

Who cares?

There is nothing!

There's no such thing as "nothing". To speak about "nothing" is to speak of things you know nothing of.

Remember, you can only know the world on a subjective level, it is the body being affected by the energies of the physical world that informs the subjective experience and those energies are not necessarily in object form.

So what? At the subjective level I am using the word/concept of objectivity. And I can use the word "objective" to say things like "Energy is objective".

Just as easily as you make these sweeping proclamations of subjectivity - I could go the other way. Everything is objective - even my conscious experiences. My experiences exist as phenomena in objective reality and are therefore objective.

Without the conscious subject what remains is everything, except the conscious subject.

[Advocate]

There are several moral universals:

OUGHTs exist and there is nowhere for them to come from but ISes.

Morality is contingent on prioities.
Ethics is formalized morality.

Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals.
Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals.
Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals.

These are true by all reasonable definitions of true.

[Belinda]

There are several moral universals:

OUGHTs exist and there is nowhere for them to come from but ISes.

Morality is contingent on prioities.
Ethics is formalized morality.

Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals.
Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals.
Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals.

These are true by all reasonable definitions of true.

Oughts sometimes come from guesses, not ISes. Sometimes ISes are too scarce to base an ought upon and sometimes urgency makes it more conducive to life to guess than not to act.

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=608226 time=1667931061 user_id=12709]
[quote=Advocate post_id=608178 time=1667919442 user_id=15238]
There are several moral universals:

OUGHTs exist and there is nowhere for them to come from but ISes.

Morality is contingent on prioities.
Ethics is formalized morality.

Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals.
Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals.
Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals.

These are true by all reasonable definitions of true.
[/quote]

Oughts sometimes come from guesses, not ISes. Sometimes ISes are too scarce to base an ought upon and sometimes urgency makes it more conducive to life to guess than not to act.
[/quote]

Guessing is arbitrary. Morality is always contingent but never arbitrary.

[Agent Smith]

The illusion is complete! Even I don't know what is real and what is not! Muahahahahaha!

[Belinda]

There are several moral universals:

OUGHTs exist and there is nowhere for them to come from but ISes.

Morality is contingent on prioities.
Ethics is formalized morality.

Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals.
Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals.
Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals.

These are true by all reasonable definitions of true.

Oughts sometimes come from guesses, not ISes. Sometimes ISes are too scarce to base an ought upon and sometimes urgency makes it more conducive to life to guess than not to act.

Guessing is arbitrary. Morality is always contingent but never arbitrary.

I have always had difficulty with the word 'contingent'.

occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
"his fees were contingent on the success of his search"

(online dictionary)

Yes, I'd say morality is contingent upon one criterion or another. Criteria include;

1. Authority of God or ideology

2. Reason

3. One's own feelings and intuitions

4.Human nature.

Pure guessing is an interesting activity. Sometimes people try to rationalise guessing as applying to Fate or Fortune to settle some matter of morality or prediction; and Fate and Fortune too are criteria. More often people who guess don't even think about it but react to immediate circumstances like jumping into the water to save somebody from drowning. It's hard to generalise whether the life saving hero is so because she has been socialised to be so or because it's human nature to be kind.