PH: What is 'Morality' and 'Objectivity'

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. Which assumes that there are such things as facts. Objectivity and facts go together like a coach and four.

2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality (sometimes called a state-of-affairs) that is or was the case, independent from opinion.

3 A factual assertion is one that asserts the existence of a feature of reality. So it has a (classical) truth-value which is independent from opinion: true, if the feature of reality is or was the case; and false, if it isn't or wasn't.

4 A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right (good) or wrong (bad/evil), or that we should or shouldn't (ought or oughtn't to) do something because it's morally right (good) or wrong (bad/evil).

5 Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts, so that moral assertions - such as 'abortion is morally wrong', 'capital punishment is not morally wrong', 'we oughtn't to eat animals' and 'humans ought not to kill humans' - have a truth-value (true or false) independent from opinion.

This amounts to the belief that moral rightness and wrongness are things or properties that are or were the case - that exist or existed. And, pending evidence for the existence of abstract or non-physical things, 'exist or existed' means 'exist or existed physically', along with other physical things and properties.

So the burden of proof (demonstration) for the physical existence of moral things or properties is with moral objectivists - and, by implication, moral realists. A burden unmet so far, to my knowledge.

6 PSs.

6.1 To deny the existence of what we call facts, and therefore what we call objectivity, is to deny the existence of moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. When you eat your cake, it's gone.

6.2 We can use the words right, wrong, good, bad, should and ought to morally and non-morally. For example 'the right direction', 'the wrong decision' and 'you ought not to pour petrol on a fire if you want extinguish it' need have no moral meaning whatsoever. And if the word ought is used non-morally in an assertion, it isn't a moral assertion, and it can't assert a so-called moral fact.

6.3 Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions, because a deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. So a moral conclusion stands alone, unless it follows from a moral premise, which also stands alone, and so on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree with your definition of what is 'objectivity' but I want to add;

What is objective and factual is conditioned upon a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and/or Reality [FSR] which is grounded on intersubjective agreement.
The conclusions from a FSK is independent of any individual's or subject's opinion and beliefs.

I don't agree with your view re Morality;

PH: 4. A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right (good) or wrong (bad/evil), or that we should or shouldn't (ought or oughtn't to) do something because it's morally right (good) or wrong (bad/evil).
5 Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts, so that moral assertions - such as 'abortion is morally wrong', 'capital punishment is not morally wrong', 'we oughtn't to eat animals' and 'humans ought not to kill humans' - have a truth-value (true or false) independent from opinion.


You have failed to define what is Morality-proper directly and effectively.
Your focus in the above is merely on moral assertion but not directly on what is morality per se.

It is 'kindergarten' that what is asserted cannot be a fact per se.
It is also true as per Hume, one cannot derive an "ought' from "is" [fact].

So what is Morality-proper.
Morality-proper is like all human activities with regular patterns [as very evident] corresponding to human functions thus human nature, e.g. emotions, hunger, intelligences, etc. which has its specific features.
As such, morality is a basic physical human function which is reducible to brain and body activities.

Moral assertions - such as 'abortion is morally wrong', 'capital punishment is not morally wrong', and 'humans ought not to kill humans' are merely manifestation and expression of impulses from the moral function within the brain and self.
So, I agree with you, these moral assertions are not facts themselves, but they are manifestations from the objective moral facts of the various features of the moral function.

For example, the assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans' is an impulse or feeling manifested from a physical 'ought-not-ness to kill human' feature of the moral function in the brain/body represented by sets of neural correlates, algorithms, processes, neurons, genes, DNA and quarks.
This physical 'ought-not-ness to kill human' feature is verifiable an justifiable via the Scientific FSK, thus it is objective and factual by definition of objective above.
In addition this scientific fact is processed within the moral FSK, thus an objective moral fact.

Your target that there are no objective moral facts is directed to those pseudo-moral claims of the old paradigm where Hume critique the claims of the theists who claim God's moral commands [independent] are objective or platonic moral universals [independent] are real objective moral facts out there.

Now the NEW PARADIGM is about real objective moral facts WITHIN the individual's brain/body which is physical and can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK and the moral FSK.

You need to break out from your very thick SILO of narrow, shallow and dogmatic ideology.