There are Objective Moral Facts

[Alexander_Reiswich]

The will-to-live is an uncompromising instinct that is inherent and intrinsic in ALL humans as human nature.
It is objective and factual in the sense that it can be empirically verified and justified within the scientific and biological framework independent of any subject's opinion or beliefs.

I want to focus on this paragraph because it really demonstrates my point... You're saying here that the will to live is objective because it can be empirically observed outside of a subject's point of view -- so then tell me, where is the will to live in the absence of a subject?

You literally have to reference a subject in order to observe the will to live.

The only place where it exists is in subjects, in their subjective perception.

That's what it means for something to be subjective -- it can only be observed by referencing the point of view of a subject.

Commonalities, no matter how universal, can not be confused with objectivity. They are not the same thing. Inter-subjectivity is not objectivity. Objectivity only exists when there is an external object that can still be referenced when subjective viewpoints are completely removed. This is simply not possible for a subjective concept such as a will to live. For example, if a subject is comatose and thus no subjective awareness is present, the will to live also demonstrably ceases to exist. That's how we know for a fact that the will to live is subjective.

Whatever is identified as objective moral facts, they must be verified and justified empirically within the scientific and a credible moral framework as in alignment with human nature.

Well, it's not really true that objective moral facts are derived on the basis of human nature. For one, human nature is not an objective reference for Morality; it's a very diverse collection of common properties and behaviors among individual human beings. Some of them are objective, others subjective. Some of them can be argued to have moral relevance, others less so. What's for sure is that human nature has no definitive, unambiguous definition. That's partly because human nature is adaptive -- for example, humans behave very differently in times of war and crisis than in times of peace and abundance. If adaptiveness is a property of human nature, is Morality therefore also adaptive? Only if it's subjective -- if it's objective, Morality is completely independent from human nature.

Furthermore, even if human nature was less ambiguous, there's no good reason why Morality should be based on it. Again, if we view Morality through a subjective lens, this argument can certainly be made. Although even then, I'm not sure if it would be a particularly strong argument. For example, the philosopher Paul Bloom argues that human nature is not necessarily what we should rely on when it comes to moral considerations, because we have evolved with certain biases that make it difficult for us to make truly fair decisions. Our sense of empathy is very strongly biased towards individual people rather than larger groups. We tend to feel strongly in regards to the story of one person, but dramatically less so for a thousand "faceless" people in the exact same circumstances.

But in any case, it's not unreasonable to argue that human nature should be taken into consideration when it comes to subjective Morality. It's just that you can't use it for objective Morality.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

@Skepdick Please keep in mind that I was talking about physical existence, not existence per sé.

I don't believe we have much of a disagreement. I'm not arguing that language doesn't exist in a conceptual sense, because that's exactly the sense in which it exists.

Think about it this way: where does the word "the" exist, physically? On your screen? On a piece of paper? No -- a screen merely consists of tiny colored lights. A piece of paper only has ink on it. However, our brain is trained to decode the particular arrangement of pixels or ink and make sense of it. But even then, words don't physically "exist" in our brains. You won't find the word "the" even when looking at a brain under a microscope.

But that doesn't mean it can't cause reactions in beings who are capable of recognizing such patterns. Quite the opposite: the entire point of language is to store information, such that it can be consumed by others and thus cause particular reactions.

Conceptual existence is perfectly valid, it's just distinct from physical existence.

[popeye1945]

If there were objective facts, they would be meanings and we know that all meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never the property of a meaningless world or object. There is nothing in the physical world that has meaning in and of itself but only in relation to a conscious subject, thus, there can be no objective facts, biology is the measure and meaning of all things, thus all meanings/facts are of a subjective nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The will-to-live is an uncompromising instinct that is inherent and intrinsic in ALL humans as human nature.
It is objective and factual in the sense that it can be empirically verified and justified within the scientific and biological framework independent of any subject's opinion or beliefs.

I want to focus on this paragraph because it really demonstrates my point... You're saying here that the will to live is objective because it can be empirically observed outside of a subject's point of view -- so then tell me, where is the will to live in the absence of a subject?

You literally have to reference a subject in order to observe the will to live.

The only place where it exists is in subjects, in their subjective perception.

That's what it means for something to be subjective -- it can only be observed by referencing the point of view of a subject.

Commonalities, no matter how universal, can not be confused with objectivity. They are not the same thing.
Inter-subjectivity is not objectivity.

Objectivity only exists when there is an external object that can still be referenced when subjective viewpoints are completely removed. This is simply not possible for a subjective concept such as a will to live.
For example, if a subject is comatose and thus no subjective awareness is present, the will to live also demonstrably ceases to exist. That's how we know for a fact that the will to live is subjective.

I noted we have different definition for what is objectivity.

My stance is 'objectivity' emerges from intersubjectivity.
What is objective and factual emerge from a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] based on intersubjective consensus.
For example scientific facts are objective as conditioned upon the intersubjective consensus of the relevant scientists within the specific scientific FSK.

Your view of 'objectivity' is leveraged upon Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which is not tenable to be realistic.

In this case, you are adopting the Correspondence Theory of Truth,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth
where there is a real objective external thing that can be corresponded with factual statement of that external thing-in-itself.
This is problematic, see objections due to vagueness and circularity;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... Objections

According to Kant whatever is claimed as a real objective external-thing-in-itself is a reification of an illusion.
There can be no real thing-in-itself rather there is only a real thing-by-subjects intersubjectively via a framework and system of knowledge or reality.

The truth is without the subject individually or intersubjectively there is no real thing at all, i.e. when one do not look [perceive via sensibility & conceptually] at the moon, there is no moon.

I have posted many threads on this based on Quantum Physics and neuroscience;

1. Is Reality an Illusion? Donald Hoffman
2. Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
3. Meta-Hallucination versus 'General' Hallucinations.
4. There is no Absolutely Independent Reality
5. Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
6. How We Evolve Not to See Objective Reality - Hoffman
7. When You Don't Look, Does it Exists?
[unfortunately I can paste links here]

8. Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality – Anil & Ramachandran
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
We Are All Hallucinating All The Time
"In a sense, we are all hallucinating all the time," Dr. Ramachandran said. "What we call normal vision is our selecting the hallucination that best fits reality."

As such, the issue is contentious but I believe your definition of objective is not realistic.

Whatever is identified as objective moral facts, they must be verified and justified empirically within the scientific and a credible moral framework as in alignment with human nature.

Well, it's not really true that objective moral facts are derived on the basis of human nature. For one, human nature is not an objective reference for Morality; it's a very diverse collection of common properties and behaviors among individual human beings. Some of them are objective, others subjective. Some of them can be argued to have moral relevance, others less so. What's for sure is that human nature has no definitive, unambiguous definition. That's partly because human nature is adaptive -- for example, humans behave very differently in times of war and crisis than in times of peace and abundance. If adaptiveness is a property of human nature, is Morality therefore also adaptive? Only if it's subjective -- if it's objective, Morality is completely independent from human nature.

Furthermore, even if human nature was less ambiguous, there's no good reason why Morality should be based on it. Again, if we view Morality through a subjective lens, this argument can certainly be made. Although even then, I'm not sure if it would be a particularly strong argument. For example, the philosopher Paul Bloom argues that human nature is not necessarily what we should rely on when it comes to moral considerations, because we have evolved with certain biases that make it difficult for us to make truly fair decisions. Our sense of empathy is very strongly biased towards individual people rather than larger groups. We tend to feel strongly in regards to the story of one person, but dramatically less so for a thousand "faceless" people in the exact same circumstances.

But in any case, it's not unreasonable to argue that human nature should be taken into consideration when it comes to subjective Morality. It's just that you can't use it for objective Morality.

Human Nature is;

Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally.
The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

It is evident morality [good over evil] is one of the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally.

We need to define what is morality and establish what are its inherent element in alignment with human nature.

As I had stated, the inherent potential re 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' is one fundamental moral elements.
Based on my definition above of what is objectivity and factuality, 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' [a noun] is represented by physical elements in the brain and body; when this is verified and justified empirically via the scientific and moral FSK, it emerges as an objective moral fact as defined.

Point is the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' moral potential is inherent in ALL humans existing as a physical fact.
If any human kill for whatever the reason, it is because that moral potential and state is not active or it is damaged like in the case of a psychopath.

You do not agree to the above because you defined 'objectivity' too narrowly and unrealistically as I had argued above.

Note reality is all there is which subjects are intricately part and parcel thereof, there is no way one can disconnect subjects [which are also objects] from reality.

Can you prove there are real absolute external things existing out there independent of subjects? as real referents that one can correspond, track or mirror with language.

[popeye1945]

This goes on forever, those who believe in objective moral facts need to present some!

[Alexander_Reiswich]

@Veritas Aequitas Let's begin with the question of reality, truth and existence. I actually agree with many of the points you've made here, and yet don't agree with your interpretations of my position.

First, I don't subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth, because I hold that subjective (immaterial / conceptual) facts and truths (that don't correspond to the "real" world) are valid.

For example, I like oranges. This, I would argue, is subjectively true and factual -- but it does not correspond to physical reality. Nowhere in the world will you find my predisposition towards oranges, because it only exists as a concept within my mind. We can certainly expect my fondness of oranges to manifest in my behavior, but a mere expression of a thing is not the thing in itself, just as the painting of an apple is not the apple itself.

Truth can therefore not solely be defined as that which corresponds to the real world. Rather, "truth" is any concept that corresponds to a particular point of reference (to a certain degree of accuracy). There are two basic, logically distinct points of reference: our own, individual, subjective point of view itself (our experience / perception), and the objects external to our beings that we can experience through our (subjective) point of view. I would like to emphasize that the latter is not limited to the physical world -- it can also be extended to imaginary or virtual worlds. For example, we can consider a particular statement of fact in reference to the imaginary world of Middle Earth. An even more immersive example would be video games and VR games.

Anything that can be used as a point of reference is a valid, potential point of reference, which includes digital worlds and items in video games, fictional characters, but also any kind of physical entity we can observe around us.

"Existence" relates to anything that can be experienced or observed in some manner via our senses (again, regardless of the world it exists in). Anything that "exists" within our subjective point of view and is distinct from us (the subjects) is an object. Importantly, it does not matter whether an object physically exists or not. All that matters is that it can be experienced as a distinct entity from the entity that is experiencing it (us, the subjects).

As such, I don't have to "prove" that "absolute", external things exist, because this is not a valid requirement for the concept of objectivity. For example, if I identify a particular external point of reference (an "object"), say an apple, I can give it to you and you can experience it for yourself. We can then arrive at the inter-subjective agreement that this object exists within both of our experiences and is therefore part of our shared reality. However, our friend Tom observes us while we hold nothing in our hand and wonders what we've been smoking. In Tom's subjective experience, the apple doesn't exist and is not "real".

But within our experiences, the apple can be clearly identified as a distinct object which is separate from us, as subjects. Our concept of the apple is therefore objective, even though we're just hallucinating the apple. So the point is that it doesn't matter (objectively) whether an object "really" exists or not -- it only has to be identifiable as a distinct entity from the subject, by the subject that experiences it. This is all that it means for an object to exist externally from our perception.

Now, subjectively it generally matters to us very much whether something "really" exists or not. This is why we have things like the scientific method, which enables us to filter out our subjective biases and thus refine our conceptual understanding of "how external objects really are".

However, the scientific method can only be applied to the study of external objects (as defined before), not subjective interpretations of objects. That's why it's not possible to scientifically determine what the "true" price for a particular good or value is, and it's also not possible to scientifically determine what we *ought* to do, or what we should *value*. That's because the reference point of each value is an individual subject, and not an object which can be referenced from the viewpoint of each individual subject (independently from each other). This is logically insurmountable and can't be "derived from inter-subjectivity", as this is a difference of categories.

Therefore, basing Morality on human nature (which isn't even possible, because like I said before, human nature is highly adaptive) simply doesn't work, because that would require an overriding of actual, subjective needs and preferences with collective, abstract ones based on someone's interpretation of what human nature "ought to be".

For example, it's simply not true that only "damaged" humans kill other humans. In the animal world in particular, but also in our evolutionary past, killing was and is common-place and often times unavoidable for the purpose of self-preservation. It therefore fits perfectly into the scope of human nature. If I were to kill a dangerous terrorists, this would in no way imply that I'm somehow damaged -- quite the opposite: I care for human lives and want to preserve them, hence it was rational to kill the terrorist who intended to destroy lives.

So how do you handle such an "exception"? Is your approach to objective Morality subservient to individual circumstances and personal values? Well, then isn't it subjective by definition?

Why don't you try to examine an "objective moral fact" and how it can be applied to real-world-circumstances, how it can inform us about how to objectively morally react to infractions against it and demonstrate how it still works even in challenging situations (because that's kind of the point of an objective Morality)? The best litmus test for an objective moral framework is it's utility. The degree to which it can be applied to any conceivable, morally relevant scenario and provide us with coherent, useful, meaningful understanding is (probably) the degree to which it is actually objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, to facilitate me to read your response to my post, it would help if you do the following so that I can receive the relevant notifications. [see the bell icon on top].
When you response to my post, click the " on the top right hand corner of the post and the whole of my post will be presented to you for your response.

What is critical for me to be notified is this

...

which will trigger a notification to you [in this case] that i had responded to your post.

Maybe you don't want to refer to the whole post, but the above is still necessary for me to get a notification.
In that case you can delete all the contents but leave the following with some texts in between the marked quotation;

...

Nowhere in the world will you find my predisposition towards oranges, because it only exists as a concept within my mind.
We can certainly expect my fondness of oranges to manifest in my behavior, but a mere expression of a thing is not the thing in itself, just as the painting of an apple is not the apple-itself.

Noted your rejection of the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
However you are still involved with some sort of correspondence between what you experience of a thing [subjective] and the thing-in-itself [objective].
You are asserting the only objective thing is the thing-in-itself.
This is your Philosophical Realism stance, agree?

Contrary to the above, my stance is there is no thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves that are absolutely objective. What you are doing here with a real objective thing-in-itself is actually an illusion.

The only objective things as I had argued is the emergence of a thing that is grounded on intersubjective consensus [consciously and unconsciously].
This is applicable to all things in reality, thus including objective moral things or facts.

As such, I don't have to "prove" that "absolute", external things exist, because this is not a valid requirement for the concept of objectivity. For example, if I identify a particular external point of reference (an "object"), say an apple, I can give it to you and you can experience it for yourself. We can then arrive at the inter-subjective agreement that this object exists within both of our experiences and is therefore part of our shared reality.

If the above case, we could agree there are objective moral facts [things] that we can arrive via inter-subjective agreement that this object exists within both of our experiences and is therefore part of our shared reality.

Note I am not referring to moral opinions and judgment of right or wrong but objective moral facts [things] that can be verified and justified empirically.

But within our experiences, the apple can be clearly identified as a distinct object which is separate from us, as subjects. Our concept of the apple is therefore objective, even though we're just hallucinating the apple. So the point is that it doesn't matter (objectively) whether an object "really" exists or not -- it only has to be identifiable as a distinct entity from the subject, by the subject that experiences it. This is all that it means for an object to exist externally from our perception.

Existence is not a predicate.
Whatever that is said to exist must be predicated upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality.
That 'water is H20' cannot stand on its own but must be predicated to the Scientific-Chemistry FSK.

I believe the issue is you assert the apple exists by itself externally independent of the subject's perception.
I don't agree with that.
I claim the apple exists at the common sense level as an independent object, ultimately it exists interdependently in entanglement the whole subject.

This is like the case of freedom; a prisoner is free to more around his prison room at one level but not-free ultimately to roam outside of his room.

Now, subjectively it generally matters to us very much whether something "really" exists or not. This is why we have things like the scientific method, which enables us to filter out our subjective biases and thus refine our conceptual understanding of "how external objects really are".

However, the scientific method can only be applied to the study of external objects (as defined before), not subjective interpretations of objects. That's why it's not possible to scientifically determine what the "true" price for a particular good or value is, and it's also not possible to scientifically determine what we *ought* to do, or what we should *value*. That's because the reference point of each value is an individual subject, and not an object which can be referenced from the viewpoint of each individual subject (independently from each other). This is logically insurmountable and can't be "derived from inter-subjectivity", as this is a difference of categories.

Since scientific facts, conclusion and knowledge are recognized as objective, do you then agree that objectivity is intersubjectivity in this qualified sense.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Therefore, basing Morality on human nature (which isn't even possible, because like I said before, human nature is highly adaptive) simply doesn't work, because that would require an overriding of actual, subjective needs and preferences with collective, abstract ones based on someone's interpretation of what human nature "ought to be".

Human nature is not based on someone's interpretation.
Human nature and its essential features is a biological fact confirmed by the scientific method within the biology FSK.
Since scientific facts are objective
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
then, human nature is objective.
Morality is a feature of human nature.
Therefore verified and justified elements of morality are objective.

For example, it's simply not true that only "damaged" humans kill other humans. In the animal world in particular, but also in our evolutionary past, killing was and is common-place and often times unavoidable for the purpose of self-preservation. It therefore fits perfectly into the scope of human nature. If I were to kill a dangerous terrorists, this would in no way imply that I'm somehow damaged -- quite the opposite: I care for human lives and want to preserve them, hence it was rational to kill the terrorist who intended to destroy lives.

So how do you handle such an "exception"? Is your approach to objective Morality subservient to individual circumstances and personal values? Well, then isn't it subjective by definition?

Why don't you try to examine an "objective moral fact" and how it can be applied to real-world-circumstances, how it can inform us about how to objectively morally react to infractions against it and demonstrate how it still works even in challenging situations (because that's kind of the point of an objective Morality)? The best litmus test for an objective moral framework is it's utility. The degree to which it can be applied to any conceivable, morally relevant scenario and provide us with coherent, useful, meaningful understanding is (probably) the degree to which it is actually objective.

The ought-not-ness-to-kill-another-human is an objective moral fact.
This ought-not-ness is not to be enforced on any individual but merely to act as a guide for moral progress.
Rather, each individual need to self-develop this moral potential to progress so that the indifference to kill another human is a natural state in them.

Say now in 2023 the Moral Quotient [MQ] is 100 where the ought-not-ness-to-kill-another-human in the majority of individuals are not strong, so we have potential killers.
But it is possible to for each and every individual in the World to self-develop their MQ to 1500 [1500% increase] in 2123 [100 years] or more if necessary in the future, then there will no [very rare] individuals with the propensity to kill humans, thus no wars, no terrorists, no serial killers, no killer of humans of any kind.
The ought-not-ness-to-kill-another-human moral facts will be in full alignment with its human nature.

To achieve the above possible moral progress [utility] we need to recognize the above ought-not-ness-to-kill-another-human as an objective [scientific] moral fact so that we have something objective to work on and improve upon.
If there is no recognition of such an objective [scientific] moral fact, it will be to each their own and progress will never be efficient or in snail-pace.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

Btw, to facilitate me to read your response to my post [...]

@Veritas Aequitas Thanks for the info, will do

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here in regards to scientific objectivity. It's at the switch to Morality you're starting to lose me again...

I'm totally open to being convinced, but here's how your argument sounds to me right now: Science provides us with a system for understanding the natural world by minimizing the biases inherent in our limited sense-based perception. Since this FSK works so well, we must therefore apply it to our biases and thus determine what would be the right biases (moral values) to have.

Hopefully it's evident why this smells of contradiction? How can a system which is designed to eliminate biases inform us about which biases are "good"?

Since scientific facts are objective, then human nature is objective.
Morality is a feature of human nature.
Therefore verified and justified elements of morality are objective.

The category of facts pertaining to Morality that are objective based on this syllogism is not the one you think it is. Based on this logic, a moral fact is, for example: "in ancient aztec culture human sacrifices were considered morally permissible or necessary"

In other words, it's descriptive in regards to certain oughts that particular people subscribe(d) to. Also known as (descriptive) moral relativism.

A biological fact pertaining to a feature of the human body is distinct from prescriptive Morality. The following argument therefore doesn't follow:

Because human nature is objective (I disagree, but let's say it is) and Morality is part of human nature, human biology therefore (objectively) informs us about what we ought to do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, to facilitate me to read your response to my post [...]

@Veritas Aequitas Thanks for the info, will do

Thanks, I got notified of your response.

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here in regards to scientific objectivity. It's at the switch to Morality you're starting to lose me again...

I'm totally open to being convinced, but here's how your argument sounds to me right now: Science provides us with a system for understanding the natural world by minimizing the biases inherent in our limited sense-based perception. Since this FSK works so well, we must therefore apply it to our biases and thus determine what would be the right biases (moral values) to have.

Hopefully it's evident why this smells of contradiction? How can a system which is designed to eliminate biases inform us about which biases are "good"?

You missed my point, perhaps I was not clear enough.
Whatever is termed as an objective fact must be conditioned within its specific FSK.
Besides the scientific FSK [the most credible] there are many other FSKs of other fields of knowledge or Reality, e.g. Moral, Legal, Economics, Finance, Politics, mathematics, and so on.

The focus on Science is not on biases but the seeking of knowledge via empirical observations conditioned upon its Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] in which one of its many features is to eliminate personal biases to sustain credibility.

Example, the credible scientific FSK can justify the 'oughtness to breathe' by ALL humans as a critical feature of human nature. This is an objective scientific biological fact.

The credible scientific FSK can also verify and justify the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' as a critical feature of human nature [this will need some detailed justification]. This is also an objective scientific biological fact that is represented by its physical referents in terms of neurons, neural algorithms, genes, DNA and quarks.

Objective moral facts are conditioned to the specific Moral FSK.
The Moral FSK defines what is morality and what constitute moral elements which relate to what is Good and what is Evil.
The objective biological 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' facts is also a moral element, thus when conditioned within the moral FSK, it is an objective moral fact as qualified.

Analogy:
The evidence of DNA is an objective biological fact within the biological FSK.
When this fact is considered with the legal FSK it becomes a legal fact, e.g. in the court case of a murder, the DNA evidence could be the most critical evidence in determining the accused as the murderer as a legal fact.

Thus, my point is, credible objective scientific facts when considered within a credible moral FSK generates objective moral facts.

Btw, I do not relate 'rightness' or 'wrongness' to morality because these two terms are too loose.
I am using 'ought-ness' and 'ought-not-ness' [nouns] as moral elements within a moral FSK.

Since scientific facts are objective, then human nature is objective.
Morality is a feature of human nature.
Therefore verified and justified elements of morality are objective.

The category of facts pertaining to Morality that are objective based on this syllogism is not the one you think it is. Based on this logic, a moral fact is, for example: "in ancient aztec culture human sacrifices were considered morally permissible or necessary"

In other words, it's descriptive in regards to certain oughts that particular people subscribe(d) to. Also known as (descriptive) moral relativism.

A biological fact pertaining to a feature of the human body is distinct from prescriptive Morality. The following argument therefore doesn't follow:

Because human nature is objective (I disagree, but let's say it is) and Morality is part of human nature, human biology therefore (objectively) informs us about what we ought to do.

We need to be very specific as to what constitute moral elements as objective moral facts.

Alexander_Reiswich: "in ancient aztec culture human sacrifices were considered morally permissible or necessary"

The above point cannot be a moral element.
It is the same with, "in modern governments, in wars soldiers are permitted to kill their enemies within the law"
This is not a moral issue but rather a political fact from the political FSK.

The related moral element is,
the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' as a critical feature of human nature, an objective scientific biological fact [scientific FSK], which is also an objective moral fact within the moral FSK.

In this case, this objective moral fact is not prescriptive at all, there is no enforcement on the individual that they must not kill humans or it is wrong to kill humans. If there is such enforcement, then it belongs to the legal FSK, not the moral FSK.

What is necessary here is for ALL human beings to develop their natural 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' within themselves voluntarily in alignment with their inherent nature, i.e. human nature.
As such, the most the moral FSK does [has to be efficient] is to encourage all humans to self-develop their internal 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' at their own time and optimally such that their primal 'ought-to-kill' impulse is efficiently modulated and suppressed naturally and spontaneously.

Actually there is already natural development of moral competence since humans emerged but it is very slow process.
Not too long ago, humans from different tribes would readily kill members of another tribe in deliberate wars or if they happen to meet them unarmed.
Now in 2023 we have progressed morally relative to ancient times but it is still not up to expectations based on people killed by various deliberate reasons.

At present, the natural 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' within the majority of humans are under-developed, say the average 30/100 [arbitrary]; thus, the target is for the average person to progress to say 80/100 in the future to achieve critical mass.

We need to expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within ALL humans to achieve critical mass or better. This is why we need a credible moral FSK that relies on scientific facts to generate objective moral facts which we can leverage on to improve and progress morally.

If you reject the above, you will not have any fixed-goal-post to score moral goals efficiently.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

Whatever is termed as an objective fact must be conditioned within its specific FSK.

I agree with pretty much everything you said regarding the other FSK's, except for the moral FSK.

Normally, an FSK is construed on the basis of methods that produce accurate and reliable information for specific questions. For example, if we want to estimate how old a tree is, one of the best methods to do so is by counting the rings within its trunk. This, however, is completely coincidental. -- this particular method just happens to work well for our purposes based on how trees happen to grow.

However, there is no such method or system specifically for Morality. There's a very simple reason for this: moral questions are subjective and therefore must be answered relative to each individual.

The "oughts" as you have defined them are of the hypothetical imperative type, as defined by Kant. Hypothetical imperatives begin with a subjective goal. Then, the appropriate FSK is used to collects information pertinent to that goal, as well as solutions that would help you to effectively reach it. In this way, it's perfectly objective.

Hypothetical imperatives are not controversial, philosophically. That's because they're derived on the basis of a subjective goal. As such, the is-ought-dichotomy isn't broken.

But for the same reason, they are amoral. For example, if you want to murder your neighbor without getting caught, a hypothetical imperative will inform you about how to best achieve your goal. The hypothetical imperative itself isn't to blame that your goal is an evil one. Rather, it's the subjective goal which is evil. But since it's subjective, we can't explore it with an objective FSK.

This is why science can only inform the public and make generalized recommendations, but the final decision is always left to the individuals, for very good reasons. For example, let's say a building is on fire. The scientific FSK can inform us that entering that building is potentially deadly. From what I understand, your moral FSK would therefore consider entering the building "immoral". However, inside the building is the family of a man who just now arrived in front of it. From the subjective point of view of this man it makes perfect sense to enter the building and try to rescue his family, because they are more important to him than his life. Thus, even if the chances of him making it can be objectively determined to be less than 1%, subjectively he would still have a perfectly good reason to try it.

As you can see, the objectivity of a moral FSK in cases like these is completely meaningless.

For this reason, I don't see any difference between what you propose and the way things currently are. You say for instance that we should improve our "ought-not-ness to kill humans". This is in principle a sensible suggestion (one might call it a no-brainer), except that no one knows how to facilitate such a process. If we knew, we would have already done it. The problem is that we live in an imperfect and dangerous world. People who are good at killing other people are valuable. A country of pacifists isn't likely to survive for long, historically speaking. So once you take all of this into account, the "ought-not-ness to kill humans" starts to look much less appealing, or at the very least exceedingly impractical. And that's why moral "oughts" derived on the basis of perfectly valid scientific knowledge tend to be adopted very slowly by the public. I don't see this changing anytime soon, absent a ridiculously effective, revolutionary moral FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The will-to-live is an uncompromising instinct that is inherent and intrinsic in ALL humans as human nature.
It is objective and factual in the sense that it can be empirically verified and justified within the scientific and biological framework independent of any subject's opinion or beliefs.

I want to focus on this paragraph because it really demonstrates my point... You're saying here that the will to live is objective because it can be empirically observed outside of a subject's point of view -- so then tell me, where is the will to live in the absence of a subject?

You literally have to reference a subject in order to observe the will to live.

The only place where it exists is in subjects, in their subjective perception.

That's what it means for something to be subjective -- it can only be observed by referencing the point of view of a subject.

Commonalities, no matter how universal, can not be confused with objectivity. They are not the same thing. Inter-subjectivity is not objectivity.
Objectivity only exists when there is an external object that can still be referenced when subjective viewpoints are completely removed. This is simply not possible for a subjective concept such as a will to live. For example, if a subject is comatose and thus no subjective awareness is present, the will to live also demonstrably ceases to exist. That's how we know for a fact that the will to live is subjective.

I believe I have responded the above question earlier.

For me inter-subjectivity IS objectivity. Note my thread
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
What is scientific objectivity is grounded on subjectivity, i.e. intersubjective agreement.

The Will-to-live is verified to be objective scientifically, i.e. within the Biology FSK. You cannot deny the will to live is not factual in this case?

As I had stated your sense of Objectivity, i.e. absolute independent of subjects is not realistic and not tenable.
Note I referenced Philosophical Realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Have you review this?

Whatever is identified as objective moral facts, they must be verified and justified empirically within the scientific and a credible moral framework as in alignment with human nature.

Well, it's not really true that objective moral facts are derived on the basis of human nature. For one, human nature is not an objective reference for Morality; it's a very diverse collection of common properties and behaviors among individual human beings. Some of them are objective, others subjective. Some of them can be argued to have moral relevance, others less so. What's for sure is that human nature has no definitive, unambiguous definition. That's partly because human nature is adaptive -- for example, humans behave very differently in times of war and crisis than in times of peace and abundance. If adaptiveness is a property of human nature, is Morality therefore also adaptive? Only if it's subjective -- if it's objective, Morality is completely independent from human nature.

Yes, human nature comprised of diverse features.
As such there is a need to justify any feature that is claimed to be objective.

For example the metabolic process, hunger, emotions, intelligence are human features which can be claimed to be objective scientifically via the Biology FSK.
Re 'emotions' it is not the subjective feelings but rather the physical neural emotional systems [objective and factual] that generate those emotions.

Furthermore, even if human nature was less ambiguous, there's no good reason why Morality should be based on it. Again, if we view Morality through a subjective lens, this argument can certainly be made. Although even then, I'm not sure if it would be a particularly strong argument. For example, the philosopher Paul Bloom argues that human nature is not necessarily what we should rely on when it comes to moral considerations, because we have evolved with certain biases that make it difficult for us to make truly fair decisions. Our sense of empathy is very strongly biased towards individual people rather than larger groups. We tend to feel strongly in regards to the story of one person, but dramatically less so for a thousand "faceless" people in the exact same circumstances.

But in any case, it's not unreasonable to argue that human nature should be taken into consideration when it comes to subjective Morality. It's just that you can't use it for objective Morality.

Empathy is one [among many] feature of morality.
Empathy generally is viewed as a feeling [subjective] but the state of empathy is supported physically by mirror neurons [objective].
Mirror neurons can be verified and justified as an objective fact via the scientific FSK.
Since empathy has its physical reference and is a part of morality, empathy in this sense is an objective moral fact.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

For me inter-subjectivity IS objectivity. Note my thread

I don't disagree with you that objectivity within the context of a system of knowledge is derived on the basis of inter-subjectivity; my point is that this is constrained to objective points of reference, i.e. "how things are (or were)", rather than "the value of things" or "how things should be". The latter can only be derived via subjective points of reference. As such, without referring to a particular subjective point of reference, we can say nothing about them objectively, other than that they are or were held by a particular subject.

For example, the following is an objective statement of fact as derived on the basis of a history FSK: "Brutus believed that it was his moral duty to kill Julius Caesar in order to preserve the integrity of the Roman republic".

Now, Brutus was aware that this action constituted murder, at the very least. He was also friends with Caesar, so it's not like he murdered him because he was somehow psychologically damaged or insane. If you would have told him that murder is objectively wrong, he would have probably agreed with you. His thinking was perfectly rational given his circumstances; he simply valued the republic more highly than either his friend, or even his own life. From his point of view, killing Caesar was objectively the right thing to do -- which is precisely why it's not objective.

The moral facts you argue for are either descriptive, and therefore can't inform us how to act independently from our subjective evaluations of those facts. Or they are prescriptive and therefore subjective, meaning they're simply an appeal to value X.

If you're saying that moral facts are prescriptive and objective, you're breaking the is-ought-problem, which means you're either wrong or about to receive a nobel price

[Veritas Aequitas]

For me inter-subjectivity IS objectivity. Note my thread

I don't disagree with you that objectivity within the context of a system of knowledge is derived on the basis of inter-subjectivity; my point is that this is constrained to objective points of reference, i.e. "how things are (or were)", rather than "the value of things" or "how things should be". The latter can only be derived via subjective points of reference. As such, without referring to a particular subjective point of reference, we can say nothing about them objectively, other than that they are or were held by a particular subject.

As I had pointed out in the other post,
'how things are or were' or 'what things are or were' emerged from inter-subjectivity.

Re my earlier example if the >7 billion people [no babies] we to see [cognize] the moon, we will have 7+ billion unique realizations of the moon which are of course subjective.
To arrive at what is the objective moon is depended upon a specific FSR/FSK which is reinforced into the subsequent realization of the moon as 'real' which is ultimately based on intersubjective agreement.
For example a layperson will realize a common sense [real] moon, but he were to take a science-physics course and gaze at the moon, he will definitely realize a more realistic and objective moon than before; but this is objectivity is based on intersubjectivity.

For example, the following is an objective statement of fact as derived on the basis of a history FSK: "Brutus believed that it was his moral duty to kill Julius Caesar in order to preserve the integrity of the Roman republic".

Now, Brutus was aware that this action constituted murder, at the very least. He was also friends with Caesar, so it's not like he murdered him because he was somehow psychologically damaged or insane. If you would have told him that murder is objectively wrong, he would have probably agreed with you. His thinking was perfectly rational given his circumstances; he simply valued the republic more highly than either his friend, or even his own life. From his point of view, killing Caesar was objectively the right thing to do -- which is precisely why it's not objective.

The above is based on the history FSK and the political FSK and has no moral [per my definition] implication at all.
Given the historic and political circumstances and the psychological states of Caesar and Brutus then, the murder would happen.

If anyone has told Brutus then that murder is objectively wrong, his psychological state would not enable him to grasp the truth of it.
In addition, Brutus' inherent moral potential is not strong enough for him to be naturally moral in alignment with his inherent moral ought-not-ness-to-kill-human.

On the other hand, if Brutus' moral potential was very active like say Jesus' he would not have got involved in the political activities that ended with the killing of Caesar.

In the future scenario [say in 200 years time] if everyone on earth could achieve Jesus' moral competency there would be no 'Caesar' for a 'Brutus' to kill, no killings of humans by anyone.

The moral facts you argue for are either descriptive, and therefore can't inform us how to act independently from our subjective evaluations of those facts. Or they are prescriptive and therefore subjective, meaning they're simply an appeal to value X.

If you're saying that moral facts are prescriptive and objective, you're breaking the is-ought-problem, which means you're either wrong or about to receive a nobel price

The moral facts that I argued for are firstly verifiable and justifiable within the scientific FSK, thus are objective scientific facts, and thereafter are subjected to the moral FSK to become objective moral facts.

These objective moral facts are objective but they are not prescriptive especially from an external authority, society, customs, laws, etc.
Rather they are merely guide for one personal moral development such that one spontaneously be moral without any coercion from third parties at all.

Btw, it is too late to apply the above principle to the majority at present because their present state of moral competence or moral quotient is still very low and it take generations to achieve an effective average moral quotient within humanity.

What is critical is for the average humans at present to realize the existence of objective moral facts within the individual person and strive to realize its potential in future [not present] generations.

Many has argued against Hume's 'no ought from is' since he first introduced it, which was mainly directed at oughts imposed by theists based on God commands plus his argument that ideas & impressions from matter-of-fact cannot be facts.

Since then, many had directed attention to the natural facts of moral 'oughtness' that are inherent and intrinsic within human nature. So it is nothing new except you could be ignorant of such objective moral facts.
Hume actually had some intuitive sense of such objective moral fact within each individual but during his time, did not have access to the more advanced knowledge we have now.

From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39196

[Alexander_Reiswich]

These objective moral facts are objective but they are not prescriptive especially from an external authority, society, customs, laws, etc.
Rather they are merely guide for one personal moral development such that one spontaneously be moral without any coercion from third parties at all.

That's okay, but in this case your argument is a mundane one. You're simply saying that when we consider the interests of humanity as a whole (on the basis of human nature), it becomes possible to identify preferable behavior which, when adopted by every human, would ultimately lead to a preferable higher level of human existence.

This idea is ancient. But it's like saying "it's an objective fact that being rich is better than being poor" -- yeah, it sure is. But the question is how do we get from here to there?

The point of an objective moral system is to inform people how to make better, more moral decisions on a very fine-grained, low level, such that it can be used in our daily lives. It's not terribly helpful to say that murder and incest are bad because science says so. Murders don't happen because people don't know that murder is immoral, but despite it. In other words, complex personal circumstances cause people to pursue immoral choices. But often times, these choices, when viewed on their own, can hardly be considered immoral -- but they slowly lead to more and more trouble over time.

There are two basic ways in which objective Morality could be actually useful:

1) By presenting a complex and diverse collection of "facts" or instructions which can be applied to a variety of real-life circumstances and thus help individuals to make better life-choices

2) By providing a mental framework that allows individuals to derive the preferable choice in any given circumstance

If objective moral facts do neither of those, then they really are no different from an "oughtness to be rich".

[Veritas Aequitas]

These objective moral facts are objective but they are not prescriptive especially from an external authority, society, customs, laws, etc.
Rather they are merely guide for one personal moral development such that one spontaneously be moral without any coercion from third parties at all.

That's okay, but in this case your argument is a mundane one. You're simply saying that when we consider the interests of humanity as a whole (on the basis of human nature), it becomes possible to identify preferable behavior which, when adopted by every human, would ultimately lead to a preferable higher level of human existence.

This idea is ancient. But it's like saying "it's an objective fact that being rich is better than being poor" -- yeah, it sure is. But the question is how do we get from here to there?

What I propose is not ancient because there was no knowledge of the neurosciences in the ancient days.
The Ten Commandment when introduced was right on target INTUITIVELY re human nature & morality with 'Thou Shall Not Kill. period!
But the theological FSK that was relied upon is not credible and its objectivity is negligible given God is illusory.

What I had proposed all along is the objective moral facts or moral standards must be based on the credible scientific FSK and moral FSK.

The point is, before you start to get from here to there, you must have solid grounds [objective moral facts] to stand on 'here' before going 'there'.

This is why we must consider the PURE and APPLIED aspects of Morality & Ethics.

The point of an objective moral system is to inform people how to make better, more moral decisions on a very fine-grained, low level, such that it can be used in our daily lives.
It's not terribly helpful to say that murder and incest are bad because science says so. Murders don't happen because people don't know that murder is immoral, but despite it. In other words, complex personal circumstances cause people to pursue immoral choices. But often times, these choices, when viewed on their own, can hardly be considered immoral -- but they slowly lead to more and more trouble over time.

There are two basic ways in which objective Morality could be actually useful:

1) By presenting a complex and diverse collection of "facts" or instructions which can be applied to a variety of real-life circumstances and thus help individuals to make better life-choices

2) By providing a mental framework that allows individuals to derive the preferable choice in any given circumstance

If objective moral facts do neither of those, then they really are no different from an "oughtness to be rich".

The point is for an objective moral system to be effective, there must be objective moral facts as standards to guide moral progress.

It is definitely more objective, effective and helpful "to say that murder and incest are bad because science [& the credible moral FSK] says so" than 'because my God said so' or my elders, customs, common sense, etc. said so.

Your proposed 1 and 2 solutions are good ideas but they have to be grounded against fixed goal posts, i.e. objective moral facts [standards] from the credible scientific and moral FSKs, else anything goes.

In our current phase of evolution [2023 to 2073] we may have to rely on effective moral judgments against objective moral standards.

However humanity must strive towards the future [2100 onwards] without relying too much on making moral judgments*, in this case, humans will be in a natural moral state where their moral actions are spontaneous without having to make any conscious moral judgments like those of the Trolley Problem and the likes.

*at times it is too late to wait for a moral judgment to be made. Everyone then will need to have a moral apps, ask an AI or google for help in their moral judgments?

As I had proposed whatever is deemed objective moral facts within the scientific and moral FSK, they are represented by physical moral mechanisms in the brain comprising neurons, neural algorithms, genes, DNA and quarks.

I am optimistic with our current trend of the exponential expansion of the neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, etc. we will have the capabilities to tune [improve the effectiveness of] the physical moral mechanisms within the moral faculty that will enable the average person to be in a natural competent moral state to act morally spontaneously without resorting to moral judgments upon moral dilemmas.

In addition, humanity will strive to a state where there are minimal situations where one has to make any moral judgments at all because the majority of humans are "good". For example if every human has cultivated a pacifist state and are morally good, then no one will have any impulse to kill or harm another human.
Being human, there will be exceptions but they will be rare.