What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's an argument.

Premise: Humans create all facts.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts.

The premise is false. But even if it were true, the conclusion doesn't follow, because the existence of specifically moral facts is the issue. VA's excursion into quantum mechanics is down yet another blind alley.

And a moral conclusion, such as 'Therefore, X is morally wrong' - obviously doesn't and can't follow.

Strawman again!! this is the "millionth" time.

My argument is this;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. All FSKs are managed and sustained by humans.
3. The most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK which is Objective.
4. The science-QM FSK clearly demonstrated the necessity of the human conditions.

As such there are no facts [PH's] that are independent of the human conditions.

5. There is the moral FSK which general moral facts [1 & 2]
6. My proposed moral FSK has near credibility to the scientific FSK [because the majority of its input into the system are scientific facts.
7. Thus are objective moral facts and so, morality is objective. [OP -QED]

Points 1 and 4-7 are false, so this argument is useless.

You asserted 1 is false because to you 'facts' are feature of reality [that is the case, state of affairs] which not conditioned upon any FSK but rather are independent of the human conditions.

I have argued your definition of 'what is fact' as above is false in alignment with reality [all-there-is].

Since you insist 1 is false, then you are claiming scientific facts are false? Yes or No?
Note;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. Scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

Strawman again!! this is the "millionth" time.

My argument is this;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. All FSKs are managed and sustained by humans.
3. The most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK which is Objective.
4. The science-QM FSK clearly demonstrated the necessity of the human conditions.

As such there are no facts [PH's] that are independent of the human conditions.

5. There is the moral FSK which general moral facts [1 & 2]
6. My proposed moral FSK has near credibility to the scientific FSK [because the majority of its input into the system are scientific facts.
7. Thus are objective moral facts and so, morality is objective. [OP -QED]

Points 1 and 4-7 are false, so this argument is useless.

You asserted 1 is false because to you 'facts' are feature of reality [that is the case, state of affairs] which not conditioned upon any FSK but rather are independent of the human conditions.

I have argued your definition of 'what is fact' as above is false in alignment with reality [all-there-is].

Since you insist 1 is false, then you are claiming scientific facts are false? Yes or No?
Note;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. Scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

I'll explain your mistake using the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

1 'Being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. For example, we don't know everything about quantum reality. So there are quantum facts that we don't know. And, for example, we constantly discover new species - new life forms. So those species were existing features of reality (facts) even though they were unknown.

Obviously, if a condition is not necessary, then it can't possibly be sufficient. So your claim that 'existing within a framework and system of knowledge' is a sufficient condition for 'being a fact' is patently false.

2 By exactly the same reasoning as in 1, 'being described' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact' - because there are undescribed facts, just as there are unknown facts. But, of course, a description is always contextual - so 'being in a context' is a necessary condition for 'being a description'. And this fact is what has confused and bedazzled you.

3 The only necessary (and therefore sufficient) condition for 'being a fact' is 'being a feature of reality that is or was the case'. And neither knowledge nor description has anything to do with that condition.

As I've been saying all along, muddling up the three radically different things - what is or was the case, what we believe and know about it, and what we say about it - is the source of your mistake, as it is of most if not all philosophical confusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

I call to order a meeting of the members of VA's foes list! Only people who he can't read should interfere with this aside.

Let's open a book on whether he knows enough to correct Pete's necessity and sufficiency mistake there? I'm betting that he can't do it, even if Skepdick helps him out.

[Skepdick]

Let's open a book on whether he knows enough to correct Pete's necessity and sufficiency mistake there?

You are as confused as ever.

What the hell is a "mistake" in a world without objective right and wrong?

At best VA could merely change Pete's view/perspective; or behaviour. But "correcting" him is a really big word in a world without objective morality...

Is this your way of telling us you've switched to team objective morality; or something?

[Peter Holmes]

I call to order a meeting of the members of VA's foes list! Only people who he can't read should interfere with this aside.

Let's open a book on whether he knows enough to correct Pete's necessity and sufficiency mistake there? I'm betting that he can't do it, even if Skepdick helps him out.

Flash, please point out my mistake, cos I'd like to correct it.

[Skepdick]

Flash, please point out my mistake, cos I'd like to correct it.

Look! Another person seems to have joined the objective morality bus!

Is it actually a "mistake"; or is it it just what FlashDangerpants says about it!

In a world absent of objective right and wrong there's no need to correct yourself because you aren't objectively wrong; or mistaken.

[FlashDangerpants]

Points 1 and 4-7 are false, so this argument is useless.

You asserted 1 is false because to you 'facts' are feature of reality [that is the case, state of affairs] which not conditioned upon any FSK but rather are independent of the human conditions.

I have argued your definition of 'what is fact' as above is false in alignment with reality [all-there-is].

Since you insist 1 is false, then you are claiming scientific facts are false? Yes or No?
Note;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. Scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

I'll explain your mistake using the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

1 'Being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. For example, we don't know everything about quantum reality. So there are quantum facts that we don't know. And, for example, we constantly discover new species - new life forms. So those species were existing features of reality (facts) even though they were unknown.

Obviously, if a condition is not necessary, then it can't possibly be sufficient. So your claim that 'existing within a framework and system of knowledge' is a sufficient condition for 'being a fact' is patently false.

2 By exactly the same reasoning as in 1, 'being described' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact' - because there are undescribed facts, just as there are unknown facts. But, of course, a description is always contextual - so 'being in a context' is a necessary condition for 'being a description'. And this fact is what has confused and bedazzled you.

3 The only necessary (and therefore sufficient) condition for 'being a fact' is 'being a feature of reality that is or was the case'. And neither knowledge nor description has anything to do with that condition.

As I've been saying all along, muddling up the three radically different things - what is or was the case, what we believe and know about it, and what we say about it - is the source of your mistake, as it is of most if not all philosophical confusion.

You gotta give me points for knowing Skepdick wouldn't be any use

3 is the problem. A condition can just as easily be necessary but not sufficient as it can be sufficient but not necessary.

So sufficieny without necessity is a common problem with the evolution based moral arguments for instance, where somebody tries to explain how biological factors caused a group of monkeys to form a society and then evolution turned them into apes with "mirror neurons" and then blah blah blah ... it can be a sufficient account of how morality as we understand it came into being, it can be that and it can true even, but what it can't be is necessary and sufficient unless some other argument shows how it could not come about any other way.

Necessity without sufficiency is I think much more rare, sadly I can't think of a common type of argument that suffers from it, but if it's true that factuality necessarily requires that there be some assertible condition about the world, that necessary condition wouldn't be sufficient if it also was necessary that the assertible condition was descriptively accurate, however if those two factors are necessary and in combination that is enough, then sufficiency and necessity has been arrived at.

So that's my entire quibble, You could potentially argue that being 'being a feature of reality that is or was the case' is both necessary and sufficient for factuality, but you can't arrive there simply by way of it being necessary, the sufficiency still requires explanation in its own right.

[Skepdick]

You gotta give me points for knowing Skepdick wouldn't be any use

You can have all the points in the world after you make your utility function explicit.

[Peter Holmes]

You asserted 1 is false because to you 'facts' are feature of reality [that is the case, state of affairs] which not conditioned upon any FSK but rather are independent of the human conditions.

I have argued your definition of 'what is fact' as above is false in alignment with reality [all-there-is].

Since you insist 1 is false, then you are claiming scientific facts are false? Yes or No?
Note;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. Scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

I'll explain your mistake using the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

1 'Being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. For example, we don't know everything about quantum reality. So there are quantum facts that we don't know. And, for example, we constantly discover new species - new life forms. So those species were existing features of reality (facts) even though they were unknown.

Obviously, if a condition is not necessary, then it can't possibly be sufficient. So your claim that 'existing within a framework and system of knowledge' is a sufficient condition for 'being a fact' is patently false.

2 By exactly the same reasoning as in 1, 'being described' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact' - because there are undescribed facts, just as there are unknown facts. But, of course, a description is always contextual - so 'being in a context' is a necessary condition for 'being a description'. And this fact is what has confused and bedazzled you.

3 The only necessary (and therefore sufficient) condition for 'being a fact' is 'being a feature of reality that is or was the case'. And neither knowledge nor description has anything to do with that condition.

As I've been saying all along, muddling up the three radically different things - what is or was the case, what we believe and know about it, and what we say about it - is the source of your mistake, as it is of most if not all philosophical confusion.

You gotta give me points for knowing Skepdick wouldn't be any use

3 is the problem. A condition can just as easily be necessary but not sufficient as it can be sufficient but not necessary.

So sufficieny without necessity is a common problem with the evolution based moral arguments for instance, where somebody tries to explain how biological factors caused a group of monkeys to form a society and then evolution turned them into apes with "mirror neurons" and then blah blah blah ... it can be a sufficient account of how morality as we understand it came into being, it can be that and it can true even, but what it can't be is necessary and sufficient unless some other argument shows how it could not come about any other way.
Necessity without sufficiency is I think much more rare, sadly I can't think of a common type of argument that suffers from it, but if it's true that factuality necessarily requires that there be some assertible condition about the world, that necessary condition wouldn't be sufficient if it also was necessary that the assertible condition was descriptively accurate, however if those two factors are necessary and in combination that is enough, then sufficiency and necessity has been arrived at.

So that's my entire quibble, You could potentially argue that being 'being a feature of reality that is or was the case' is both necessary and sufficient for factuality, but you can't arrive there simply by way of it being necessary, the sufficiency still requires explanation in its own right.

Thanks. I need to work on the necessity/sufficiency issue - and that helps. Is this the point? -

That A is the only necessary condition for B may (does?) not mean that A is a sufficient condition for B.

And yep - the dick troll doesn't even understand that, like good and bad, right and wrong have both moral and non-moral uses. So few expectations there.

[Skepdick]

And yep - the dick troll doesn't even understand that, like good and bad, right and wrong have both moral and non-moral uses. So few expectations there.

[Skepdick]

And yep - the dick troll doesn't even understand that, like good and bad, right and wrong have both moral and non-moral uses. So few expectations there.

Please, please, please explain to us why one ought to avoid being bad/wrong and strive for being good/right in the non-moral use of those terms.

Please, please, please explain to us why one ought to correct a mistake in the non-moral use of those terms.

Dumb . Fucking . Philosopher .

[Veritas Aequitas]

Points 1 and 4-7 are false, so this argument is useless.

You asserted 1 is false because to you 'facts' are feature of reality [that is the case, state of affairs] which not conditioned upon any FSK but rather are independent of the human conditions.

I have argued your definition of 'what is fact' as above is false in alignment with reality [all-there-is].

Since you insist 1 is false, then you are claiming scientific facts are false? Yes or No?
Note;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. Scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

I'll explain your mistake using the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

1 'Being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. For example, we don't know everything about quantum reality. So there are quantum facts that we don't know. And, for example, we constantly discover new species - new life forms. So those species were existing features of reality (facts) even though they were unknown.

Obviously, if a condition is not necessary, then it can't possibly be sufficient. So your claim that 'existing within a framework and system of knowledge' is a sufficient condition for 'being a fact' is patently false.

Strawman! and you are equivocating the term 'fact' in the above.

Where did I state ''Being known' IS a necessary condition for 'being a fact'.
I stated "All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK" or FSR [Reality].
When conditioned upon a specific FSK, whatever is fact is an emergence, realization with cognition, then it is known and subsequently described.

If Necessary and Sufficient [not my preference], then the emergence, realization with cognition within a FSK is a sufficient condition for being a FSK-conditioned-fact.

As such quantum facts are science-QM-FSK conditioned facts.

There is no such things as unknown quantum facts, but rather they are speculated of quantum hypotheses conditioned upon the science-QM-FSK.
Facts are quantum-facts ONLY when they are conditioned upon the science-QM-FSK accordingly.

Note Model Dependent Realism: It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.

Note "meaningless' or rather nonsense.
To insist there are facts independent of the human conditions is chasing after illusion.

Your sense of what is fact is illusory! Note this thread;
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

What you deemed as facts pre-exist independently by themselves, i.e. things-in-themselves, independent of the human conditions.
Your sort of independent facts are merely thoughts-in-your-brain, they don't exists as real but rather they are illusions.

In your sense of what is fact, there is always a REALITY-GAP
between what is supposedly your pre-existing facts out there independent of human conditions
AND what it is known via Science, etc.

To bridge this REALITY_GAP some sort of correspondence activity is necessary, i.e. what you know [via science or other means] does mirror or correspond to what is supposed to be the independent real fact out there. You deny you accept the Correspondence Theory of Truth, but you have no choice but to mirror what is out there based on your definition of what is fact.

2 By exactly the same reasoning as in 1, 'being described' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact' - because there are undescribed facts, just as there are unknown facts. But, of course, a description is always contextual - so 'being in a context' is a necessary condition for 'being a description'. And this fact is what has confused and bedazzled you.

Strawman again.
I never state being described is necessary condition for being a fact.
That a lemon taste sour need not be described to be a fact, but what is critical is the emergence, realization with cognition and experienced is sufficient as a 'fact', a shared-fact when subjected to a FSK as a sufficient condition for being a FSK-conditioned-fact.

3 The only necessary (and therefore sufficient) condition for 'being a fact' is 'being a feature of reality that is or was the case'. And neither knowledge nor description has anything to do with that condition.

As I stated your sense of fact is illusory -there is no feature of reality that in independent of the human conditions. Thus your point is moot.

Read up this thread
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
to understand 'what is fact' in the realistic sense.

As I've been saying all along, muddling up the three radically different things -
1. what is or was the case,
2. what we believe and know about it, and
3. what we say about it
- is the source of your mistake, as it is of most if not all philosophical confusion.

I have countered you what is fact is its three aspects.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

[Peter Holmes]

I stated "All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK" or FSR [Reality].
When conditioned upon a specific FSK, whatever is fact is an emergence, realization with cognition, then it is known and subsequently described.

False. Any description - any truth-claim - is contextual. But, for example, quantum reality existed before we knew about and described it. Quantum reality didn't 'emerge' with our knowledge of it.

So 'being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. Knowledge doesn't produce facts - that's cart-before-horseshit.

[Skepdick]

False. Any description - any truth-claim - is contextual. But, for example, quantum reality existed before we knew about and described it.

Now is a good time to explain your use of words... I know what you are refering to when you use the word "reality".

I have absolutely no fucking clue what you are saying when you say "reality exists". Which feature; or property of reality is its "existence"?

The dictionary is of no help here.

exist Learn to pronounce have objective reality or being.

But this can't possibly how you are using the word "exists" unless you are trying to tell us that "reality has objective reality"

It's a bit circular.

So 'being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'.

Being known is a necessary condition for communicating; or expressing a fact, but please feel free to tell us about some facts you don't know about.

Knowledge doesn't produce facts - that's cart-before-horseshit.

Yes, it does. There is nothing to be said about unknown facts, but I am willing to be shown wrong.

Please tell us some facts you don't know.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated "All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK" or FSR [Reality].
When conditioned upon a specific FSK, whatever is fact is an emergence, realization with cognition, then it is known and subsequently described.

False. Any description - any truth-claim - is contextual. But, for example, quantum reality existed before we knew about and described it. Quantum reality didn't 'emerge' with our knowledge of it.

So 'being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. Knowledge doesn't produce facts - that's cart-before-horseshit.

See my explanation here;
viewtopic.php?p=624807#p624807

and here;
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

What are your counters to the above?