What could make morality objective?

[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.

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?

I've explained a thousand times why your argument is fallacious. Perhaps you won't say the following is a straw man.

Premise: 'Being entangled in the human conditions' and 'being conditioned upon a credible framework and system of knowledge' are necessary condition for 'being a fact'.

Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts.

The premise is false, but even if it were true, the conclusion doesn't follow.

[Skepdick]

I've explained a thousand times why your argument is fallacious.

You haven't explained even once why we ought to strive for non-fallacious arguments.

It's almost as if there exists an implicit ought in your thoughts and in your words.

Does that make morality objective; or...?

[Peter Holmes]

There are practical reasons for why we value what we call truth, validity and soundness, and for why we tend to use signs in more or less standard ways. But I certainly don't claim that we ought to have these values and use signs in the ways we do. Does anyone here think differently? (Moral judgements about consequences are, as always, a separate matter.)

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

I'd be cautious about that sentence because it's probably not easy to have a singular item that is the only necessary condition for something other than itself. As we'd normally do a Venn diagram to explain the concept, I just made the horrible mistake of doing a google image search for one to pinch. It did not go well, so here's one just stolen from Wikipedia which is a bit boring.

NandSC.PNG

I hope nobody here is colour blind :/

I should have more to say, but I'm removing most of my reply because I am having difficulty with quality control. I fear the shoddy logic displayed by most of those google image searches has infected me. I may need a lie down.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

I've explained a thousand times why your argument is fallacious. Perhaps you won't say the following is a straw man.

Premise: 'Being entangled in the human conditions' and 'being conditioned upon a credible framework and system of knowledge' are necessary condition for 'being a fact'.

Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts.

The premise is false, but even if it were true, the conclusion doesn't follow.

Yes, that is a strawman!

There are two senses of 'what is fact', i.e.

A. Facts as feature of reality, that is or are the case, state of affairs.
As I had argued, such facts-in-themselves independent of the human conditions are illusory, meaningless and literally nonsense. see,'
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577


B: FSK Conditioned Facts
1. Facts as in Scientific Facts which are conditioned upon a specific FSK, thus entangled with the human conditions.

2. Whatever is a fact is conditioned upon its specific FSK [collective], i.e. independent from any any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgments, so, it is objective.

3. There are objective moral facts which are conditioned upon the moral FSK. Since all the material inputs into the moral FSK are from the scientific FSK [empirical], the moral facts are as near-objective as the scientific facts.

[Skepdick]

There are practical reasons for why we value what we call truth, validity and soundness, and for why we tend to use signs in more or less standard ways.

Ohhh. You've worked your way up to "practical reasons" now, have you?

OK...

There are practical reasons for why we value standards and standardization.
There are practical reasons for why we value our standards for what we call "wrong" and "objective".
There are practical reasons for why we value our standard on murder being considered objectively wrong.
There are practical reasons for why we value our standard of considering it an objective fact that murder is wrong.

Dumb. Fucking. Philosopher.

[Peter Holmes]

Some tips for the intellectually challenged.

1 The expression objective fact is a redundancy.

2 Some people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is morally wrong. Other people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is not morally wrong. Subtract 'people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that)' on either side, and the moral opinion stands out clearly: abortion is/is not morally wrong.

3 Morons who think there's a fact of the matter that can settle this disagreement need to produce the goods - the fact of the matter - or shut the fuck up.

4 Tip. There is no fact of the matter, so shut the fuck up. Or just carry on vomiting offensive bile to drown some deep inadequacy in the soul.

[Skepdick]

Some tips for the intellectually challenged.

1 The expression objective fact is a redundancy.

Some tips for the dumb fucking philosopher. The expression "objective morality" is also a redundancy.

Either the noun "morality" refers to some existent(s) which makes the qualifier "objective" redundant; or you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Given your inability to comprehend the (redundant) objectivity of morality I am going of the latter.

2 Some people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is morally wrong. Other people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is not morally wrong. Subtract 'people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that)' on either side, and the moral opinion stands out clearly: abortion is/is not morally wrong.

3 Morons who think there's a fact of the matter that can settle this disagreement need to produce the goods - the fact of the matter - or shut the fuck up.

Obviously. Because we haven't yet established the fact on the matter. Whereas with murder the facts have already been established. The debate is over. There's broad consensus on the issue for over 2500 years

Which is why we have tautologously defined "murder" as a "wrongful killing"; and why we haven't defined "abortion" as "wrongful termination of pregnancy".

If abortion was morally wrong the word "wrong" (or some other moral assertion) would be in the fucking definition!

Dumb fucking philosopher!

4 Tip. There is no fact of the matter, so shut the fuck up.

In my field of expertise (epistemology) absolute negative claims carry the ultimate burden of proof!

So... burden yourself and prove it.

But of course, you are just a dumb fucking philosopher, and you are just going to side-step the issue in some sophist manner.

Or just carry on vomiting offensive bile to drown some deep inadequacy in the soul.

But... you said... that only non-physical entities don't exist! So what or where is a "soul"?!? Don't tell me you believe in such mythical and mystical nonsense. So how could my soul posess any "inadequacy" if I don't have a soul?

You dumb fucking philosopher!

[Skepdick]

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.

I'd be cautious about that sentence because it's probably not easy to have a singular item that is the only necessary condition for something other than itself. As we'd normally do a Venn diagram to explain the concept, I just made the horrible mistake of doing a google image search for one to pinch. It did not go well, so here's one just stolen from Wikipedia which is a bit boring.

NandSC.PNG
I hope nobody here is colour blind :/

I should have more to say, but I'm removing most of my reply because I am having difficulty with quality control. I fear the shoddy logic displayed by most of those google image searches has infected me. I may need a lie down.

Another idiot philosopher who doesn't know how to navigate issues of necessity and sufficiency.

Here's a bone on the kind of people who actually do have a clue; and the sort of reasoning they engage in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics

Reverse mathematics is a program in mathematical logic that seeks to determine which axioms are required to prove theorems of mathematics. Its defining method can briefly be described as "going backwards from the theorems to the axioms", in contrast to the ordinary mathematical practice of deriving theorems from axioms. It can be conceptualized as sculpting out necessary conditions from sufficient ones.

Peter Holmes's entire shpiel is that he has neither necessary nor sufficient criteria for "objective morality". He hasn't even set the bar too high.

Peter Holmes has no bar, but he's making everyone jump. Jump higher, muppet, jump higher!

[CIN]

What or where is a "fact itself"; or "facts themselves"? Show me some facts without telling me about them.

You're arguing like this:
1. Telling about a fact requires minds.
2. Therefore facts require minds.
I hope you see the invalidity. If you don't, then you and I are done here.

[Skepdick]

What or where is a "fact itself"; or "facts themselves"? Show me some facts without telling me about them.

You're arguing like this:
1. Telling about a fact requires minds.
2. Therefore facts require minds.
I hope you see the invalidity. If you don't, then you and I are done here.

Then thank you for being done and saving me from wasting my time.

For it would be a waste of time talking with anyone who holds the belief that both reality and facts about reality exist outside of minds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some tips for the intellectually challenged.

1 The expression objective fact is a redundancy.

2 Some people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is morally wrong. Other people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is not morally wrong. Subtract 'people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that)' on either side, and the moral opinion stands out clearly: abortion is/is not morally wrong.

3 Morons who think there's a fact of the matter that can settle this disagreement need to produce the goods - the fact of the matter - or shut the fuck up.

4 Tip. There is no fact of the matter, so shut the fuck up. Or just carry on vomiting offensive bile to drown some deep inadequacy in the soul.

You are kicking your own arse with the above with the above babblings.

You are the one who is indeed 'intellectual challenged' in a way you never challenge your intellect in sticking to narrow, shallow and dogmatic ideology.

I have presented there are two senses of 'what is fact'.

Your what is fact is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.
Prove this otherwise?
But you have never done so other than babbling about it.
As an "intellectual challenged" you have not provided a single or necessary references to support your ideology.

The term objective fact is not redundant with reference to the realistic facts.
Point is scientific facts are more objective than legal or history facts.

Anyone who assert 'abortion is morally wrong' without any factual nor empirical evidence for it is not realistic nor it is related to morality proper.
Morality-proper is not involved with the concept of primarily 'right' or 'wrong'.
In addition, morality-proper is not about enforcing rules on any individual[s], that is politics.
Your relating abortion-is-wrong to laws or views to morality-proper is not acceptable nor realistic.

Empathy is an essential element of morality-proper,
empathic impulses are driven partly by mirror-neurons,
mirror neurons are physical elements in the brain,
mirror neurons are a matter of fact as conditioned upon the science-biology-neuroscience FSK which is objective.
Therefore morality [in this sense] is objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Some tips for the intellectually challenged.

1 The expression objective fact is a redundancy.

2 Some people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is morally wrong. Other people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is not morally wrong. Subtract 'people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that)' on either side, and the moral opinion stands out clearly: abortion is/is not morally wrong.

3 Morons who think there's a fact of the matter that can settle this disagreement need to produce the goods - the fact of the matter - or shut the fuck up.

4 Tip. There is no fact of the matter, so shut the fuck up. Or just carry on vomiting offensive bile to drown some deep inadequacy in the soul.

You are kicking your own arse with the above with the above babblings.

You are the one who is indeed 'intellectual challenged' in a way you never challenge your intellect in sticking to narrow, shallow and dogmatic ideology.

I have presented there are two senses of 'what is fact'.

Your what is fact is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.
Prove this otherwise?
But you have never done so other than babbling about it.
As an "intellectual challenged" you have not provided a single or necessary references to support your ideology.

The term objective fact is not redundant with reference to the realistic facts.
Point is scientific facts are more objective than legal or history facts.

Anyone who assert 'abortion is morally wrong' without any factual nor empirical evidence for it is not realistic nor it is related to morality proper.
Morality-proper is not involved with the concept of primarily 'right' or 'wrong'.
In addition, morality-proper is not about enforcing rules on any individual[s], that is politics.
Your relating abortion-is-wrong to laws or views to morality-proper is not acceptable nor realistic.

Empathy is an essential element of morality-proper,
empathic impulses are driven partly by mirror-neurons,
mirror neurons are physical elements in the brain,
mirror neurons are a matter of fact as conditioned upon the science-biology-neuroscience FSK which is objective.
Therefore morality [in this sense] is objective.

You haven't explained what you think a fact - a 'real fact'! - is. You've just said that it's a thing that can be known through a system of knowledge. Consider the uselessness of this: 'a geological fact is a thing that can be known via geology'. (Nul point.)

The expression objective fact is indeed redundant, because there's no such thing as a subjective fact. (Nul point.)

And your extension from a failed epistemology to morality is a joke, as ever. (Nul point.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some tips for the intellectually challenged.

1 The expression objective fact is a redundancy.

2 Some people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is morally wrong. Other people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that) abortion is not morally wrong. Subtract 'people have reasons for thinking (it's a fact that)' on either side, and the moral opinion stands out clearly: abortion is/is not morally wrong.

3 Morons who think there's a fact of the matter that can settle this disagreement need to produce the goods - the fact of the matter - or shut the fuck up.

4 Tip. There is no fact of the matter, so shut the fuck up. Or just carry on vomiting offensive bile to drown some deep inadequacy in the soul.

You are kicking your own arse with the above with the above babblings.

You are the one who is indeed 'intellectual challenged' in a way you never challenge your intellect in sticking to narrow, shallow and dogmatic ideology.

I have presented there are two senses of 'what is fact'.

Your what is fact is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.
Prove this otherwise?
But you have never done so other than babbling about it.
As an "intellectual challenged" you have not provided a single or necessary references to support your ideology.

The term objective fact is not redundant with reference to the realistic facts.
Point is scientific facts are more objective than legal or history facts.

Anyone who assert 'abortion is morally wrong' without any factual nor empirical evidence for it is not realistic nor it is related to morality proper.
Morality-proper is not involved with the concept of primarily 'right' or 'wrong'.
In addition, morality-proper is not about enforcing rules on any individual[s], that is politics.
Your relating abortion-is-wrong to laws or views to morality-proper is not acceptable nor realistic.

Empathy is an essential element of morality-proper,
empathic impulses are driven partly by mirror-neurons,
mirror neurons are physical elements in the brain,
mirror neurons are a matter of fact as conditioned upon the science-biology-neuroscience FSK which is objective.
Therefore morality [in this sense] is objective.

You haven't explained what you think a fact - a 'real fact'! - is. You've just said that it's a thing that can be known through a system of knowledge. Consider the uselessness of this: 'a geological fact is a thing that can be known via geology'. (Nul point.)

The expression objective fact is indeed redundant, because there's no such thing as a subjective fact. (Nul point.)

And your extension from a failed epistemology to morality is a joke, as ever. (Nul point.)

I have already argued there are no real facts as you defined it.

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

Strawman!
I have never made the following claim;
"You've just said that it's a thing that can be known through a system of knowledge."

What I have claimed is to be real, a thing must be cognized and realized via a Framework and System of Knowledge with its degree of objectivity.

No Subjective Fact??
Just google to note the point, e.g.

The Objective Status of Subjective Facts
https://philarchive.org/archive/SANTOS-3

And your extension from a failed epistemology to morality is a joke, as ever. (Nul point.)

My hope is you will continue to be stuck in your silo and disagrees with my justifications on why moral is objective.
If you or most agree with my views, there will no leverage and motivation for me to learn more and expand my knowledge on the subject of morality and ethics.

So far, my folder for Morality and Ethics has expanded from a minimal few to >1500 files in 91 Main and sub-folders. Have to thank you for that and also one of Sculptor's insulting prompt.

[Peter Holmes]

VA has quoted approvingly the following passage by Kant:

'Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.

We could never find them [Laws of Nature] in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.'

Kant in CPR A125

And I think this neatly demonstrates how Kant repackaged an ancient and fundamental delusion: mistaking what we say about things for the way things are. And it's easy to refute Kant's argument.

1 If there are no things-in-themselves (noumena), then it makes no sense to say that all we can perceive and (therefore) know are appearances (phenomena). Of what are appearances appearances? If we demolish one pole of a dichotomy, it's no longer a dichotomy.

2 If all we can perceive and (therefore) know are appearances (phenomena), we can't know that there are no things-in-themselves (noumena). That claim is contradictory or incoherent.

3 For Kant, the dualist belief that a mind is a non-physical substance - a noumenon - involves special pleading. But if a mind is just an appearance, like everything else, it makes no sense to say this particular appearance (the mind) imposes order and regularity on all the other appearances.

4 We have to perceive, know and describe reality - to 'order' nature - in a human way. But that doesn't mean reality had or has no 'order' before or unless we perceive, know and describe it in the ways we do or can. But that fallacious deduction - even if it's a misconstrual of Kant - and I don't think it is - continues to sucker people, including VA.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.