What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral realists and objectivists can't answer the following questions without expressing moral opinions, which are necessarily subjective.

1 What constitutes good and evil - or moral rightness and wrongness?

2 Why should we promote good and avoid evil?

An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. And there are no factual answers, with truth-value, to these questions - which is why moral realism and objectivism are irrational.

'Good' [well-being, flourishing] is a very loose term that is applicable to all aspects of human life.
As such, my specific is, we avoid evil [primarily] to promote good [secondary].
I think 'promote' may be misleading, I should say 'enable' or sustain whatever is good.

As I pointed out, there are two senses of 'what is fact' and you're are banking on facts that are illusory, meaningless and nonsense. see,

PH's "What is Fact" is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You did not counter/ address this claim of mine,
because you're an intellectual coward?

[Agent Smith]

I guess the answer lies somewhere between the 6th century and the 21st century.

P. S. I'm bad with dates.

[Peter Holmes]

It's a fact that some people think capital punishment is morally wrong. But that doesn't make it a fact that capital punishment is morally wrong. Der.

It's also a fact that some people think capital punishment is not morally wrong. But that doesn't make it a fact that capital punishment is not morally wrong. Der.

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions. And it's a fact that people have opinions. Der.

And as for unknown facts - wait for the next discovery of a species - and, hey presto, its existence was an unknown fact. Being known is not a necessary condition for being a fact. Der.

[Skepdick]

It's a fact that some people think capital punishment is morally wrong. But that doesn't make it a fact that capital punishment is morally wrong. Der.

It's a fact that some people think that this color is red. But that doesn't make it a fact that this color is red. Der.

It's also a fact that some people think capital punishment is not morally wrong. But that doesn't make it a fact that capital punishment is not morally wrong. Der.

It's also a fact that some people think that this color is not red. But that doesn't make it a fact that this color is not red. Der.

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions. And it's a fact that people have opinions. Der.

The opinion that this color is red became a fact when everyone agreed to the use of the term "red" to speak about this color.

All symbols (inclusing the symbol "fact") are grounded only by consensus, so factuallity can never be divorced from our linguistic practices and the social process of negotiating meaning and language!

If we decided that this geometric pattern is what we colloquially call a "triangle" then it would be a fact that Earth is triangular!

spheroid.jpeg

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's a fact that some people think capital punishment is morally wrong. But that doesn't make it a fact that capital punishment is morally wrong. Der.

It's also a fact that some people think capital punishment is not morally wrong. But that doesn't make it a fact that capital punishment is not morally wrong. Der.

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions. And it's a fact that people have opinions. Der.

And as for unknown facts - wait for the next discovery of a species - and, hey presto, its existence was an unknown fact. Being known is not a necessary condition for being a fact. Der.

You are too hasty here before establish what is a fact in reality.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

Your sense of what is fact is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical;
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Within the Moral FSK, there are objective moral facts.
One of this moral fact is 'the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans; this is a moral standard as a guide.
It is a political fact, there are Laws on capital punishments and there are evidence humans are killed which is an evil act.

Morality is about avoiding evil to enable good.
In this case there is a moral variance against the ideal standard.
Humanity must strive to reduce this variance to ZERO human killed by humans via capital punishments.
The solution is to get rid of all laws on capital punishments holistically and optimally.

All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
A fact is knowable only when conditioned upon a specific FSK.
For example the astronomical fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet is conditioned by the astronomy FSK.
There was no unknown fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

This the same with the identification of a new species within a taxonomy by the science-biology FSK.

The idea of 'unknown fact' is merely a nonsensical term within your 'what is fact' which is illusory, meaningless, and nonsensical.

[Peter Holmes]

Before we discovered quantum events, they were unknown facts - unknown features of reality. So being known isn't a necessary condition for being a fact.

What sort of eejit would deny this? Ah, someone who's bought into a ridiculous epistemology-is-ontology delusion, and has to defend it against all reason.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Before we discovered quantum events, they were unknown facts - unknown features of reality. So being known isn't a necessary condition for being a fact.

What sort of eejit would deny this? Ah, someone who's bought into a ridiculous epistemology-is-ontology delusion, and has to defend it against all reason.

You deliberately ignored the following without any counter;

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

Your sense of what is fact is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical;
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

What you defined as fact is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.
It is as good as you saying there are unknown square-circle.

Science-QM facts are not your sort of 'facts' i.e. fact-in-itself which are illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.
A fact-in-itself is merely an intelligible* entity, not a real entity that can be realistically associated with the scientific-FSK.

• PHILOSOPHY:
  *intelligible: able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses.

That is why your intelligible fact-in-itself is literally nonsensical.

Science-QM facts are facts-by-Science-QM-FSK, they are only valid, sound and scientifically-real* when conditioned upon the Science-QM-FSK.

* note again, there is no 'real-in-itself' but 'real' only as conditioned upon a specific FSK.

this thread on what is conditional reality upon a specific FSK;
viewtopic.php?p=625743#p625743

So being known isn't a necessary condition for being a fact.

Strawman again.

As I had stated what is a FSK-Conditioned Fact comprise of the following phases;

1. The realization of the fact via a specific FSK that entangles with the human condition.
2. The realized FSK-conditioned-Fact is known
3. The realized then known fact is described in various ways.

There is no fact-in-itself as per your definition that is pre-existing and awaiting discovery by humans so they can know and describe it subsequently.

What is a real fact is a fact that emerges in entanglement within a specific FSK [with human conditions].
There is no fact-in-itself that pre-exists and is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Note this with QM-facts:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180&p=483487#p483487


Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

So with QM, there is no "unknown" moon [unknown fact] until we are "looking" at it because it doesn't exists.

[Skepdick]

Please provide us with even one such fact! A fact that nobody (not even you!) acknowledge.

Before we discovered quantum events, they were unknown facts - unknown features of reality. So being known isn't a necessary condition for being a fact.

So even with hindsight bias to your advantage you don't acknowledge quantum physics as factual?!?!?

Fucking idiot!

If you can't even comprehend a basic English question, the Mathematics of quantum physics are definitely above your intellect.

[Peter Holmes]

Before they were known about, there were no atoms.

And therefore, there are moral facts.

Sorted.

[Iwannaplato]

I repeat ... I do not associate morality with rightness and wrongness because these concepts are too loose for morality proper.
E.g. Hitler insist it is morally right to commit genocides of the Jews and others who do not agree with him.
Your sort of morality is corrupted with Hitler-liked moral subjectivities.

I had defined morality is about avoiding evil to promote good.

Morality deals with evil acts; empathy can mitigate evil acts; empathy is supported by mirror neurons which can be verified and justified by the scientific FSK which generate credible and reliable facts.
Thus, morality can be scientific and factual.

This is really strange. Morally is concerned with evil acts (not good ones?). Because Hitler said it was good to kill Jews, any morality is problematic. How do we know this? Because Hitler committed evil acts?
Mitigating evil acts is good. But then acts that mitigate evil acts would be good. Those that promote empathy would be good acts. But moralities based on good acts are bad because some people think bad acts are good acts. How do we demonstrate that VA's sense of good acts are not actually bad acts? Because they mitigate evil acts?

Well, that's what Hitler thought also.

VA points to mirror neurons and someone else could point to neurons involved in aggression.

So what we have is circular reasoning. It does not start with science. It focuses on those parts of science that point to things that VA thinks are good, like empathy. And doesn't point to things he doesn't like.

So, the foundation is what VA thinks is good.
Which is exactly what Hitler's morality starts with.

Nicely put. Moral realists and objectivists can't answer the following questions without expressing moral opinions, which are necessarily subjective.

1 What constitutes good and evil - or moral rightness and wrongness?

2 Why should we promote good and avoid evil?

An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. And there are no factual answers, with truth-value, to these questions - which is why moral realism and objectivism are irrational.

I think we can leave out the subjective/objective pair and the opinion/fact pair while pointing out the problems of his thinking there.

1) He is not accurately accounting for the chronology of his thinking. It is as if science is the foundation, the first steps, and we build from there to moral conclusions. But it's not how the process begins.

2) He's not safe from his own use of Hitler. It's pretty muddled, but it creates all sorts of problems.

I think there's a scattershot approach here. Throw A at it and then Q at it and then J at you or into the conflict mix. Imply some soft of order that isn't the order and don't feel/analyze into the possible contradictions between A, J and Q (with each other, with other things he has said). It's putting out fires crisis management. Anything at all that seems to go against your position is thrown at your position. After years, you'd think he could take a breath and go slow and check out the tools and arguments he is using. Every day it's another magic bullet starting a new thread. Take it easy VA.

In a way, however, I think it has led to some interesting mulling - at times. When everything + kitchen sink is dragged in to fight off the barbarians, even if it doesn't lead to a coherent position, it does...well, lead to mulling.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Before they were known about, there were no atoms.

And therefore, there are moral facts.

Sorted.

What sort of sorted critical thinking and logic is that??

All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
There were no fact-in-itself as atoms-in-themselves.
There is now facts of atoms as conditioned upon the science-chemistry-FSK.
Atoms do not exist by themselves absolutely.
The existence of atoms must be predicated explicitly or implicitly to the science-chemistry FSK.

Similarly there are no unqualified moral facts-in-themselves.
One of the critical elements of morality is empathy; empathy is linked to mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are represented by physical elements which can be verified via the scientific FSK and thereupon inputted into the moral FSK enabling objective moral facts.
This is one verification and justification of the existence of objective moral facts, thus in general morality is objective.

In addition to the above verification and justification, there are loads of other moral elements that can be traceable to its physical correlates via the scientific FSK and therefrom to the moral FSK enabling objective moral facts.

Morality-proper is not about rightness or wrongness of supposedly moral opinions, beliefs and judgment.

[Skepdick]

Before they were known about, there were no atoms.

Fucking Idiot.

The meaning of the word "atom" is that it's indivisible - a basic unit. It's a completely abstract idea postulated by Democritus in 450 B.C.

And then we spent a few thousand years looking for a phenomenon that we could retro-fit into the definition.

As it happens the thing we call "atoms" in 2023 doesn't even satisfy the definition because that which we call "atoms" are neither indivisible, nor a basic unit.

'atom' is just a collective noun for a bunch of fundamental particles, which themselves can be decomposed even further.

[Sculptor]

Before they were known about, there were no atoms.

And therefore, there are moral facts.

Sorted.

What sort of sorted critical thinking and logic is that??

All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.

In your dreams yes.

There were no fact-in-itself as atoms-in-themselves.

There were no crispy candy bars.

There is now facts of atoms as conditioned upon the science-chemistry-FSK.

Yes, but they are SUBJECT to human cognition.

Atoms do not exist by themselves absolutely.

Yes they do.
If I put a bullet through your head, what we like to call atoms of your carcass still persist, regardless of your perception of them.
That our model for "atoms" is an accurate one is a matter of speculation.
But far greater is the matter of morals which is SUBJECT to far more modelling and speculation since they do not even refer to material components of the universe. At least wat we call "atoms" have substance.
This cannot be said of morals.

The existence of atoms must be predicated explicitly or implicitly to the science-chemistry FSK.

No.
Atoms first then your imaginary "science-chemistryFSK" follows.
Your science-chemistry FSK only describes atoms.

Similarly there are no unqualified moral facts-in-themselves.

There are no moral facts.
You nearly have that right.

One of the critical elements of morality is empathy; empathy is linked to mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are represented by physical elements which can be verified via the scientific FSK and thereupon inputted into the moral FSK enabling objective moral facts.
This is one verification and justification of the existence of objective moral facts, thus in general morality is objective.

No.
The killer does not empathise the same way that the victims does.
QED the reaction to a given event being opposite in this case cannot be objective.

In addition to the above verification and justification, there are loads of other moral elements that can be traceable to its physical correlates via the scientific FSK and therefrom to the moral FSK enabling objective moral facts.

Morality-proper is not about rightness or wrongness of supposedly moral opinions, beliefs and judgment.

There is no morality proper

[Skepdick]

There is no morality proper

Is this a Philosophy forum or what?

Prove it! So that we can close this thread.

[Sculptor]

There is no morality proper

Is this a Philosophy forum or what?

Prove it! So that we can close this thread.

I just did, but you are too dull to see it.
Close yourself.