What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Define: there is no definition for an empty idea
Describe: "Morality proper" is a made up phrase,
Describe: invented by VA to look pompous and important, and apparently supported by Skedickhead.

None of this seems sufficient to me.

[Peter Holmes]

Ah. Here's the bollocks argument in all its paltry glory.

P1 If we talk about things, they 'take on an ontological existence [?] in social discourse'.
P2 We talk about moral rightness and wrongness.
C Therefore, moral rightness and wrongness 'take on an ontological existence [?} in social discourse'.

What a load of utter tripe.

Dumb. Fucking. Idiot.. Nothing I said constitutes "an argument".

It was a true observation.

Bollocks. You're just a fucking moronic troll with nothing useful to say on this issue - which is why all you can do is abuse.

[Skepdick]

Bollocks. You're just a fucking moronic troll with nothing useful to say on this issue - which is why all you can do is abuse.

You said there's no objective morality! I am only treating you, and behaving in a manner, as if your premise were true.

Why are you protesting, you dumb fucking cunt? It's not like abuse is objectively wrong, or anything.

[Sculptor]

Bollocks. You're just a fucking moronic troll with nothing useful to say on this issue - which is why all you can do is abuse.

You said there's no objective morality! I am only treating you as if your premise were true.

Why are you protesting, you dumb fucking cunt? It's not like abuse is objectively wrong, or anything.

Everything you type is bollocks, as many agree.

[Skepdick]

Bollocks. You're just a fucking moronic troll with nothing useful to say on this issue - which is why all you can do is abuse.

You said there's no objective morality! I am only treating you as if your premise were true.

Why are you protesting, you dumb fucking cunt? It's not like abuse is objectively wrong, or anything.

Everything you type is bollocks, as many agree.

OK! So do you agree or disagree that abusing people is objectively wrong? If you disagree then I have no issue treating you in a manner befitting.

See, I know that abusing people is objectively wrong, but this thread is not about me, so I am being respectful to people who think otherwise. As far as you are concerned I am not doing anything objectively wrong by calling you a dumb fucking imbecille philosophers.

You keep saying so. Are you upset that I believe you?

[Sculptor]

You said there's no objective morality! I am only treating you as if your premise were true.

Why are you protesting, you dumb fucking cunt? It's not like abuse is objectively wrong, or anything.

Everything you type is bollocks, as many agree.

OK! So do you agree or disagree that abusing people is objectively wrong? If you disagree then I have no issue treating you in a manner befitting.

No, I think "abusing people" is a loaded word and subjective.
The so-called act, can be bad for the "abused" and good for the "abuser". COnversely it could be bad for the abuser but good for the abused. It depends on many things. Some people can benefit from abuse, say verbal abuse as they might realise they are being arseholes and change. But it might be that people who abuse do not benefit. Depends.
ANd your one response demonstrates very clearly indeed that you are a living example that there is not "morality proper" since you are making arbitrary values judgements about who you choose to abuse.

See, I know that abusing people is objectively wrong, but this thread is not about me, so I am being respectful to people who think otherwise. As far as you are concerned I am not doing anything objectively wrong by calling you a dumb fucking imbecille philosophers.

It's so objectively wrong that you prefer to do it.
If you were not so stupid you might realise what a fucking idiot you are making of yourself.

You keep saying so. Are you upset that I believe you?

I don't give a rat's fuck what you think.
You are the floating tord of the Forum.

[Skepdick]

Everything you type is bollocks, as many agree.

OK! So do you agree or disagree that abusing people is objectively wrong? If you disagree then I have no issue treating you in a manner befitting.

No, I think "abusing people" is a loaded word and subjective.

Oh, ok. Here's some more "loaded words" you good for nothing, air-stealing fucking imbecille.

The so-called act, can be bad for the "abused" and good for the "abuser". COnversely it could be bad for the abuser but good for the abused.

OK, so is my "so called abuse" good or bad for me? You birth-conttrol dodging, time-thieving cretin.

It depends on many things. Some people can benefit from abuse, say verbal abuse as they might realise they are being arseholes and change. But it might be that people who abuse do not benefit. Depends.

OK, so you and Peter Holmes need to have a conversation. He seems to feel abused.

But is the way I am treating you both "actual abuse"? According to Sculptor... "It depends.". He hasn't told us what it depends on, but in order to market himself as having two brain cells capable of intellectual thought he introduces an indefinite into the dialogue. Ah! The intellectually challenged suspense!

ANd your one response demonstrates very clearly indeed that you are a living example that there is not "morality proper" since you are making arbitrary values judgements about who you choose to abuse.

So I am, in fact abusing? There's no "it depends" here? It sure seems rather arbitrary when "it depends" and when it doesn't.

You dim-witted oligophren.

It's so objectively wrong that you prefer to do it.

You appear to be struggling with basic English comprehension. No surprise there, given that you are a fucking idiot.

My explicit preference is to NOT abuse anyone! I abhor abuse! I have no better way to express how much I abhor abuse except to remind you that it's objectively wrong!
That said I've put my value-system aside so that we can properly explore yours - we are having this conversation entirely on your terms and values!

You keep insisting that it's NOT objectively wrong to abuse you. So despite my abhorement for abuse I am treating you exactly in the way YOU approve of.

Of course, you are such a fucking uncharitable cunt you are even going to use my courtesy against me just to score philosophical points.
Because you are a just a fucking loser who is trying to win a philosophical argument.

So I have absolutely no problem letting you "win the argument" at the cost of your own dignity. Your game - your rules. You fucking cum-guzzling, cock-slurping twat!

If you were not so stupid you might realise what a fucking idiot you are making of yourself.

Look dude, I've never denied that I am stupid - that's pretty obvious, but if you keep comparing me to you, Peter Holmes and other idiot-philosophers - I am a going to keep seeming like a fucking genius.

I guess... thank you for making me look good.

I don't give a rat's fuck what you think.

Even a child knows you are lying. Why else would you even engage me?

You are the floating tord of the Forum.

In a bowl full of sinking turds somebody has to show you the way out...

[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.

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.

Show me an atom that exists in-itself independent of the science-chemistry FSK and therefrom human conditions.

Can anyone claim "Atoms exists because I said so".

As Skepdick had mentioned, atoms are merely theoretical entities conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.
The concept and model of an atom has changed over time to the present one.
(btw, I have just passed a HarvardX Biochemistry Course, so don't try to pull a fast one on me) note the various models of an atom till the present with no absolute certainty nor will there ever be one.


No scientist has ever show a real empirical atom as with a real empirical apple.

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

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

There are no unqualified moral facts-in-themselves; but,
There are moral facts that are qualified with the moral FSK.

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.

Note I stated 'in-general'.

Mirror neurons are inherent in ALL humans and are represented by physical elements which can be verified via the scientific FSK and thereupon inputted into the moral FSK enabling objective moral facts.
Since they exist in ALL humans and not some humans, they are objective moral facts where they contribute to morality.

Since mirror neurons exist in ALL humans, they exist in whether the human is a killer or not.
Mirror neurons related to morality do exist in the killer; however in the case of the killer, his mirror neurons are weak or they are overwhelmed but the killers evil impulses to kill another humans.

As such, verification and justification of the existence of mirror neurons related to morality confirm 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.

There is no morality proper

Why no morality proper.

At present what we have in most cases are pseudo-morality where the focus is on the rightness and wrongness of moral actions. Pseudo-morality has limited usefulness, but this subjective approach to morality had failed and hindered the progress of morality-proper to meet future needs.

What is morality-proper is the evolving inherent moral function with the brain and body of all humans; this morality proper is represented by physical neurons, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks which can be verified and justified scientifically.

It is only by differentiating morality-proper from pseudo-morality that humanity can expedite the progress of morality in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Before they were known about, there were no decomposable fundamental particles.
And therefore, there are moral facts.
Sorted. Game over. Moral objectivists win the argument.

Note my point re fundamental atom above. Here's the progress of the model of an atom;



Fundamental particles would be an extension from the modern model of 'what is an atom'
ending with the dilemma of whether the fact of a fundamental thing is a particle or wave depending on human observation, i.e. the human conditions.

Here is a more detailed version of a model of an atom in Quantum terms;

• Probability distributions for 1s, 2s, and 3s orbitals. Greater color intensity indicates regions where electrons are more likely to exist. Nodes indicate regions where an electron has zero probability of being found. Image credit: UCDavis Chemwiki, CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US

All they can do is to rely on probabilities without any possibility of certainty and ultimately grounded and depending solely on human conditions.

There is no absolute atom-in-itself nor fact-in-itself, thus whatever is reality is conditioned upon human conditions.
Note it is not confined to what is known or described but the whole complex process of the realization of that reality where the human conditions are entangled therein.

Thus 'what is a fact' is the realization that is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The realization [not knowing nor describing of] of the physical moral facts [not rightness or wrongness] are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK [upon a collective independent of any individual], thus objective.
Therefore morality is objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ah. Here's the bollocks argument in all its paltry glory.

P1 If we talk about things, they 'take on an ontological existence [?] in social discourse'.
P2 We talk about moral rightness and wrongness.
C Therefore, moral rightness and wrongness 'take on an ontological existence [?} in social discourse'.

What a load of utter tripe.

Strawman again!
Your premises in the syllogism above a load of utter tripe.

What is ontology; [personally I don't prefer this term]

• In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

What Skepdick was referring to was to ontology-in-general. There are various types of ontological reality.

What you are referring to is 'ontological fact' in the sense of Wittgenstein's '"The world is the totality of facts, not of things".
In your case, ontological facts are entities independent of the human conditions.
As I had argued, your what is fact is illusory, meaningless and non-sensical.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

In my case [not skepdick's] facts are ontological FSK-Conditioned entities.

P1 If we talk about things [empirically based], they refer to ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective facts, in social discourse.
P2 We talk about moral things [empirically based].
C. Therefore, moral things are ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective moral facts, in social discourse.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 If we talk about things [empirically based], they refer to ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective facts, in social discourse.
P2 We talk about moral things [empirically based].
C. Therefore, moral things are ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective moral facts, in social discourse.

An 'empirically based thing' is presumably a thing for the existence of which there's empirical evidence - evidence of the kind that natural scientists seek and rely on. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't wish to straw man your argument.

If so, you claim that there are 'moral things' (P2) for the existence of which there's empirical evidence. Perhaps you mean one or more of the following.

1 Avoiding evil by doing good
2 Mirror neurons
3 Human programming to do A and not to do B

Is one or more of these what you mean by a 'moral thing' for the existence of which there's empirical evidence? If not, please specify an example of such a 'moral thing'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 If we talk about things [empirically based], they refer to ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective facts, in social discourse.
P2 We talk about moral things [empirically based].
C. Therefore, moral things are ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective moral facts, in social discourse.

An 'empirically based thing' is presumably a thing for the existence of which there's empirical evidence - evidence of the kind that natural scientists seek and rely on. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't wish to straw man your argument.

If so, you claim that there are 'moral things' (P2) for the existence of which there's empirical evidence. Perhaps you mean one or more of the following.

1 Avoiding evil by doing good
2 Mirror neurons
3 Human programming to do A and not to do B

Is one or more of these what you mean by a 'moral thing' for the existence of which there's empirical evidence? If not, please specify an example of such a 'moral thing'.

Not 'avoiding evil by doing good'.
Rather it is avoiding evil to enable good.

Yes, it is empirically-based mirror neurons associated with empathy which is a critical element of morality [avoiding evil to enable good] in the social and philosophical discourse; mirror neurons are verified and justified empirically as a scientific fact via the scientific FSK.
This scientific fact in adopted into the moral FSK, thus a moral fact.

Note whilst the existence of mirror neurons is sufficient to link the physical moral elements to objective morality, 'mirror neurons' are not the ONLY empirically based moral thing, there are other empirically based neurons, parts of the brain, that are linked to morality.

Btw, don't ignore the other points re atoms that I responded to your views.

[Skepdick]

An 'empirically based thing' is presumably a thing for the existence of which there's empirical evidence - evidence of the kind that natural scientists seek and rely on. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't wish to straw man your argument.

You are using "existence" in some fucked up non-scientific way. There's no such thing as "evidence for existence".

If a concept/entity does some work necessary for the theory to work correctly - then the concept is said to exists.
If the theory continues to work even with that concept removed from the theory - then it doesn't exist.

In Einstein's theory of General Relativity we can sufficiently explain/predict empirical phenomena previously attrivuted to "gravity" in terms of the curvature of spacetime. The concept of "gravity" no longer does any work in the theory - it's no longer necessary so it ceases to exist.

Occam's razor.

[Skepdick]

Not 'avoiding evil by doing good'.
Rather it is avoiding evil to enable good.

Yes, it is empirically-based mirror neurons associated with empathy which is a critical element of morality [avoiding evil to enable good] in the social and philosophical discourse; mirror neurons are verified and justified empirically as a scientific fact via the scientific FSK.
This scientific fact in adopted into the moral FSK, thus a moral fact.

Note whilst the existence of mirror neurons is sufficient to link the physical moral elements to objective morality, 'mirror neurons' are not the ONLY empirically based moral thing, there are other empirically based neurons, parts of the brain, that are linked to morality.

Btw, don't ignore the other points re atoms that I responded to your views.

Your mirror-neuron theory leads to fundamentally unethical behaviour.

If somebody is trying to harm you the morally correct response is not empathy - it's fight of flight.

If choosing an emphatic response leads to your personal harm then empathy is immoral.

[Sculptor]

OK! So do you agree or disagree that abusing people is objectively wrong? If you disagree then I have no issue treating you in a manner befitting.

No, I think "abusing people" is a loaded word and subjective.

Oh, ok. Here's some more "loaded words" you good for nothing, air-stealing fucking imbecille.

The so-called act, can be bad for the "abused" and good for the "abuser". COnversely it could be bad for the abuser but good for the abused.

OK, so is my "so called abuse" good or bad for me? You birth-conttrol dodging, time-thieving cretin.

It depends on many things. Some people can benefit from abuse, say verbal abuse as they might realise they are being arseholes and change. But it might be that people who abuse do not benefit. Depends.

OK, so you and Peter Holmes need to have a conversation. He seems to feel abused.

But is the way I am treating you both "actual abuse"? According to Sculptor... "It depends.". He hasn't told us what it depends on, but in order to market himself as having two brain cells capable of intellectual thought he introduces an indefinite into the dialogue. Ah! The intellectually challenged suspense!

ANd your one response demonstrates very clearly indeed that you are a living example that there is not "morality proper" since you are making arbitrary values judgements about who you choose to abuse.

So I am, in fact abusing? There's no "it depends" here? It sure seems rather arbitrary when "it depends" and when it doesn't.

You dim-witted oligophren.

It's so objectively wrong that you prefer to do it.

You appear to be struggling with basic English comprehension. No surprise there, given that you are a fucking idiot.

My explicit preference is to NOT abuse anyone! I abhor abuse! I have no better way to express how much I abhor abuse except to remind you that it's objectively wrong!
That said I've put my value-system aside so that we can properly explore yours - we are having this conversation entirely on your terms and values!

You keep insisting that it's NOT objectively wrong to abuse you. So despite my abhorement for abuse I am treating you exactly in the way YOU approve of.

Of course, you are such a fucking uncharitable cunt you are even going to use my courtesy against me just to score philosophical points.
Because you are a just a fucking loser who is trying to win a philosophical argument.

So I have absolutely no problem letting you "win the argument" at the cost of your own dignity. Your game - your rules. You fucking cum-guzzling, cock-slurping twat!

If you were not so stupid you might realise what a fucking idiot you are making of yourself.

Look dude, I've never denied that I am stupid - that's pretty obvious, but if you keep comparing me to you, Peter Holmes and other idiot-philosophers - I am a going to keep seeming like a fucking genius.

I guess... thank you for making me look good.

I don't give a rat's fuck what you think.

Even a child knows you are lying. Why else would you even engage me?

You are the floating tord of the Forum.

In a bowl full of sinking turds somebody has to show you the way out...

Gosh. What a wanker you are.