What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Why is anything objective, assuming there is anything objective? Like I tried to convey, we may be barking up the wrong tree, but fact, as we all know, is stranger than fiction.

All that subjective humans call "objective" is just inter-subjective consensus on meaning. The prevailing consensus often becomes codified in laws. Or science and history books.

There can be no facts without consensus.

You say there are 3 eggs on the table. I say there are 2 eggs on the table. Which one is true? Both are!

1 ->
2 ->
3 ->

0 ->
1 ->
2 ->

Which one is objectively true? Whichever symbol we agree to use going forward.
Which sentence expresses a fact?

If we agree to use the symbol 2 then "There are 2 eggs" is a fact.
If we agree to use the symbol 3 then "There are 3 eggs" is a fact.

It's just basic symbolism

A symbol is a mark, sign, or word that indicates, signifies, or is understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship. Symbols allow people to go beyond what is known or seen by creating linkages between otherwise very different concepts and experiences. All communication (and data processing) is achieved through the use of symbols.

[Agent Smith]

Why is anything objective, assuming there is anything objective? Like I tried to convey, we may be barking up the wrong tree, but fact, as we all know, is stranger than fiction.

All that subjective humans call "objective" is just inter-subjective consensus on meaning. The prevailing consensus often becomes codified in laws. Or science and history books.

There can be no facts without consensus.

You say there are 3 eggs on the table. I say there are 2 eggs on the table. Which one is true? Both are!

1 ->
2 ->
3 ->

0 ->
1 ->
2 ->

Which one is objectively true? Whichever symbol we agree to use going forward.
Which sentence expresses a fact?

If we agree to use the symbol 2 then "There are 2 eggs" is a fact.
If we agree to use the symbol 3 then "There are 3 eggs" is a fact.

It's just basic symbolism

A symbol is a mark, sign, or word that indicates, signifies, or is understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship. Symbols allow people to go beyond what is known or seen by creating linkages between otherwise very different concepts and experiences. All communication (and data processing) is achieved through the use of symbols.

If so then we need another category and the problem reappears albeit in a weaker form.

It's got something to do with rationality as far as I can tell.

[Skepdick]

If so then we need another category and the problem reappears albeit in a weaker form.

It's got something to do with rationality as far as I can tell.

Categories (and categorization) are part of the problem.

In order to categorize/classify items into their respective categories you need a classification rule.

All of the clashes in Philosophy can be summed up as conflicts over classification.

[Peter Holmes]

When moral realists and objectivists fess up to their peculiar and disturbing fascination with torturing babies for fun - and VA makes it even more exciting by adding the condition 'to death' - you know they've lost the argument.

For the record, I think it morally wrong to torture anyone, to any extent, for any reason - and that includes for the gratification of a masochist.

Here are two invalid arguments. (Notice the redundancy of 'it's a fact that' in each case.)

Humans are programmed to do X and not do Y; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is morally right, and Y is morally wrong.
Nearly all humans do X and don't do Y ; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is morally right, and Y is morally wrong.

And to generalise. Non-moral (such as factual) premises, even if they're true, can't entail moral conclusions - because a valid deductive conclusion can't entail information not present in the premise or premises of an argument.

(The supposed work-around of claiming that morality is about avoiding evil and promoting good, rather than the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour, fools nobody. Why should we avoid evil and promote good? And what constitutes evil and good anyway? These aren't factual questions with factual answers.)

And here are two hypothetical premises that moral objectivists assert but can never rationally defend. (Notice how both amount to question-begging.)

If there are no moral facts, then there can be no moral beliefs, judgements or opinions.
If there are no moral facts, then nothing is morally right or wrong.

The analogy with theistic belief is striking: 'If there is no god, then there can be no purpose or meaning or value in life'. (Moral realism and objectivism are faith-positions, often clung to with religious fervour by their adherents in the face of all reasoning - as this forum demonstrates.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why is anything objective, assuming there is anything objective? Like I tried to convey, we may be barking up the wrong tree, but fact, as we all know, is stranger than fiction.

This is a matter of communication to facilitate survival.

Whatever is objective [fact] is defined as independent of any individual[s]' subjective opinion, beliefs or judgments. Whatever is subjective is always in reference to one-individual's opinion, beliefs or judgments.
As such, whatever is concluded from a Framework and System of Knowledge maintained and sustained by a collective of humans [more than one and many] is regarded as objective.

GENERALLY [with exceptions], the collective judgments of many subjects-in-consensus is more credible and reliable than the opinion, beliefs and judgment of ONE single individual, thus greater possibility of survival.

As with human nature, objectivity comes in degrees in terms of credibility and reliability. I have stated, at present, the most reliable objectivity is scientific objectivity. It is the standard to evaluate the objectivity of all other collective judgments.
For example, if the objectivity of science is 99/100, then we can approximate the objectivity of creationism is 1/100 in terms of how the universe began.

As such, on average, the continuum of objectivity [more favored] to subjectivity is critical to facilitate survival of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

[Skepdick]

For the record, I think it morally wrong to torture anyone, to any extent, for any reason - and that includes for the gratification of a masochist.

Other than your words, what would be different about you and your behaviour if you thought it was moraly right?

What is the difference in entailment between "moral rightness" and "moral wrongness"?

It seems that "moral rightness" and "moral wrongness" entail nothing other than the lip service of saying the words.

Moral proclamations that entail nothing are meaningless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When moral realists and objectivists fess up to their peculiar and disturbing fascination with torturing babies for fun - and VA makes it even more exciting by adding the condition 'to death' - you know they've lost the argument.

For the record, I think it morally wrong to torture anyone, to any extent, for any reason - and that includes for the gratification of a masochist.

If YOU believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" then you leave room for other humans to believe "it is morally RIGHT to torture anyone" even for pleasure.

In any case, you don't have any grounds to justify your belief at all.
As such, you also do not have grounds to expect others who believe otherwise to agree with your belief it is "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" to death, for pleasure or whatever the reason.
In this case, you are complicit to the tortures of humans by humans.

On the other hand, I believe it is a FSK-Conditioned fact [as evident], there is an inherent in ALL humans 'ought-not-ness to torture humans' as a feature of human nature; it is just that at present this "ought-not-ness to torture humans' is not active in the majority of humans.

On this basis, humanity need to strive to develop [neuroscientifically and other means] this potential function in ALL humans so that they will not be triggered in any way to have any urge at all to torture any humans.
Once this natural inhibition is activated in ALL [or the majority] humans, then there is no need to rely on laws and enforcements to deter humans from torturing humans to death for pleasure or for other reasons.

If YOU believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" [and you don't have grounds for it] then you leave room for other humans to believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" even for pleasure.
In this case, you are complicit to the tortures of humans by humans.

[Peter Holmes]

For the temporarily confused.

So-called symbol 'grounding' is a 'problem' only if we're stuck with a nomenclaturist, correspondence or maker-bearer theory of truth - with one or other foundationalist delusion. All foundationalisms are misleading.

The cure? Wittgenstein's hard-won and surprisingly fruitfully profound insight: meaning is use.

[Agent Smith]

Why is anything objective, assuming there is anything objective? Like I tried to convey, we may be barking up the wrong tree, but fact, as we all know, is stranger than fiction.

This is a matter of communication to facilitate survival.

Whatever is objective [fact] is defined as independent of any individual[s]' subjective opinion, beliefs or judgments. Whatever is subjective is always in reference to one-individual's opinion, beliefs or judgments.
As such, whatever is concluded from a Framework and System of Knowledge maintained and sustained by a collective of humans [more than one and many] is regarded as objective.

GENERALLY [with exceptions], the collective judgments of many subjects-in-consensus is more credible and reliable than the opinion, beliefs and judgment of ONE single individual, thus greater possibility of survival.

As with human nature, objectivity comes in degrees in terms of credibility and reliability. I have stated, at present, the most reliable objectivity is scientific objectivity. It is the standard to evaluate the objectivity of all other collective judgments.
For example, if the objectivity of science is 99/100, then we can approximate the objectivity of creationism is 1/100 in terms of how the universe began.

As such, on average, the continuum of objectivity [more favored] to subjectivity is critical to facilitate survival of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

I hear ya, o noble one! If I'd like to add anything it'd be this: we may be taking a philosophical position vis-à-vis a but too far OR we're ignoring a very obvious fact.

[Agent Smith]

If so then we need another category and the problem reappears albeit in a weaker form.

It's got something to do with rationality as far as I can tell.

Categories (and categorization) are part of the problem.

In order to categorize/classify items into their respective categories you need a classification rule.

All of the clashes in Philosophy can be summed up as conflicts over classification.

Right you are mon ami. I've always been very poor with meaning. Glad to know we're on the same page.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For the temporarily confused.

So-called symbol 'grounding' is a 'problem' only if we're stuck with a nomenclaturist, correspondence or maker-bearer theory of truth - with one or other foundationalist delusion. All foundationalisms are misleading.

The cure? Wittgenstein's hard-won and surprisingly fruitfully profound insight: meaning is use.

You are lost within an ideology dogmatically.

If a Scientist-Chemistry claimed 'Water is H20',
and if we ask for grounding,
he will refer to the Science-Chemistry FSK wherein there is a consensus within his peers, plus its implied credibility and reliability based on its attested credentials.

Meaning is secondary.
The later-Wittgenstein in 'On Certainty' [my reading] emphasized the need for 'grounds' [framework, hinges, river-beds' to ensure sound usefulness of conditioned-facts.

The attested credentials of scientific facts from the Science-Chemistry FSK will depend on its utilities and contribution to mankind.
Regardless whatever weaknesses [insignificant anyway] the concept of grounding has, grounding is the most necessary and optimal to grant credibility and reliability to whatever fact is claimed.

In your case,
you provide no grounds at all [other than your opinions] for your claim that 'human torture of humans' is wrong and has no basis for improvements [use].

In my case,
I have provided grounds [has its critiques] and moral facts that can be translated to use for the well-being of the individual[s] and humanity.

[popeye1945]

Why is anything objective, assuming there is anything objective? Like I tried to convey, we may be barking up the wrong tree, but fact, as we all know, is stranger than fiction.

On a subjective level how could there be anything objective, objective is knowing and all-knowing is subjective. The essence of reality is energy which when experienced by a conscious subject is manifested as object. Object is only known subjectively and in the absence of a subjective consciousness there is nothing, meaning no objects and nothing to do the knowing. Apparent reality is biologically dependent, energy processed through biology is the world of objects or apparent reality.

[Sculptor]

You can google "FSK" but you can't google "English words without vowels" ?

Even your stupid is inconsistent.

You can't find FSK though can you?
Because of all the FSK abbreviations, none of them are relevant here, its just a figment of your imagination

Your level of stupidity is a new kind of infinity

fsk.png

Is that all?
There are more entries on this Forum; that is how bullshit it is.

[Sculptor]

You can google "FSK" but you can't google "English words without vowels" ?

Even your stupid is inconsistent.

You can't find FSK though can you?
Because of all the FSK abbreviations, none of them are relevant here, its just a figment of your imagination

You are so stupid.
Do you understand how Lexicographers include words into their dictionaries or how abbreviations are recognized.
The criteria is purely based on how popular the words or abbreviations are used, and all the usage of words has to start with one person until more and more people used it.

Firstly I have been using the term Framework and System of Knowledge, and to be effective in writing it is only naturally that I used the term FSK instead of typing out all the words.

You are really a bastard, intellectually.
If you see anyone using an abbreviation, it is a proper intellectual protocol to ask what the abbreviation represent if you are new to it.

You are an ignorant bastard, if you are really well read, you would have noted the term 'framework' and 'system' of knowledge is used very commonly within the intellectual and academic community.
Re google; word are in " "
"framework of knowledge" produce 45,100,000 hits.
"system of knowledge" produced 69,000,000

Not relevant.
There are fewer internet hits for FSK than even appear in this Forum.
You are a joke.

[Skepdick]

For the temporarily confused.

So-called symbol 'grounding' is a 'problem' only if we're stuck with a nomenclaturist, correspondence or maker-bearer theory of truth - with one or other foundationalist delusion. All foundationalisms are misleading.

The cure? Wittgenstein's hard-won and surprisingly fruitfully profound insight: meaning is use.

For the utter fucking imbecille. I know that meaning is use - you are preaching to the Neopragmatist choir.

That's why I drew your atention to the definite and indefinite uses of the pronoun what. Because you don't seem to know what your use-case is.

And now, I have to explain (to the same fucking imbecile) the definite and indefinite uses of the symbol "use". Again - because you don't seem to know what your use-case is.

HOW are you using the symbols "torture is morally wrong"?
WHAT do the symbols "torture is morally wrong" mean?
WHY do use the symbols "torture is morally wrong"?
What utility are you derriving when you USE the symbols "torture is morally wrong"?

And since everything has to be spelled out for Peter "Dumb Fucking Cunt" Holmes...

This is NOT a foundationalist line of enquiry.
This is a teleological line of enquiry.

EXPLAIN your use/meaning of the symbols "wrong" in teleological terms.