What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Here are some assertions.

1 Saying something is so doesn't make it so. (It just is or isn't so.)

2 If we say the sun orbits the earth, then the sun orbits the earth.

3 If we say water is not H2O, then water is not H2O.

4 If we say X is morally wrong, then X is morally wrong.

If 1 is true, then 2 and 3 certainly seem to be false. And if 4 has one, its truth-value seems to depend on 1 being false - or that the assertion 'saying something is so makes it so' is true.

Does the truth-value of an assertion depend on nothing but its descriptive (conventional) context? In other words, does saying something is so make it so?

Anyone have any civilised thoughts about this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are some assertions.

1 Saying something is so doesn't make it so. (It just is or isn't so.)

2 If we say the sun orbits the earth, then the sun orbits the earth.

3 If we say water is not H2O, then water is not H2O.

4 If we say X is morally wrong, then X is morally wrong.

If 1 is true, then 2 and 3 certainly seem to be false. And if 4 has one, its truth-value seems to depend on 1 being false - or that the assertion 'saying something is so makes it so' is true.

Does the truth-value of an assertion depend on nothing but its descriptive (conventional) context? In other words, does saying something is so make it so?

Anyone have any civilised thoughts about this?

It is very stupid for anyone rational to insist 'saying something is, makes it so'.
This is like a magic-show or someone hallucinating.

It is very very stupid and uncivilized for anyone NOT to understand the following is very obvious,
"It is very stupid for anyone rational to insist 'saying something is, makes it so'."

As I had explained before anyone can know and then say what is known of reality, there is the entanglement, emergence and realization phase. i.e.

1. entanglement, emergence and realization phase
2. Knowing
3. Saying [describing and asserting]

The entanglement, emergence and realization phase are really real states of affairs within individual humans, humanity and the whole of reality [all there is].

You just do not have the competence and capability to have the awareness and understanding such a state of reality.
This is why you differentiate things and humans in separate unique things that are independent of each other, thus are known and describe.

You are indeed stuck with common sense and ordinary language philosophy and do not have the ability to get out of that silo.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some thoughts for the day, in no particular order.

1 To construct a model of reality is not to construct reality. If it were, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know is the models we construct, then how can we construct them?

2 If all models are wrong, then why are some more useful than others? Whence their usefulness? And what would a model that's right look like?

3 If there are no noumena, then there are also no phenomena. If there are no things-in-themselves, then of what are appearances appearances?

4 If we demolish one pole of a dichotomy, then it's no longer a dichotomy. When you eat your cake, it's gone. If you blow up the bridge, then you can't go back over it to the other side. (If there are no facts, then there are no moral facts.)

5 If we can't know what reality is, then we also can't know what reality is not. For example, we can't know if reality is not the ways we perceive, know and describe it.

6 To say reality can be nothing more than the ways we perceive, know and describe it - is to replace one deluded foundationalism with another.

7 Are brick houses less real than bricks? Is a brick house merely a theoretical construct? And can we only theoretically have a shit in it?

8 If there's no such thing as what we call reality, then there are also no such things as human beings.

9 A theory of truth or knowledge is, like all so-called philosophical theories, a wild goose chase down the rabbit hole. And a subjective consensus theory of truth or knowledge is patently absurd. Claim: it was the subjective consensus that the sun orbits the earth; therefore, the sun used to orbit the earth.

The answer to all the above 1-9 have been answered within this thread of yours.
Bad memory is no excuse.
Go through YOUR thread to get to the answers.
You'll get more detailed answers if you review the threads I have raised in this section.

And a subjective consensus theory of truth or knowledge is patently absurd. Claim: it was the subjective consensus that the sun orbits the earth; therefore, the sun used to orbit the earth.

Rhetoric and deception again and again.
Nah, not 'subjective consensus'.

Rather, the point is "objectivity = intersubjective consensus within a FSK"
There are degrees of objectivity corresponding to the credibility and reliability of the FSK.

Objectivity is a value. To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it.

Objectivity comes in degrees.

Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better. Using the term “objective” to describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it.
The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry.
Understanding scientific objectivity is therefore central to understanding the nature of science and the role it plays in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/

There was once the intersubjective consensus that "the Sun orbits the Earth" within its FSK but that is not scientific; its FSK is not credible and very unreliable relative to the scientific FSK; in term of objectivity we can rate this claim at 0.0001% objectivity or merely negligible.

[Peter Holmes]

Rather, the point is "objectivity = intersubjective consensus within a FSK"

No. What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions.

Objectivity is definitely NOT reliance on 'intersubjective consensus within a framework and system of knowledge'.

You continue to conflate how we may arrive at a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

And, btw, 'intersubjectivity' is just aggregated 'subjectivity'. And, similarly, 'consensus' is just aggregated opinion.

[Agent Smith]

I would now like to call Plato to the witness stand.
He's dead.
What?! When did that happen?!
2.5k years ago!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Rather, the point is "objectivity = intersubjective consensus within a FSK"

No. What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions.

Deception!!
You merely state " beliefs, judgements or opinions." and try to get away with that?

Note "a" in "a sentient being" [a = singular]:

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

The "a sentient being" is critical in the definition of "objectivity" within philosophy which is applicable also the Philosophy of Science.

Objectivity is definitely NOT reliance on 'intersubjective consensus within a framework and system of knowledge'.

You continue to mistake how we may arrive at a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

And, btw, 'intersubjectivity' is just aggregated 'subjectivity'. And, similarly, 'consensus' is just aggregated opinion.

Since scientific facts are not dependent on a sentient being, then, they are qualified to be termed 'objective'.

Btw, I am not claiming absolute objectivity but merely "objectivity" as defined and qualified plus conditioned upon the scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] taking into account of all its weaknesses and limitations.

My version of 'objectivity' is valid and sound as grounded on scientific objectivity conditioned upon the definition of philosophical objectivity.

On the other hand, you are merely babbling and claiming 'absolute objectivity' or unconditional objectivity without any reference to any Framework and System of Knowledge.

If you think you are smart,
show me a fact of absolute objectivity without reference to any FSK?

Checkmate!
If you assert;
-'Water is H20' that is only valid within the science-chemistry FSK.
-'Snow is white' that is only valid within the science-physics, chemistry FSK.
-'the cat on the mat' that is only valid within the science biology, physics, chemistry FSK.

Thus, my point,
whatever is an objective fact must be conditioned to a specific FSK [aggregated subjectivity] without exception.

Warning:
Don't be hasty and forget my 3 phases of realization, knowing and saying of reality.

[Harbal]

Checkmate!
If you assert;
-'Water is H20' that is only valid within the science-chemistry FSK.
-'Snow is white' that is only valid within the science-physics, chemistry FSK.
-'the cat on the mat' that is only valid within the science biology, physics, chemistry FSK.

Fucking
S _ _ _ id
Kunt

[Sculptor]

Checkmate!
If you assert;
-'Water is H20' that is only valid within the science-chemistry FSK.
-'Snow is white' that is only valid within the science-physics, chemistry FSK.
-'the cat on the mat' that is only valid within the science biology, physics, chemistry FSK.

Thus, my point,
whatever is an objective fact must be conditioned to a specific FSK [aggregated subjectivity] without exception.

Warning:
Don't be hasty and forget my 3 phases of realization, knowing and saying of reality.

Megalomania.

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH, due to your ignorance and dogmatism you don't have any regard for Scientific Objectivity which is based on aggregated subjectivity, i.e. interdependent consensus.

Here is another support for Scientific Objectivity;

E. Agazzi, Scientific Objectivity and Its Contexts,
Of course, certain philosophers of science deny that science deserves the qualification of providing objective knowledge, and even claim that the concepts of scientific method and scientific rigour are fictitious.
According to them, science is simply a social practice, with no special features making it superior to or even clearly distinct from other social practices.
We shall explore some of these claims later in this book, and show how they are unjustified and misleading.

However we shall not begin this discussion here, for two reasons:
first, because we would like to investigate the much sounder and much more widely accepted view (especially among scientists) that science actually provides objective knowledge.
Second, because the critical evaluation of the opposite thesis will be more precise after the clarification of what we can really mean by scientific objectivity.
After this clarification it will be possible to accept certain claims of the socially-oriented position, without giving up the requirement of scientific objectivity.

https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Objec ... 3319046594

[Peter Holmes]

Calling VA. Consider the following argument:

Premise: It's the intersubjective consensus opinion that water is H2O.
Conclusion: Therefore, (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

Do you understand why this is a non sequitur fallacy - why the premise doesn't entail the conclusion? Oh - silly me. If you did understand, you'd see why your argument is ridiculous.

It's because the chemical constitution of water is a feature of reality - a fact - that it has nothing to do with opinion, intersubjective consensus or not. And there's incontrovertible empirical evidence that this is the case.

The fact that water is H2O isn't something that emerged, and 'realised' - 'entangled with the human conditions' -or whatever other mumbo-jumbo you've made up. It just is H2O.

The fact that a description - and therefore a truth-claim, such as 'water is H2O' - is always contextual and conventional doesn't mean that what is being described is contextual and conventional.

You've been suckered by a postmodernist delusion - perhaps most extremely evident in Derrida's deconstructionism: there is nothing outside the text.

[Sculptor]

For objective morality to exist, there would have to be moral truths that exist independently of individual beliefs, cultural norms, or societal values. According to this view, certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances or the opinions of individuals or groups.

So my question is, then HOW could a belief exist without a person to hold that belief?

[Belinda]

For objective morality to exist, there would have to be moral truths that exist independently of individual beliefs, cultural norms, or societal values. According to this view, certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances or the opinions of individuals or groups.

So my question is, then HOW could a belief exist without a person to hold that belief?

I think you have to decide first of all what constitutes an individual or " person".

It's best to think 'centres of consciousness' rather than persons.

[Sculptor]

For objective morality to exist, there would have to be moral truths that exist independently of individual beliefs, cultural norms, or societal values. According to this view, certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances or the opinions of individuals or groups.

So my question is, then HOW could a belief exist without a person to hold that belief?

I think you have to decide first of all what constitutes an individual or " person".

It's best to think 'centres of consciousness' rather than persons.

No, that does not help. Since the claim for objective morality would not include individuals or groups, but an absence of them.

[Belinda]

For objective morality to exist, there would have to be moral truths that exist independently of individual beliefs, cultural norms, or societal values. According to this view, certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances or the opinions of individuals or groups.

So my question is, then HOW could a belief exist without a person to hold that belief?

I think you have to decide first of all what constitutes an individual or " person".

It's best to think 'centres of consciousness' rather than persons.

No, that does not help. Since the claim for objective morality would not include individuals or groups, but an absence of them.

That is what I keep arguing. Objective morality is literally 'out of this world'. In this world there are individuals, and groups.

[Walker]

I think you have to decide first of all what constitutes an individual or " person".

It's best to think 'centres of consciousness' rather than persons.

No, that does not help. Since the claim for objective morality would not include individuals or groups, but an absence of them.

That is what I keep arguing. Objective morality is literally 'out of this world'. In this world there are individuals, and groups.

Eskimos designate many types and groupings of snow, however from birth to death each snowflake, unique from all others, shares objective commonalities with each and every other snowflake. For example, when it gets hot enough they all melt.