What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Only if you don't have a subjective sense of right and wrong.

My objective sense of right and wrong tells me that it's absolutely not OK to treat Peter Holmes the way I am treating him.

Of course, I don't want to impose my way of life on him - that would be objectively wrong.

So as long as he continues to think there's nothing objectively wrong with the way I'm treating him I'll just continue to cringe in my own head while I call him a dumb cunt

He has all the power in steering this interaction - the choice is entirely in his hands.

[Harbal]

My objective sense of right and wrong tells me that it's absolutely not OK to treat Peter Holmes the way I am treating him.

Of course, I don't want to impose my way of life on him - that would be objectively wrong.

I'm not sure that simply refraining from verbally abusing him in order to comply with your own sense of right and wrong could be looked on as imposing your way of life on him. Neither am I sure how your sense of right and wrong could be objective.

Surely, absolutely any sense you have is subjectively yours.

So as long as he continues to think there's nothing objectively wrong with the way I'm treating him I'll just continue to cringe in my own head while I call him a dumb cunt

He has all the power in steering this interaction - the choice is entirely in his hands.

Why doesn't his subjective opinion about how you are treating him carry any weight with you?

[Skepdick]

I'm not sure that simply refraining from verbally abusing him in order to comply with your own sense of right and wrong could be looked on as imposing your way of life on him.

Objectively, that's not for me to decide.

Neither am I sure how your sense of right and wrong could be objective.

Pretty easy.

Subjectively - I get to decide whether the way I am treating Peter is right or wrong. I am accountable to nobody else but myself.
Objectively - I don't get to decide. It is wrong, even if I decide it's right. I am accountable to The Law.

Surely, absolutely any sense you have is subjectively yours.

I doubt that very much. Since my objective and subjective senses disagree.

My subjective sense tells me anything goes.
My objective sense tells me there are limits to my behaviour.

I can't just be going around murdering people, now can I? So it seems to me my objective sense is right and my subjective sense is wrong.

Why doesn't his subjective opinion about how you are treating him carry any weight with you?

Because his subjective opinion is that my behaviour is NOT objectively wrong!

[Harbal]

I'm not sure that simply refraining from verbally abusing him in order to comply with your own sense of right and wrong could be looked on as imposing your way of life on him.

Objectively, that's not for me to decide.

Neither am I sure how your sense of right and wrong could be objective.

Pretty easy.

Subjectively - I get to decide whether the way I am treating Peter is right or wrong. I am accountable to nobody but myself.
Objectively - I don't get to decide. It is wrong, even if I decide it's right. Because I am accountable to society.

Surely, absolutely any sense you have is subjectively yours.

I doubt that very much. Since my objective and subjective senses disagree.

My subjective sense tells me anything goes.
My objective sense tells me there are limits to my behaviour.

Seems to me my objective sense is right and my subjective sense is wrong.

Why doesn't his subjective opinion about how you are treating him carry any weight with you?

Because it's subjective.

Since you are under no moral obligation to respond to my comments in a way that makes sense, I don't suppose I have any right to complain.

[Skepdick]

Since you are under no moral obligation to respond to my comments in a way that makes sense, I don't suppose I have any right to complain.

What's confusing you?

If murder is not objectively wrong then I can murder you If I want to. What's to stop me? Morality doesn't exist objectively.
If murder is objectively wrong then I can't murder you even if I want to. What's to stop me? Morality is stopping me! Because it exists. Objectively.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's VA's argument.

'1. Humans are Intricately Part & Parcel of Reality [all there is]'

Viz: humans are real things - features of reality that are the case. Our existence is a fact. But - so what?

'2. All facts of reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK sustained by a collective of subjects not ONE subject - thus objective.'

False, stuff and nonsense. For example, the fact of human existence is not so 'conditioned', whatever that means. The fact that there are physics facts is not because there is physics. If it were, physics would have no scientific credibility. And objectivity has nothing to do with subjective opinion, individual or collective. That's its point. That's what it means.

'3. Moral facts are conditioned upon a moral FSK.'

Incoherent rubbish. A 'moral framework and system of knowledge' is a question-begging fiction. The premise assumes the conclusion.

'4. Therefore, morality is objective.'

Completely unjustified codswallop. This argument is trash, from its banal opening, to its unsupported conclusion.

[Harbal]

Since you are under no moral obligation to respond to my comments in a way that makes sense, I don't suppose I have any right to complain.

What's confusing you?

If murder is not objectively wrong then I can murder you If I want to. What's to stop me? Morality doesn't exist objectively.
If murder is objectively wrong then I can't murder you even if I want to. What's to stop me? Morality is stopping me! Because it exists. Objectively.

I am assuming that we both belong to a culture that considers the gratuitous killing of a human being by another human being to be morally wrong. I have to agree that it seems wrong to me, and I agree that it feels objectively wrong. But what if there were another culture somewhere that saw no moral issue in killing anyone who belonged to a different culture? If they didn't feel that attitude to be morally wrong, what could you present them with to show them it was objectively, morally wrong?


What if we take a less extreme example like, say, contraception? The Catholic Church says contraception is wrong, but you and I might well think it isn't wrong. If you don't consider that to be a case of two subjective moral opinions, where are we supposed to find the objective moral truth of the matter.

Because it exists. Objectively.

Where does objective morality exist, exactly?

[Skepdick]

Since you are under no moral obligation to respond to my comments in a way that makes sense, I don't suppose I have any right to complain.

What's confusing you?

If murder is not objectively wrong then I can murder you If I want to. What's to stop me? Morality doesn't exist objectively.
If murder is objectively wrong then I can't murder you even if I want to. What's to stop me? Morality is stopping me! Because it exists. Objectively.

I am assuming that we both belong to a culture that considers the gratuitous killing of a human being by another human being to be morally wrong. I have to agree that it seems wrong to me, and I agree that it feels objectively wrong. But what if there were another culture somewhere that saw no moral issue in killing anyone who belonged to a different culture? If they didn't feel that attitude to be morally wrong, what could you present them with to show them it was objectively, morally wrong?


What if we take a less extreme example like, say, contraception? The Catholic Church says contraception is wrong, but you and I might well think it isn't wrong. If you don't consider that to be a case of two subjective moral opinions, where are we supposed to find the objective moral truth of the matter.

Because it exists. Objectively.

Where does objective morality exist, exactly?

I am not talking about feelings here. I am talking about mechanics. Have you tried murdering somebody? I have.

I had my gun in a child rapist's mouth. Tried to pull the trigger - my body wouldn't let me.

There's something in my brain I have no control over.

Most of the world's militaries know this - that is why they have to train soldiers to shoot. 90% of soldiers miss. On purpose. Read "On Killing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing

[Harbal]

I am not talking about feelings here. I am talking about mechanics. Have you tried murdering somebody? I have.

I had my gun in a child rapist's mouth. Tried to pull the trigger - my body wouldn't let me.

There's something in my brain I have no control over.

Most of the world's militaries know this - that is why they have to train soldiers to shoot. 90% of soldiers miss. On purpose. Read "On Killing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing

If humans have an instinctive reluctance to kill members of their own species, that might be described as a behavioural characteristic, rather than morality. I think morality, by definition, is a matter of personal taste. When you have grown up in an environment where killing people is drummed into you as being morally wrong, it is very difficult to see it any other way. It becomes easier to see the subjective nature of morality with issues like abortion, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, contraception, etc.

[Peter Holmes]

Factual premise: Something in the human brain stops us murdering people.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, (it's a fact that) murder is morally wrong.

Non sequitur. Even if true, non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. The end. Moral objectivity is dead in the water.

[Skepdick]

If humans have an instinctive reluctance to kill members of their own species, that might be described as a behavioural characteristic, rather than morality.

We don't have reluctance to kill members of our own species.
We have reluctance to murder members of our own species.

Killing in self-defence is perfectly fine. Been there. Done that.

It's the murder I couldn't go through with.

I think morality, by definition, is a matter of personal taste.

Morality precedes definitions/language. It's about behaviour - not words.

When you have grown up in an environment where killing people is drummed into you as being morally wrong, it is very difficult to see it any other way. It becomes easier to see the subjective nature of morality with issues like abortion, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, contraception, etc.

Seems you've been brainwashed indeed. Killing is amoral. Murder is immoral. Self-defence is moral.

You understand the difference, right?

[Skepdick]

Factual premise: Something in the human brain stops us murdering people.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, (it's a fact that) murder is morally wrong.

Non sequitur. Even if true, non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. The end. Moral objectivity is dead in the water.

What a dumb fucking cunt. Still doesn't understand what logic is for or how it works.

Could you complete any one the premises below to make the argument sound/valid.

Premise: ???
Conclusion: Therefore the universe exists

Premise: ???
Conclusion: Therefore Earth orbits the Sun.

Premise: ???
Conclusion: Therefore Paris is the capital of France.

Premise: ???
Conclusion: Therefore there are 12 months in a year.

Premise: ???
Conclusion: Therefore this color is red.

Do you ever get the idea that you don't have clue how reasoning actually works?

[Harbal]

We don't have reluctance to kill members of our own species.
We have reluctance to murder members of our own species.

I have a reluctance to kill members of my own species, for any reason. Does that make me unusual?

Killing in self-defence is perfectly fine. Been there. Done that.

Having gained an insight into your character by the way you conduct yourself here, it doesn't surprise me that you have experience of self defence.

Morality precedes definitions/language. It's about behaviour - not words.

Yes, it's convenient to abandon words when you don't have a convincing argument.

Seems you've been brainwashed indeed. Killing is amoral. Murder is immoral. Self-defence is moral.

Killing is regrettable, but sometimes unavoidable, murder is illegal, and self defence is justifiable, but that does not automatically give you permission to kill someone.

You understand the difference, right?

I suspect I have a better grasp on it than you do.

[Skepdick]

I have a reluctance to kill members of my own species, for any reason. Does that make me unusual?

Most killers kill reluctantly.

Having gained an insight into your character by the way you conduct yourself here, it doesn't surprise me that you have experience of self defence.

No shit. Apparently shooting somebody in the face is a very persuasive argument to make them stop shooting at you.

Yes, it's convenient to abandon words when you don't have a convincing argument.

I haven't abandoned words - only the silly game of arguing.

In the same breath idiot-philosophers reject the factuality of moral imperatives; they peddle imperatives with respect to "convincing argumentation".

The perpetual performative contradiction prevents me from taking such idiocy seriously.

Killing is regrettable, but sometimes unavoidable, murder is illegal, and self defence is justifiable, but that does not automatically give you permission to kill someone.

Killing's the sort of thing you seek forgiveness for - permission takes far too long.

I suspect I have a better grasp on it than you do.

I doubt that very much. I just killed a mosquito. No reluctance, regret or permission necessary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Questions for VA.

Do you think there was no [universe / existence / reality / nature] before the evolution of human beings, and that there won't be when we're gone?

If so, do you have scientific, empirical evidence for that claim?

Never mind the bollocks about emergence, entanglement and intersubjective consensus opinion. Answer those damn questions.

It is an insult to your own intelligence [exposing that your skull is so thick] that you have to raise the question again after I have answered your repeated questions a '1000' times.

First, in terms of the FSKs of common sense, classical, Einsteinian physics, [which assume Time is real] and on hindsight and present evidence there was a universe from the Big Bang before the evolution of humans beings.
But note, there is no certainty the universe will still be there if humans has gone extinct - there are no humans to confirm whatever the case.

However within the FSK of QM,
there was no universe before the emergence of human beings within evolution.
QM do not assume Time is real, thus 'before' or 'after' humans emerged or are gone has no truth-value.

If so, do you have scientific, empirical evidence for that claim?

Note this thread which thesis won the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics.
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
Therefore the Universe does not exists if no humans 'cognize' it.

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."

You think Professor Jim Al-Khalili is very stupid to make the following statements?

Make it a point to register with the above answer and don't raise such damm questions again.