What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Questions for VA.

Do you think there was no universe before humans evolved, and that there will be no universe when we're gone? If so, do you have any evidence to support this claim?

We await your answers.

[Skepdick]

Do you think there was no universe before humans evolved, and that there will be no universe when we're gone? If so, do you have any evidence to support this claim?

What or where is this "universe" you keep speaking about! Why haven't you shown it to us already?

Is it because you believe in it without a shred of evidence?

We await your answers.

And why ought he answer?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Re 2, the fact that there are physics fact is due to its emergence from a Physics-FSK, i.e. because the Physics-FSK 'said' so, not because your father said so.
There is no theory of relativity if there is no Physics-FSK.
The credibility of any scientific facts depends on the credibility and reliability [come in degrees] of the respective scientific-FSK.

I have already explained what is meant by philosophical objectivity and thus scientific objectivity which are conditioned upon a FSK grounded on the collective consensus of subjects.

Note this thread;
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Your sense of objectivity in related to facts-in-themselves, independent of subjects, i.e. noumena is delusional.

You are merely blabbering and had not given sound arguments why there can be no
-philosophical objectivity
-scientific objectivity
which are grounded on a collective of subjects?

Don't be a coward, give me your sound counter to the above and keep blabbering about 'objectivity-in-itself' which is delusional.

'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.

1. Facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK
2. Scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK
3. Moral facts are conditioned upon the moral FSK.

Prove to me 2 is wrong? if you can, I will reject 3.

'4. Therefore, morality is objective.'

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

Blabbering again without any sound arguments.

I have given a clue re below;
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275
thus the possibility that 'Morality is objective'

Prove me me the above survey result is absolutely false, thus there is no such thing that 'Morality is objective'.

[Harbal]

What or where is this "universe" you keep speaking about! Why haven't you shown it to us already?

Is it because you believe in it without a shred of evidence?

Don't you believe that there is a universe?

[Skepdick]

What or where is this "universe" you keep speaking about! Why haven't you shown it to us already?

Is it because you believe in it without a shred of evidence?

Don't you believe that there is a universe?

See, I know how to use the word "universe". It's a collective noun synonymous with "everything".

I have no idea what your question even means. How do I tell if I "believe that there is a universe" ?

[Peter Holmes]

VA and dick-for-brains know damn well that there was a universe before humans evolved, that there would be a universe if humans hadn't evolved, and that there will be a universe when humans are gone.

So we can ignore their silly argument that what we call facts, and therefore objectivity, are human-dependent.

But the dishonesty and evasions will continue, because it's tough and grown-up to recognise and admit that you've been wrong all along.

[Skepdick]

VA and dick-for-brains know damn well that there was a universe before humans evolved, that there would be a universe if humans hadn't evolved, and that there will be a universe when humans are gone.

Ah well. Now that you've taken it upon yourself to tell me what I do and don't know let me return the favour...

Peter Holmes knows damn well that morality is objective; and that he's a dumb trolling cunt.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You are insulting your own intelligence and exposing your lack of intelligence and dogmatism.

First, the concept of rightness nor wrongness is not critical for morality proper.

1. Common sense premise: Something in the human brain stops us murdering people.
2. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK -collective so, objective.
3. A scientific fact is conditioned upon the scientific FSK
4. So, A moral fact is conditioned upon a moral FSK
5. Whatever that is in the brain is a science-biology fact.
6. Something in the human brain stops us murdering people is a scientific fact.
7. Murdering people is a moral element.
8. When [6] as a moral element is conditioned within the moral FSK, an objective [2] moral fact [4] of morality emerged.
9. Morality is objective.

[Harbal]

Don't you believe that there is a universe?

I have no idea what your question even means. How do I tell if I "believe that there is a universe" ?

Okay, forget I asked.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA and dick-for-brains know damn well that there was a universe before humans evolved, that there would be a universe if humans hadn't evolved, and that there will be a universe when humans are gone.

So we can ignore their silly argument that what we call facts, and therefore objectivity, are human-dependent.

But the dishonesty and evasions will continue, because it's tough and grown-up to recognise and admit that you've been wrong all along.

Don't be a coward.

Counter my arguments in response to the questions you raised;
viewtopic.php?p=629460#p629460

What is so glaring with your intellectual incompetence is you have not given a single reference [from any credible philosopher] to support your points of view.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

I have been on to this point [innate resistance to killing humans] and have done research on this for some time.

Note my claim of the existence of an 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' within human nature and the human brain which is represented by physical neurons, neural correlates, neural algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
These are obviously represented by scientific facts [scientific objectivity] and when imputed into the moral FSK enable objective moral facts, thus morality is objective.
This objective moral fact is inherent in all humans since the beginning but it has been not active [yet] due to necessary situational reasons.

What is primal and proto- is the ought-ness-to-kill [not directed at humans except in self-defense] which is optimal for survival in the early and present circumstances.
Pointing out this primal ought-ness-to-kill is the usual counter against the innate resistance to kill humans. [it is true, humans are killing humans, but]
these moral fact deniers are ignorant of morality-proper and its slowly evolving trend.

Morality-proper is about the battle of the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' inhibitor [which is naturally unfolding its potential -albeit very slowly] to manage and modulate the ought-ness-to-kill to ensure it is not directed at humans at all in the future.

When we recognize the above objective moral facts, then there is potential to expedite moral progress.
It has to be objective [establishment of fixed goal posts] to guide continuous improvements so to avoid the anything-goes of subjectivity.

[Harbal]

When we recognize the above objective moral facts, then there is potential to expedite moral progress.
It has to be objective [establishment of fixed goal posts] to guide continuous improvements so to avoid the anything-goes of subjectivity.

Saying that morality is subjective is not the same as saying "anything goes". There are some things -killing people, for example- that the wrongness of is subjective opinion, but which I am prepared to treat as objective fact. Were this a political forum, I wouldn't make an issue of it, but it is a philosophy forum.

[Skepdick]

Saying that morality is subjective is not the same as saying "anything goes".

What's the difference?

Saying morality is subjective implies that there are no objective moral limits on behaviour.
But anything that could possibly limit or alter behaviour is necessarily causal and therefore objective.

P1. Morality is subjective if and only if anything goes.
P2. Anything doesn't go.
C. Therefore morality is not subjective.

Modus tollens

[Harbal]

Saying that morality is subjective is not the same as saying "anything goes".

What's the difference?

Just because a moral feeling is my own, subjective moral feeling, it doesn't mean it has no influence on my actions.

Saying morality is subjective implies that there are no objective moral limits on behaviour.

There is nothing to stop a subjective opinion from imposing limits.

But anything that could possibly limit or alter physical behaviour is necessarily causal and therefore objective.

Yes, the cause might have an objective existence within me, but it only applies to me, and no one else, and that is the sense in which it is subjective. And whatever my moral views, opinions and tastes, they could have been otherwise. There is no objectively existent repository of objectively right moral values from which one can draw.

P1. The only way morality could be subjective is IF anything goes.
P2. Anything doesn't go.
C. Therefore morality is not subjective.

Modus tollens

I don't agree with premis 1, so I consider your conclusion to be modus incorrect.

[Belinda]

What or where is this "universe" you keep speaking about! Why haven't you shown it to us already?

Is it because you believe in it without a shred of evidence?

Don't you believe that there is a universe?

See, I know how to use the word "universe". It's a collective noun synonymous with "everything".

I have no idea what your question even means. How do I tell if I "believe that there is a universe" ?

How you tell is how you tell that any ordered system exists apart from the order- systematic that you attribute. There may be hundreds of other ways to attribute an order -systematic other than stars and galaxies and stuff. More ancient generations thought a comet was a god.

We say Earth is a Goldilocks planet. Our scientific thought is Goldilocks too.