What could make morality objective?

[Harbal]

And those rules could be anything, depending on who is applying them, right? The rules I apply to moral behaviour might be different to your rules, and someone else might have different rules again. Give that, how can there be such a thing as an objective moral truth?

In exactly the same way the rules of Mathematics could be anything.

Are they anything? No. We have objective standards and definitions.

You've conceptualized "objectivity" in such a way that it's impossible for you or anyone to attain it. You've defined it such that you've set everybody up for failure. That seems like a really stupid mind-game.

If "objectivity" is a useful concept to us humans, then maybe you shouldn't define it so stupid.

I don't suppose there is anyone else's nerves you want to get on for a while, is there? I feel I've had to put up with you for much longer than I could reasonably be expected to.

[Skepdick]

And those rules could be anything, depending on who is applying them, right? The rules I apply to moral behaviour might be different to your rules, and someone else might have different rules again. Give that, how can there be such a thing as an objective moral truth?

In exactly the same way the rules of Mathematics could be anything.

Are they anything? No. We have objective standards and definitions.

You've conceptualized "objectivity" in such a way that it's impossible for you or anyone to attain it. You've defined it such that you've set everybody up for failure. That seems like a really stupid mind-game.

If "objectivity" is a useful concept to us humans, then maybe you shouldn't define it so stupid.

I don't suppose there is anyone else's nerves you want to get on for a while, is there? I feel I've had to put up with you for much longer than I could reasonably be expected to.

I mean ... if you refuse to address the issues with your conception of "objectivity" (under the pretense that I am getting on your nerves) that's fine with me.

But I am sure everyone's dying to know why humans would define "objectivity" in a way that's unattailable by humans and then keep asserting claims as "objective"

[Harbal]

Why are you assuming that "1" represents an object and not an abstract quantity where 1 + 1 = 1?

I'm not assuming anything. When I use numbers, I don't assume what they represent, I determine what they represent. They represent whatever I say they represent.

[Skepdick]

Why are you assuming that "1" represents an object and not an abstract quantity where 1 + 1 = 1?

I'm not assuming anything. When I use numbers, I don't assume what they represent, I determine what they represent. They represent whatever I say they represent.

So you determine what 1 represents.
You determine what + represents.
You determine what = represents.

But Mathematics-in-the-abstract (when 1+1=2 doesn't represent anything concrete) determines that "1+1=2" is correct?

How do you determine when you determine vs when Mathematics determines?

And what about the example where 1+1=2 is incorrect?

It turns out that "1+1=2" is sometimes correct and sometimes incorrecct so the question "When?" naturally follows.

[Harbal]

I mean ... if you refuse to address the issues with your conception of "objectivity" (under the pretense that I am getting on your nerves) that's fine with me.

I don't know if it makes a difference, but I'm not pretending. You probably don't realise how irritating you are. But then again, you probably do.

[Skepdick]

I mean ... if you refuse to address the issues with your conception of "objectivity" (under the pretense that I am getting on your nerves) that's fine with me.

I don't know if it makes a difference, but I'm not pretending. You probably don't realise how irritating you are. But then again, you probably do.

Me asking you questions is irritating?
But you asking me questions is not irritating?

That's definitely in the spirit of the "Do as I say not as I do" crowd...

This is a philosophy forum. If I am not irritating I suck at the task at hand! By definition.

[Sculptor]

Why do dogs (sometimes) eat grass?

Because some dogs will try anything.
I reject the functionalist claim that it has something to do with seeking medicine.

Grass has some available carbs. As you may know, grass has some sweetness. This may well attract them to it.

It's actually not a great idea, since it is possible to imbibe parasites that way

[Harbal]

Me asking you questions is irritating?

It's not specifically your questions, it's just you in general. But you are doing it on purpose, so I have to admit that you are quite good at it.

This is a philosophy forum. If I am not irritating I suck at the task at hand! By definition.

I can can only assume that your task at hand is to discourage everyone from having anything to do with you. Well it's working; well done.

[Iwannaplato]

Why do dogs (sometimes) eat grass?

It can soothe an upset stomach. It provides fiber. Some think it might have some micronutrients they need now and then.
I had a dog that would eat grass and then throw up.

. A therapeutic use of medication is cats and dogs consuming grass as an emetic (a vomit-inducing substance) to relieve gut trouble,

He would only do this sometimes, so I assumed it was something his body led him to do.
There are many wild animals who will go to specific plants when sick or out of balance in some way.

They may well be very unhealthy - like us - with human foods. Since in evolutionary terms, we don't really have defenses against these foods which are specifically meant to be addictive or provide odd combinations of elements that are hard to resist.

But if an animal eats something in nature, it's very likely they need it for some reason.

Of course pets may be bred into incompetence around such issues. Gastronomically illiterate. But in general vets consider grass-eating neutral to good in dogs.

[Skepdick]

This is a philosophy forum. If I am not irritating I suck at the task at hand! By definition.

I can can only assume that your task at hand is to discourage everyone from having anything to do with you. Well it's working; well done.

People having an averse reaction to Philosophy (as it's currently practiced) sounds like a desirable property

define-it-parrot.jpg

[Peter Holmes]

Water is/is not H2O.
It's a fact that water is/is not H2O.
It's true that water is/is not H2O.
It's an objectively true fact that water is/not objectively H2O.

The bit that matters is 'water is H2O' - and all the rest is rhetorical emphasis, just as it is in moral assertions.
The difference is that 'water is H2O' has a factual truth-value, whereas 'abortion is morally wrong' DOES NOT, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

You are very ignorant and trying to be deceptive with the above.

As I had stated,
that 'water is/is-not H20' cannot be confirmed by your father or mother.
that 'water is H20' can only be confirmed by the authority of the Science-Chemistry FSK.
the Science-Chemistry FSK is objective since it is maintained and sustained by a collective of subjects [scientists], i.e. intersubjective and not based on ONE subject.
It is an objective scientific-Chemistry fact that Water is H20.
that 'water is H2O' only has truth-value within the Science-Chemistry FSK, not the science-biology nor the legal-FSK nor other FSKs.

Similarly,
that 'moral facts are objective' cannot be confirmed by your father or mother.
that 'moral facts are objective' can only be confirmed by the authority of the Moral FSK.
the moral FSK is objective since it is maintained and sustained by a collective of subjects [scientists], i.e. intersubjective and not based on ONE subject.
It is an objective moral fact that 'no human ought to kill humans' as justified via the science-biology FSK and imputed into a moral FSK.
that 'no human ought to kill humans' only has truth-value within the moral FSK, not the science-chemistry FSK, science-physics FSK nor the legal-FSK nor other FSKs.

This is fallacious hogwash from start to finish - and here's why.

1 The fact that water is H2O is independent from its confirmation by 'the authority' of chemists. If it weren't, then they couldn't confirm it. You mistake the description for the described. The 'authority' or credibility of a kind of description comes from its ability to describe something that actually exists.

2 The whole point of objectivity is independence from subjectivity, individual or collective. But your argument is this: It's the collective consensus opinion of [chemists] that water is H2O; therefore, (it's a fact that) water is H2O. And that's a non sequitur fallacy, because if their collective opinion were that water is not H2O, water would still be H2O. So their collective consensus opinion is irrelevant.

3 There is no 'morality FSK' in any way analogous to chemistry. You've just made that up. It doesn't exist. So, of course, there are no moral facts that a morality FSK can or does confirm - just as there are no astrological or phrenological facts that an astrology or phrenology FSK can or does confirm.

4 The neurological facts described by neuroscientists don't exist simply because there is neuroscience. They just are the case. And those facts - for example neurological causes for types of behaviour - are completely morally neutral, like all scientific facts.

As Iwannaplato has repeatedly pointed out, the decision to enhance or encourage some neurologically-caused behaviour rather than others is subjective. You think we ought to enhance or encourage not-killing-humans - and that's your moral opinion. But it's NOT a moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans. The expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

[Skepdick]

2 The whole point of objectivity is independence from subjectivity, individual or collective. But your argument is this: It's the collective consensus opinion of [chemists] that water is H2O; therefore, (it's a fact that) water is H2O. And that's a non sequitur fallacy, because if their collective opinion were that water is not H2O, water would still be H2O. So their collective consensus opinion is irrelevant.

What a dumb fucking cunt!

So if the collective opinions of humans was that this color is blue, this color would still be red?

If the collective opinions of humans was that water boils at 150 degrees Celsius water would still boil at 100 degrees celsius?

This imbecille is an incumbent of Aristotle's religion. The religion of identity. Things are what we say they are - they have no identity beyond the identity we, humans, bestow upon them.

The expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

The expression 'fact' is incoherent just the same.

What makes the expression "this color is red" a fact?

[Harbal]

People having an averse reaction to Philosophy (as it's currently practiced) sounds like a desirable property

You probably take the philosophy aspect of the forum more seriously than I do.

[Skepdick]

People having an averse reaction to Philosophy (as it's currently practiced) sounds like a desirable property

You probably take the philosophy aspect of the forum more seriously than I do.

Nah, I just make fun of people who seem to take philosophy seriously.

[Harbal]

2 The whole point of objectivity is independence from subjectivity, individual or collective. But your argument is this: It's the collective consensus opinion of [chemists] that water is H2O; therefore, (it's a fact that) water is H2O. And that's a non sequitur fallacy, because if their collective opinion were that water is not H2O, water would still be H2O. So their collective consensus opinion is irrelevant.

What a dumb fucking cunt!

So if the collective opinions of humans was that this color is blue, this color would still be red?

The word "red" is just a label that refers to something, and could be changed arbitrarily, but H20 is a description. The two are not comparable. What Peter Holmes said seems legitimate to me. I'm just saying, but I don't intend to argue about it.