What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

I mustn't presume to understand a word that the dick-for-brains or anyone else writes.

We're all whistling words in the dark.

Excuse me - just need to ask the bedder for clean sheets. Nocturnal emissions. What can you do?

[Skepdick]

I mustn't presume to understand a word that the dick-for-brains or anyone else writes.

We're all whistling words in the dark.

Excuse me - just need to ask the bedder for clean sheets. Nocturnal emissions. What can you do?

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes strikes again. Appealing to some abstract notion of "understanding" while insisting his brain contains no thoughts.

[Peter Holmes]

The troll dick-for-brains thinks it understands what I've written. How dare it?

[Skepdick]

The troll dick-for-brains thinks it understands what I've written. How dare it?

I've made no such claim about my state of my brain. Maybe I "understand". Maybe I don't. Who knows?

Are you a brain-reader of some sort ?!?

Even if you were a brain-reader - what could you possibly read from brains containing no thoughts?

[Peter Holmes]

Troll dick-for-brains has a charming and witty nickname for me: Dumb ****. [Not my redaction. ?]

Which is harsh. All the cunts I've known have been more than eloquent.

[Skepdick]

Which is harsh. All the cunts I've known have been more than eloquent.

Awww! This cunt takes that as a compliment.

[Iwannaplato]

I suggest we use the above dialogue as evidence in either of the following two debates:

Proposition 1: The above dialogue between PH & SD is evidence of objective morality.
Takers for the affirmative or negative?

Proposition 2: The above dialogue reveals that both believe in objective morality.
Takers for the affirmative or negative?

Proposition 2 can be tweaked towards its opposite.
Also proposition 2 can be more focused: for ex. It can be demonstrated using this dialogue that PH believes morals are subjective (or objective).
Likewise substituting SD.

The scorn is fodder to the main.

[Skepdick]

I suggest we use the above dialogue as evidence in either of the following two debates:

Proposition 1: The above dialogue between PH & SD is evidence of objective morality.
Takers for the affirmative or negative?

Proposition 2: The above dialogue reveals that both believe in objective morality.
Takers for the affirmative or negative?

Proposition 2 can be tweaked towards its opposite.
Also proposition 2 can be more focused: for ex. It can be demonstrated using this dialogue that PH believes morals are subjective (or objective).
Likewise substituting SD.

The scorn is fodder to the main.

Propositon 3: The linguistic description (objective; or subjective subjective) of morality doesn't alter the objective behaviour.

[Peter Holmes]

Not sure what these propositions are aiming at.

But, just to clarify - I think the dick-for-brains is a repulsive troll with nothing useful to say on this topic, with nothing approaching a valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, and no rational response to every falsification of its moronic claims.

I hate the nastiness the fuckwit obviously enjoys spreading about, and I'd be very pleased if it would crawl back to the cellar where it obviously festers and leave the rest of us to have a polite and informative conversation about morality.

I'd also like world peace, complete economic equality, and white chocolate creme eggs whenever I crave them. But - ho hum.

[promethean75]

if both Peter Groove Holmes and skepdick believe that what they are explaining is simple enough that only a moron wouldn't understand it, chances are they are both right. what's happening is some kind of disconnect way back... at some point there wuz a disagreement about what some word or phrase meant in some premise, and rather than stopping there they musta ostensibly stepped over it.

it could very well be the case that each would agree with what the other meant, but not agree on what what it meant, meant. i know that doesn't sound right but it's possible and happens all the time in philosophy. if u could break all statements down into elementary propositions, they should hold for anyone who interprets them. both PH and SD theories are composed of complex statements which can be broken down into elementary propositions. ergo, u are a moron if u do not understand PH and SD theories.

it seems we have a problem, gentlemen.

[Iwannaplato]

Propositon 3: The linguistic description (objective; or subjective subjective) of morality doesn't alter the objective behaviour.

Great, please use as examples, in support of this proposition, quotes from your recent exchange with Peter Holmes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Propositon 3: The linguistic description (objective; or subjective subjective) of morality doesn't alter the objective behaviour.

I agree.

What PH is blabbering is merely about linguistic words pointing to linguistic facts [just is].
Linguistic facts are merely linguistic [intelligible] entities and never really real [just is & illusory] as compared to empirical facts which can only be realized within a specific FSK [science being the most reliable], therefrom realized, verified, justified then known and described.

Note;
From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39196

From the human moral sense it is expressed into "objective" moral behaviors [thoughts, feeling, expressions, actions].

"objective" moral behaviors results in people have right or wrong views about moral issues. The right or wrong views y subjects are not objective per se, but rather what trigger and underlie these right or wrong views are the generic physical neurobiological elements related to morality present in ALL humans that is objective. [emerged, realized, verified, justified then known and described.]

What Are Moral Intuitions and Why Should We Care about Them? A Neurobiological Perspective
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27749905

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not sure what these propositions are aiming at.

But, just to clarify - I think the dick-for-brains is a repulsive troll with nothing useful to say on this topic, with nothing approaching a valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, and no rational response to every falsification of its moronic claims.

I hate the nastiness the fuckwit obviously enjoys spreading about, and I'd be very pleased if it would crawl back to the cellar where it obviously festers and leave the rest of us to have a polite and informative conversation about morality.

I'd also like world peace, complete economic equality, and white chocolate creme eggs whenever I crave them. But - ho hum.

Personally, I do not like posts with cussing and swearing words and will not condone such.

Nevertheless amidst all the exchange of ugly words, Skepdick do have VERY solid points against your claim, "morality is not objective", grounded in linguistic facts which are noumenal, illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and nonsensical.

Skepdick condemned [..I agree with] your "meaning is use" [in the absolute sense] which is so outdated.
It is not "use = meaning."

Rather it should be;
"use = users = FSK[s] = meaning"
There is no meaning without any FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

...your claim, "morality is not objective", grounded in linguistic facts which are noumenal, illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and nonsensical.

1 If linguistic facts are noumenal, illusory, and so on, how can you write that linguistic facts are noumenal, illusory, and so on? And how can we understand what you write? You're using the very linguistic methods or practices that you dismiss as nonsensical.

2 The abstract noun meaning is not the name of a thing of some kind that can be described. We just use the word meaning and its cognates in many different but related ways, for different purposes. For example, the meaning of a declarative sentence is different from the meaning of a gesture or the meaning of some data. The philosophical question - ah, but what is meaning?' is misleading.

That's why the realisation that meaning - including the meaning of meaning - is use is fundamental. Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. And the ways we use them are not mysterious. Linguistic facts are out in the open.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...your claim, "morality is not objective", grounded in linguistic facts which are noumenal, illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and nonsensical.

1 If linguistic facts are noumenal, illusory, and so on, how can you write that linguistic facts are noumenal, illusory, and so on? And how can we understand what you write? You're using the very linguistic methods or practices that you dismiss as nonsensical.

In my case, linguistic [language] is purely used for communications of human-based-FSK-facts, arguments, expression, etc.

In using linguistic in general, you are asserting there are facts but they are merely linguistic-facts pointing to something out there that is a feature of reality, just-is which is reified from an illusion.
E.g. to you 'water is H20' [a linguistic fact] points to something that is absolute real, a feature of reality, just-is, independent of the human conditions.
Obviously I have to use linguistic to write and counter your argument that your [not mine] linguistic-fact is illusory.

2 The abstract noun meaning is not the name of a thing of some kind that can be described. We just use the word meaning and its cognates in many different but related ways, for different purposes. For example, the meaning of a declarative sentence is different from the meaning of a gesture or the meaning of some data. The philosophical question - ah, but what is meaning?' is misleading.

The meaning of "meaning" in linguistic terms is;

• "Meaning" -Linguistics.
  the nonlinguistic cultural correlate, reference, or denotation of a linguistic form; expression.
  linguistic content (opposed to expression).

As I had stated, meaning is;

"use = user = FSK[s] = meaning"

There is no meaning without its specific FSK, i.e. the related contexts.

That's why the realisation that meaning - including the meaning of meaning - is use is fundamental. Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. And the ways we use them are not mysterious. Linguistic facts are out in the open.

The "meaning is use" in general is a useful to a small extent, [a what is used for hammering is a hammer] but it cannot be taken as the absolute.
The point is, in every 'meaning is use' an inherent FSK is implied within the phrase.
Thus one cannot simply insist 'meaning is use' without qualifying its related FSK or perspective.