What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

And anyway - to echo IWP - if there are no facts, then there are no moral facts. The end.

Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes is confused as usual. He conflates factuality with objectivity.

Absence of facts doesn't preclude objectivity.

Space is objective. Tell us a fact about it.
Time is objective. Tell us a fact about it.
Energy is objective. Tell us a fact about it.
Entropy is objective. Tell us a fact about it.

[Peter Holmes]

Oh, good. VA finally agrees that knowledge and description cannot produce facts.

So the fact that what we call water is what we call H2O has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus opinion 'within' a chemistry 'framework and system of knowledge'.

How we may come to a conclusion, such as that water is H2O, is, no doubt, interesting. Perhaps it can be said to have taken billions of years of biological and human evolution for us to reach the conclusion that water is H2O. But that has no bearing on the fact that water is H2O.

That's what we call a fact, expressed by means of the true factual assertion: water is H2O.

Now, is the moral wrongness of, say, capital punishment a fact? And can the moral assertion 'capital punishment is morally wrong' be called a factual assertion with a truth-value?

(Stroll on.)

[Skepdick]

No one owes anyone an argument. But I'm here for valid and sound arguments with premises and conclusions.

P1. A thing is itself and nothing else (Law of identity)
C1. Water is water and nothing else
C2. H2O is H2O and nothing else
C3. Water is not H2O

That's what we call a fact, expressed by means of the true factual assertion: water is H2O.

So it's a sound argument that water is not H2O AND it's a true factual assertion that water is H2O.

Queue the usual apologetics from Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh, good. VA finally agrees that knowledge and description cannot produce facts.

So the fact that what we call water is what we call H2O has nothing to do with intersubjective consensus opinion 'within' a chemistry 'framework and system of knowledge'.

I have already repeated this many times.
Before we 'know' and describe what is known [facts, truths and knowledge], there are the preceding processes within a FSK that is entanglement, emergent and realization.

Unfortunately you are ignorant, before scientists arrive at any conclusion to be known, there is a series of complex processes within the scientific method, peer review involving humans with a 4 billion years of evolutionary conditioning.
What is establish as a fact [reality] is based on these complex process before it it known and described.

How we may come to a conclusion, such as that water is H2O, is, no doubt, interesting. Perhaps it can be said to have taken billions of years of biological and human evolution for us to reach the conclusion that water is H2O. But that has no bearing on the fact that water is H2O.

That's what we call a fact, expressed by means of the true factual assertion: water is H2O.

Now, is the moral wrongness of, say, capital punishment a fact? And can the moral assertion 'capital punishment is morally wrong' be called a factual assertion with a truth-value?

(Stroll on.)

As I had present a '1000-times' what is fact to you is a noumenon, illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

"expressed by means of the true factual assertion" is merely a linguistic fact from a linguistic FSK which do not reflect reality at a credible level.

What is fact to me is a human-based-FSK-fact - thus objective.
A human-based moral FSK is possible, thus morality is objective is possible.

Now, is the moral wrongness of, say, capital punishment a fact? And can the moral assertion 'capital punishment is morally wrong' be called a factual assertion with a truth-value?

The above has no relevance to me.
I do not relate rightness and wrongness with morality proper.

[Peter Holmes]

1 The chemical constitution of water is not 'a noumenon, illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical'. It's a fact - a feature of reality that is the case.

2 Moral discourse is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And if VA isn't talking about that, then VA isn't talking about morality. But, as it happens, VA thinks morality is to do with avoiding evil and promoting good - and has no way to explain why we should do so.

[Skepdick]

1 The chemical constitution of water is not 'a noumenon, illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical'. It's a fact - a feature of reality that is the case.

The WHAT constitution of water ?

Why the "chemical" constitution (of water)?
Why not the sub-atomic constitution (of the atoms (of water))?
Why not the quantum constitution (of the sub-atomic particles (of the atoms (of water)))?

Do the constituents of the constituents of the constituents of water have constituents themselves?

You are making VA's point for him. The "constitution of water" is conditioned upon chemistry, sub-atomic physics, or quantum physics.

[Skepdick]

2 Moral discourse is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

So it is morally right or wrong to behave in a self-contradictory manner?

No one owes anyone an argument. But I'm here for valid and sound arguments with premises and conclusions.

P1. A thing is itself and nothing else (Law of identity)
C1. Water is water and nothing else
C2. H2O is H2O and nothing else
C3. Water is not H2O

That's what we call a fact, expressed by means of the true factual assertion: water is H2O.

So it's a sound argument that water is not H2O AND it's a true factual assertion that water is H2O.

Queue the usual apologetics from Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 The chemical constitution of water is not 'a noumenon, illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical'. It's a fact - a feature of reality that is the case.

Note your 'chemical' above which must be qualified to the human-based science-chemistry FSK and no other way. It can only be a human-based science-chemistry-FSK fact.

When you state without qualification [as expected in this discussion], i.e.
PH: "It's a fact - a feature of reality that is the case"
that is 'a noumenon, illusory, nothing, empty, meaningless and nonsensical'.
Without qualification, it could mean 'you' 'your father, mother, grandfather' or a monkey said it is so.

It is only meaningful if you state or at least imply,
"It's a chemistry-fact - a feature of reality that is the case" i.e.
"It's a human-based science-chemistry FSK fact - a feature of reality that is the case"

WHY?? see,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Scientific [Chemistry, Physics, Biology, etc.] facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

2 Moral discourse is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.
And if VA isn't talking about that, then VA isn't talking about morality.
But, as it happens, VA thinks morality is to do with avoiding evil and promoting good - and has no way to explain why we should do so.

Typically, morality is associated with right or wrong which is not rigoristic enough as required for the purpose of morality proper. This is why moral progress is at snail pace since humans emerged to the present.
As the saying goes 'One's man meat is another man's poison'; What is morally right to Hitler is obviously wrong any normal people.

Morality-proper as eliminating* 'evil' to enable its related good is very effective.
*that is an ideal to strive for and in practice strive to be as close as optimally possible to the ideal.
I have explained, i.e. the killing of humans by humans is one significant example of an evil act.
There is an 'oughtness not to kill humans' programmed in the DNA of ALL humans via a 4 billion years history of evolution.

If the Last Universal Cell Ancestor [LUCA] within the primordial soup did not have this inherent 'moral' inhibitors "not to kill its own kind", we would not be here to day.

• The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) or universal most recent common ancestor (UMRCA) is the most recent population from which all organisms now living on Earth share common descent—the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth. -wiki

[Peter Holmes]

VA, have a think about the following two arguments.

1 If my father/mother/pet monkey says water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

2 If the intersubjective consensus of chemists is that water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

Do you understand why these are both non sequitur fallacies?

[Skepdick]

VA, have a think about the following two arguments.

1 If my father/mother/pet monkey says water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

2 If the intersubjective consensus of chemists is that water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

Antoine Lavoisier named them "hydrogen" (from the Greek hydro meaning water and genes meaning creator) and "oxygen" (derived from the Greek word "Oxygenes", which means "acid-forming").

Note how both of the names allude to what the chemicals DO, not what they ARE. Hydrogen forms water. Oxygen oxidates (forms acid).

Dmitri Mendeleev figured another way of identification: by counting protons/electrons. He called the 1-proton element "H" and the 8-protons element O, but he offered no way of actually counting the protons of any gas in a jar so you can't really tell whether you have H or O in front of you.

Still - in 2023 we can only determine what some chemical IS based on what it DOES.

And so it happens what anything DOES is best encoded in the Schrödinger equation which captures the time-evolution of the quantum system.

Atoms don't exist. They are just a useful level of abstraction/mental heuristic because your brain can't cope with the quantum complexity.

Do you understand why these are both non sequitur fallacies?

History is a non sequitur fallacy?!?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA, have a think about the following two arguments.

1 If my father/mother/pet monkey says water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

2 If the intersubjective consensus of chemists is that water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

Do you understand why these are both non sequitur fallacies?

Strawman again!!

PH" 1 If my [PH's] father/mother/pet monkey says water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.
This is non-sequitur because without the chemistry-FSK, there is no way of stating 'water is H20' is a chemistry fact by your father or mother, or pet monkey [if he can talk].

PH:2 If the intersubjective consensus of chemists is that water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.
You missed out in qualifying 'fact' above, it should be "a science-chemistry-FSK fact," not just plain 'fact'.
Yes, water is H20 is a science-chemistry-FSK fact as conditioned by the intersubjective consensus of chemists within a science-chemistry-FSK.
note the necessary qualifications in bold above.

In this case 2, your father and mother can assert 'water is H20' [a science-chemistry-FSK fact] because science-chemistry-FSK said so.
This is objective [in reference to the science-chemistry-FSK] because it is independent of your father's or mother's personal subjective opinion, beliefs and judgment.

You seem to have a very thick skull that you cannot understand [not necessary agree with] my intentions.

I have argued there are two senses of 'what is fact'.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

As such when the term 'fact' is mentioned in your post you must qualify whether it is,
1. fact [PH's sense] - fact(PH)
2. fact [human-based-FSK] - fact (FSK)

You cannot simply state 'fact' without the above qualifications, else it will cause confusion.
So for clarity sake in this specific issues discussed, you must qualify the term 'fact' whenever it is used.

Btw, you still have not provided any authorized references to support what you meant by 'what is fact', i.e. it is based on analytic philosophy, ordinary language philosophy, Wittgenstein, Frege, Ryle, Armstrong, Strawson, or whoever that support your point.

Thus so far, that is based on your personal subjective view on 'what is fact'.

[Peter Holmes]

VA, have a think about the following two arguments.

1 If my father/mother/pet monkey says water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

2 If the intersubjective consensus of chemists is that water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

Do you understand why these are both non sequitur fallacies?

Strawman again!!

PH" 1 If my [PH's] father/mother/pet monkey says water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.
This is non-sequitur because without the chemistry-FSK, there is no way of stating 'water is H20' is a chemistry fact by your father or mother, or pet monkey [if he can talk].

PH:2 If the intersubjective consensus of chemists is that water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.
You missed out in qualifying 'fact' above, it should be "a science-chemistry-FSK fact," not just plain 'fact'.
Yes, water is H20 is a science-chemistry-FSK fact as conditioned by the intersubjective consensus of chemists within a science-chemistry-FSK.
note the necessary qualifications in bold above.

In this case 2, your father and mother can assert 'water is H20' [a science-chemistry-FSK fact] because science-chemistry-FSK said so.
This is objective [in reference to the science-chemistry-FSK] because it is independent of your father's or mother's personal subjective opinion, beliefs and judgment.

You seem to have a very thick skull that you cannot understand [not necessary agree with] my intentions.

I have argued there are two senses of 'what is fact'.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

As such when the term 'fact' is mentioned in your post you must qualify whether it is,
1. fact [PH's sense] - fact(PH)
2. fact [human-based-FSK] - fact (FSK)

You cannot simply state 'fact' without the above qualifications, else it will cause confusion.
So for clarity sake in this specific issues discussed, you must qualify the term 'fact' whenever it is used.

Btw, you still have not provided any authorized references to support what you meant by 'what is fact', i.e. it is based on analytic philosophy, ordinary language philosophy, Wittgenstein, Frege, Ryle, Armstrong, Strawson, or whoever that support your point.

Thus so far, that is based on your personal subjective view on 'what is fact'.

No, the point is that saying something is so doesn't make it so. And I assume you agree.

So it follows that it doesn't matter who says it's so: me, my father, my pet monkey, or a bunch of chemists. And it doesn't matter how anyone arrives at the conclusion. Saying something is so can never make it so. Something else is required, viz, it's actually being so.

And you agree that knowledge and descriptions cannot produce facts. So your blather about a 'framework and system of knowledge' - and a mystical 'emergence' and 'realisation' of facts - is irrelevant. That a description of facts is always contextual and conventional doesn't mean that there are no facts 'outside' descriptions.

All you ever do is assert that what we call facts - features of reality that are or were the case - don't exist 'outside' knowledge and description - but that knowledge and description cannot produce facts. The contradiction is obvious. And you refuse to recognise it.

[Skepdick]

No, the point is that saying something is so doesn't make it so. And I assume you agree.

Saying that this color is "red" makes it red in the context of the person saying it.
Saying that this color is "blue" makes it blue in the context of the person saying it.
Saying that this color is "green" makes it green in the context of the person saying it.
Saying that you are a dumb cunt makes you a dumb cunt in the context of the person saying it.

Saying that something is so makes it so in the context of the person saying it.

That is how ostensive definitions and perspectives/contexts work!

[Peter Holmes]

Saying 'there are pink unicorns on the moon' makes it so 'in the context of the person saying it'.

Genius.

[Skepdick]

Saying 'there are pink unicorns on the moon' makes it so 'in the context of the person saying it'.

Genius.

Of course there's a "pink unicorn" on the moon in the context of me saying it! Here it is.

Saying so - makes it so. That is how ostensive definitions work!

Maybe you should define what you mean by "pink unicorn"?