What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Generally, it is accepted that from the perspective of common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian sense, Einsteinian sense, there is an external objective world out there, but this cannot be claimed as absolute. It is different with QM, Eastern philosophy, idealism where there is a more realistic view of reality.

Why do quantum mechanics, eastern philosophy and idealism provide a 'more realistic view of reality'? And what does 'more realistic' mean? And do you agree that there is a reality about which there can more and less realistic views? Is this your unacknowledged realism at work? Ooops.

I am the only one who has been using the term 'human conditions' and it is always used in the sense that reality is entangled, interacted with or related to the human conditions.

But this description is useless. In what way is reality entangled with, or does it interact with, or is it related to, the 'human conditions'? And wtf are 'the human conditions? You been mumbling this nonsense for so long that you fondly imagine it actually means anything. It doesn't. All you're saying is that human being are real things, along with all the other real things in the universe.

No one has claimed an absolute anthropocentrism [sic] reality as the only reality there is.

And nor do I. All I'm saying is that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as the reality that we (along with other species) perceive, know and describe. The claims of eastern philosophy and idealism you advocate are so much mystical mumbo-jumbo.

...it is only humans who philosophize and has knowledge [epistemology] - justified true beliefs - of its world.

The JTB account of knowledge is incorrect. But anyway - why do you think humans can have justified beliefs about reality? How can that be if all we can ever know are the models of reality that we construct? Constructivism and model-dependent realism collapse under the slightest, simplest scrutiny.

Every organism from one-cell things to the most complex humans will have their specific realization of reality out of the primordial soup of suppositions of whatever [nothingness].

Why was or is reality a 'primordial soup of suppositions of whatever [nothingness]'? This is claptrap.

[No organism] can claim the reality they realized is THE OBJECTIVE REALITY independent of themselves.

Why insist that realists make any such claim? This is a straw windmill. You need an essentialist opponent in order to fabricate a fake anti-objectivism that - mirabile dictu - justifies moral objectivism.

It doesn't work.

[Iwannaplato]

Why do quantum mechanics, eastern philosophy and idealism provide a 'more realistic view of reality'? And what does 'more realistic' mean? And do you agree that there is a reality about which there can more and less realistic views? Is this your unacknowledged realism at work? Ooops.

Certainly a good response on your part.
Just felt that it was necessary to add again that I published a survey of scientists positions on realism, which included scientists by field and then included the question of whether there is a mind indepedent reality. The majority said yes, including in physics. Biologists, actually, were the most anti-realist. This does not, of course, mean that antirealism is wrong. But when he puts QM down in the way he does above, it is as if QM rules out a reality not dependent on us. QM is a field of study and there is no consensus amongst the professional involved.

Then we have the neo-colonialist term 'Eastern Philosophy'. This may be news to VA but Eastern Philosophy is as diverse as Western Philosopher, perhaps more so. So, it presents varieties of realisms and antirealisms and idealisms and....so on. It also does not have a consensus and cannot be waved about as a monolith magic wand like this.

And then idealism, which is 1) not separate from Eastern Religion (these are overlapping categories) but also 2) contains a wide range of beliefs. I don't think he has very defined which idealism he means (for example even between the broad categories of ontological vs epistemological idealisms) nor which version of idealism he means more specifically. He has sometimes focused on Kant, perhaps that's what he means. Then he's got to somehow get one clear Kant position on realism. Because the scholarship around Kant is all over the place categorizing him.

[Peter Holmes]

Why do quantum mechanics, eastern philosophy and idealism provide a 'more realistic view of reality'? And what does 'more realistic' mean? And do you agree that there is a reality about which there can more and less realistic views? Is this your unacknowledged realism at work? Ooops.

Certainly a good response on your part.
Just felt that it was necessary to add again that I published a survey of scientists positions on realism, which included scientists by field and then included the question of whether there is a mind indepedent reality. The majority said yes, including in physics. Biologists, actually, were the most anti-realist. This does not, of course, mean that antirealism is wrong. But when he puts QM down in the way he does above, it is as if QM rules out a reality not dependent on us. QM is a field of study and there is no consensus amongst the professional involved.

Then we have the neo-colonialist term 'Eastern Philosophy'. This may be news to VA but Eastern Philosophy is as diverse as Western Philosopher, perhaps more so. So, it presents varieties of realisms and antirealisms and idealisms and....so on. It also does not have a consensus and cannot be waved about as a monolith magic wand like this.

And then idealism, which is 1) not separate from Eastern Religion (these are overlapping categories) but also 2) contains a wide range of beliefs. I don't think he has very defined which idealism he means (for example even between the broad categories of ontological vs epistemological idealisms) nor which version of idealism he means more specifically. He has sometimes focused on Kant, perhaps that's what he means. Then he's got to somehow get one clear Kant position on realism. Because the scholarship around Kant is all over the place categorizing him.

Thanks. I think you're right about all of this.

I've become absorbed by the varieties of what could be called anti-realism - silly name - which I think has very ancient roots, and which has re-flowered recently - perhaps strongly since WW2.

The irony you keep pointing out - no facts means no moral facts - is one of the more entertaining features of this interminable discussion.

[Skepdick]

The irony you keep pointing out - no facts means no moral facts - is one of the more entertaining features of this interminable discussion.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes doing the necessary gambit to strengthen his straw fortress by coupling objectivity with the fact dependence.
All just for good measure, of course. Having already coupled factuality with mind-independence; so no mind could possibly imagine what that's like.

Sounds to me you've conceptualised 'objectivity' in a way that ties your own hands behind your back. And I am not alone in thinking that.

https://youtu.be/2bFfDwvbKP8

That's a confusion because it assumes that if ethics is objective then it must be a description - H.Putnam

All part of season 1 on "How to duct-tape your philosophy together"

[Peter Holmes]

How sweet - and academic - to think that citing someone else's fallacious argument does anything to improve your own.

[Skepdick]

How sweet - and academic - to think that citing someone else's fallacious argument does anything to improve your own.

How sweet - and ironic - to make value judgments (such as the "fallaciousness" of anyone's argument) without objective values.

[Peter Holmes]

How sweet - and question-begging - to think that the expression 'objective value' is coherent.

[Skepdick]

How sweet - and question-begging - to think that the expression 'objective value' is coherent.

How sweet - and confused - to make value judgments (such as the "coherencey" of expressions) without objective values.

[Peter Holmes]

To value something is to care about it - to think that it matters. For example, I value kindness and politeness - though I don't think I'm always kind and polite - which I regret. And I want to be better.

But the claim that values are or can be objective - matters of fact - is false. The expression 'objective value' is as incoherent as the expression 'subjective fact'.

There's no compulsion to value linguistic coherence, just as there's no compulsion to value classical logical entailment. But it makes no sense to say that linguistic coherence and logical entailment are values. Ice cream isn't a value either. And to call ice cream an objective value is ridiculous.

[Skepdick]

To value something is to care about it - to think that it matters. For example, I value kindness and politeness - though I don't think I'm always kind and polite - which I regret. And I want to be better.

But the claim that values are or can be objective - matters of fact - is false. The expression 'objective value' is as incoherent as the expression 'subjective fact'.

There's no compulsion to value linguistic coherence, just as there's no compulsion to value classical logical entailment. But it makes no sense to say that linguistic coherence and logical entailment are values. Ice cream isn't a value either. And to call ice cream an objective value is ridiculous.

How sweet - and confused - to make value judgments (such as what does and doesn't matter) without objective values.

How sweet - and confused - to make value judgments (such as "better" and "worse" about anything that matters) without objective values.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Generally, it is accepted that from the perspective of common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian sense, Einsteinian sense, there is an external objective world out there, but this cannot be claimed as absolute. It is different with QM, Eastern philosophy, idealism where there is a more realistic view of reality.

Why do quantum mechanics, eastern philosophy and idealism provide a 'more realistic view of reality'? And what does 'more realistic' mean? And do you agree that there is a reality about which there can more and less realistic views? Is this your unacknowledged realism at work? Ooops.

You are SO ignorant and philosophically immature.

First there is no ABSOLUTE REALITY that is independent from the human conditions.
Show argument if you think otherwise.
Since there is no absolute-reality, there is only relative-reality that is conditioned upon the human conditions and FSKs.

I stated there is the relative reality that is relative to the 1. common sense, 2. conventional sense, 3. Newtonian sense, 4. Einsteinian sense, which assumed there is an external objective world out there, but this cannot be claimed as absolute.
You will note there are degrees of improvement in the realization of reality from 1 to 4.
Thus 4 is more realistic than 3, 2 and 1, because 4 takes a wider, deeper, more complex and more variables.
QM as we know dig deeper [top-down] thus adopts a wider, deeper, more complex and more variables, so QM is more realistic than 4, 3, 2 and 1.

I am the only one who has been using the term 'human conditions' and it is always used in the sense that reality is entangled, interacted with or related to the human conditions.

But this description is useless. In what way is reality entangled with, or does it interact with, or is it related to, the 'human conditions'? And wtf are 'the human conditions? You been mumbling this nonsense for so long that you fondly imagine it actually means anything. It doesn't. All you're saying is that human being are real things, along with all the other real things in the universe.

Ignorant again.
The human conditions is what is human nature biologically and empirically as a human-based FSK fact within the human-based science-biology FSK.

Yes, "human being are real things, along with all the other real things in the universe."
Since real human beings are intricately part and parcel of reality -'all there is', in the ultimate sense, human beings are not absolutely independent of all other real things.

No one has claimed an absolute anthropocentrism [sic] reality as the only reality there is.

And nor do I. All I'm saying is that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as the reality that we (along with other species) perceive, know and describe.

Show what is that "such thing as the reality that we (along with other species) perceive, know and describe."
Show there is a "same thing" when a bat and human being cognized that something-X that human identify as "an apple on the tree"?

All different species evolved since 4 billion years ago within the 'primordial soup' [see analogy below] and 'supposition' to realize their own specific realization of reality.
There is no absolute reality, i.e. the [same] reality that we (along with other species) perceive, know and describe.

The claims of eastern philosophy and idealism you advocate are so much mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Ignorant again. You are relying on hearsays.
The main philosophy of say Buddhism-proper [amongst other "idealistic" Eastern Philosophy] is "idealistic". Give me a general idea [good reason] why Buddhism-proper is mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Note there are many types of realism and idealism, so they are very relative and can go either way, i.e. a realist can be an idealist in another sense.
Normally when I claim 'idealism' it is Transcendental Idealism but at the same time I am an Empirical Realist.

...it is only humans who philosophize and has knowledge [epistemology] - justified true beliefs - of its world.

The JTB account of knowledge is incorrect. But anyway - why do you think humans can have justified beliefs about reality? How can that be if all we can ever know are the models of reality that we construct? Constructivism and model-dependent realism collapse under the slightest, simplest scrutiny.

Every organism from one-cell things to the most complex humans will have their specific realization of reality out of the primordial soup of suppositions of whatever [nothingness].

Why was or is reality a 'primordial soup of suppositions of whatever [nothingness]'? This is claptrap.

Again you are ignorant and pathetically philosophically immature.

Note:
Quantum Superposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Primordial Soup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup
The same primordial soup of fundamental particles is still in existence at present.
Basically it it ultimately nothing, analogous to the image below;

[No organism] can claim the reality they realized is THE OBJECTIVE REALITY independent of themselves.

Why insist that realists make any such claim? This is a straw windmill. You need an essentialist opponent in order to fabricate a fake anti-objectivism that - mirabile dictu - justifies moral objectivism.

Your claim of 'what is fact' is a feature of reality [objective reality], i.e. just-is, being-so, that is independent of human's opinion, beliefs and judgement [i.e. human conditions].

It doesn't work.

Your ignorance and philosophical immaturity doesn't work.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've become absorbed by the varieties of what could be called anti-realism - silly name - which I think has very ancient roots, and which has re-flowered recently - perhaps strongly since WW2.

The irony you keep pointing out - no facts means no moral facts - is one of the more entertaining features of this interminable discussion.

As mentioned above,
Note there are many types of realism and idealism, so they are very relative and can go either way, i.e. a realist can be an idealist in another sense.
Normally when I claim 'idealism' it is Transcendental Idealism but at the same time I am an Empirical Realist.

Generally, "realism" [without qualification] is referenced to Philosophical Realism.

• Philosophical realism is ... the thesis that .. thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind. -WIKI

Philosophical Real_ISM is a default from our evolution because all living things are programmed to direct their attention to a 'real' external world to facilitate their survival for food and avoid threats. This is a 4 billion years old program we humans has inherited from our ancient ancestors and is embedded in our DNA.

So naturally, when human first philosophize [10,000 years ago, e.g. Hindus] they would have adopted reality in the 'Philosophical Realism' sense. i.e. there is only an external reality outside them, i.e. independent of their minds [human conditions].

"anti-realism - silly name" WHO ARE YOU, a philosophical gnat to say that?

Philosophy-wise, it was around 3000-2500 years ago that some rare philosophers who have had done very deep reflective thinking that turned the 10,000 philosophical realism paradigm 180 degrees to an Anti-Philosophical-Realism or in general anti-realism view.
The point is, in deliberation of reality, it cannot ignore the 'subjects' i.e. humans which are part and parcel of reality - all there is.

Anti-realism do recognize 'realism' but insist that 'realism' cannot be absolute, i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Note the 'Two Truths' principle of Buddhism-proper.

So in general for 2500+ years, there was only anti-realism.
Note
-the anti-realism of Buddhism-proper.
-Protagoras - Man is the measure of all things.
-Heraclitus - no man step into the same river twice


It was only in the 1700s that the term 'Idealism' was introduced.

• It was first used in the abstract metaphysical sense "belief that reality is made up only of ideas" by Christian Wolff in 1747.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Then we have,
-Kant's Copernican Revolution - Transcendental Idealism, and his
Empirical Realism - what is real is empirical but subsumed within Transcendental Idealism.

So yes, anti-realism has ancient roots, i.e. to >2500 years ago as a counter to realism, i.e. philosophical realism.

Your 'realism' i.e. philosophical realism has more ancient roots, i.e. traceable via evolution to appx. 4 billion years ago.
What is so pathetic is, you are so arrogant in insisting your appx. 4 billion years old primal realism is the most realistic and de facto reality and other versions are nonsense.

The human-based fact is anti-realism, e.g. 'man is the measure of all things' which is all facts [human-based] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK [thus, objective].
A human based FSK [object] is possible.
There are objective moral facts.
Therefore morality is objective.
(note the detailed argument of the above are presented elsewhere in this section)

[Veritas Aequitas]

To value something is to care about it - to think that it matters. For example, I value kindness and politeness - though I don't think I'm always kind and polite - which I regret. And I want to be better.

But the claim that values are or can be objective - matters of fact - is false. The expression 'objective value' is as incoherent as the expression 'subjective fact'.

There's no compulsion to value linguistic coherence, just as there's no compulsion to value classical logical entailment. But it makes no sense to say that linguistic coherence and logical entailment are values. Ice cream isn't a value either. And to call ice cream an objective value is ridiculous.

As usual you are very philosophical-immature.

I have posted the following;

There are two senses of Objectivity
You are adopting the delusional sense of objectivity, thus to you there is no objective value.

PH's "Morality is NOT Objective" is False.

In my case, what is objective is based on a human-based fact that is conditioned to a specific human based FSK, e.g. scientific objectivity
Scientific Objectivity
Thus a scientific fact is a human-based objective fact conditioned upon the human-based scientific FSK.

The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759

• Here is another counter to those who insist there is no objectivity in Morality and using the Fact-Value Dichotomy as a defense.
  
  The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and other essays,
  by Hilary Putnam.
  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
  Table of Contents:
  Introduction
  Section I: The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
  1. The Empiricist Background
  2. The Entanglement of Fact and Value
  3. Fact and Value in the World of Amartya Sen
  Section II: Rationality and Value
  1. Sen’s “Prescriptivist” Beginnings
  2. On the Rationality of Preferences
  3. Are Values Made or Discovered?
  4. Values and Norms
  5. The Philosophers of Science’s Evasion of Values

So far you are merely blabbering your claims 'there are no moral facts' based on hearsays without any references at all, not even one as far as I am aware, to any philosopher.
Where is your intellectual integrity?

[Peter Holmes]

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. And often the word objective simply means factual or based on facts.

So it follows that an expression such as objective dog is incoherent. A dog isn't a kind of thing that can be objective - just as it can't be subjective.

And I think the expression objective value is similarly incoherent. Consider the following argument:

I/we/all of us value kindness; therefore, kindness is an objective value.

It could be that the nominal use of the word value - as in the noun phrase moral values - is the problem - as it certainly is with other so-called abstract nouns in philosophy, such as truth and knowledge.

'We use nouns to name things, so abstract nouns must be names of things of some kind, which can therefore be described.' It's an ancient, potent and pervasive delusion - as the 'objectification' of values demonstrates here.

It's a fact that people 'have' values, just as they 'have' opinions. But that doesn't mean those values and opinions are facts.

[Skepdick]

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. And often the word objective simply means factual or based on facts.

How sweet - and confused - to make evaluations (about what billions of people call objectivity) without any objective values.

evaluate verb 1. form an idea of the amount, number, or value of; assess.

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

Evaluation is a systematic determination and assessment of a subject's merit, worth and significance, using criteria governed by a set of standards.

So it follows that an expression such as objective dog is incoherent.

Follows how? What are the standards/criteria according to which you've evaluated its 'incoherence' ?