What could make morality objective?

[CIN]

• 1. The claim "It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans." is a belief [biology and psychology] by you and other p-realists who are humans.

True. And the available evidence strongly indicates that the belief is correct.

2. Because the whole claim is a belief grounded on humans biology and psychology, it follows deductively, the ultimate reality of such a claim cannot be absolutely human-body-brain-mind-independent.

False. Equivocation on 'grounded'. The belief is grounded on human psychology only in the sense that the belief cannot exist without human psychology; but you are then taking 'grounded' to mean that what is believed cannot exist without human psychology, which does not follow.

3. There is no way reality [fact, truth, knowledge & objectivity] can exists absolutely independent of human-body-brain-mind.

False.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• 1. The claim "It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans." is a belief [biology and psychology] by you and other p-realists who are humans.

True. And the available evidence strongly indicates that the belief is correct.

2. Because the whole claim is a belief grounded on humans biology and psychology, it follows deductively, the ultimate reality of such a claim cannot be absolutely human-body-brain-mind-independent.

False. Equivocation on 'grounded'. The belief is grounded on human psychology only in the sense that the belief cannot exist without human psychology; but you are then taking 'grounded' to mean that what is believed cannot exist without human psychology, which does not follow.

3. There is no way reality [fact, truth, knowledge & objectivity] can exists absolutely independent of human-body-brain-mind.

False.

The full context of the post your point is quoted from is critical. You need to take post in full.
Point[1] above is PH's point to justify reality and things exist absolutely independent of the human conditions as in Philosophical Realism.

...what is reality ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions since reality emerges and is realized with the human conditions before it is perceived, known, [believed] and described.

Problem is you are stuck in a primal, proto and barbaric mode of thinking.

No, problem is you think that if you repeat a piece of nonsense often enough, it will stop being nonsense. It's a religious technique.

It's a fact that, more than a few hundred thousand years ago, there were no humans. And you know this damn well.

And since that's a fact, your claim that 'reality emerges and is realized with the human conditions before it is perceived, known and described' is flatly false. False, Factually false. A load of nonsensical tripe.

Despite my insistence you address this OP;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
with seriousness, you keep ignoring it and continue to babble the above blah, blah, blah ...

And since that's a fact,

Note your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As such, until you prove otherwise, you have no sound grounds to dispute my claims.

Your Philosophical-Realism claim that reality & facts are absolutely mind-independent, to the extent, the moon existence preceded humans and will continue to exists after humans are extinct. This claim is not tenable nor realistic; it is an illusion.

I reminded PH of this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing, Believing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

I added 'belief' to the above.
The believing process is prior to the Emergence and Realization process within the human-based science biology and psychology FSR-FSK. [Framework and System of Realization].

Because it is human-based, it follows deductively, the resultant reality that is subsequently perceived, known, believed and described cannot be absolutely mind-independent or unrelated to the human body, brain and mind.

Can you prove reality and things exist absolutely independent of the human mind, i.e. they exist as things-in-themselves, or things-by-themselves?
I am sure you cannot do it???

[Peter Holmes]

Can you prove reality and things exist absolutely independent of the human mind, i.e. they exist as things-in-themselves, or things-by-themselves?
I am sure you cannot do it???

Can you prove that nothing exists absolutely independent from the human mind - ie, from human beings?

Can you prove that nothing existed before humans turned up; that nothing would exist if there were no humans; and that nothing will exist when humans are gone?

What credible and reliable empirical/scientific evidence do you have to support these amazing claims?

Answer: none. All the evidence from natural science - our most credible and reliable source of knowledge - shows that reality does not depend on human beings; that it existed for billions of years before we turned up; that it would exist if we'd never turned up; and that it will exist when we're gone.

All natural science evidence shows that we're nothing more than one evolved animal on a planet in a universe that existed, exists and will exist whether or not we exist.

And you know this damn well. But you're stuck with a peculiar intellectual distortion that depends on a defunct religious distinction between the mind (the soul secularised) and the rest of reality, which includes us.

Time to bin it and come back to reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can you prove reality and things exist absolutely independent of the human mind, i.e. they exist as things-in-themselves, or things-by-themselves?
I am sure you cannot do it???

Philosophical Realism claims that reality and things are absolutely mind-independent to the extent, the moon pre-existed humans and will exists even if humans are extinct.

Don't be a coward in ignoring my question which as a positive claimant, you have a responsible to provide proofs.

Can you prove that nothing exists absolutely independent from the human mind - ie, from human beings?

I have proven you are wrong with your philosophical realism a 'million' times!
Note my principle;
What is real, factual true, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective.

Can you prove that nothing existed before humans turned up; that nothing would exist if there were no humans; and that nothing will exist when humans are gone?

I agree with the human based science-cosmological and science-biological there were no humans before 300K years ago while the BB occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
Because the above FSKs are human-based, it follows deductively, the resultant reality cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

What credible and reliable empirical/scientific evidence do you have to support these amazing claims?

I have already stated the most credible and objective human based FSK is the human-based FSK which relied on empirical evidences to realize what is real and subsequently enable their perception, knowing, belief and description.

Answer: none. All the evidence from natural science - our most credible and reliable source of knowledge - shows that reality does not depend on human beings; that it existed for billions of years before we turned up; that it would exist if we'd never turned up; and that it will exist when we're gone.

All natural science evidence shows that we're nothing more than one evolved animal on a planet in a universe that existed, exists and will exist whether or not we exist.

Evidence from natural science??
What is the most real [of natural science] is conditioned upon the human-based scientific FSK.
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively, the resultant scientific reality that is realized and subsequently perceived, known, believed and described CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
Thus your philosophical realism claim that reality is absolutely mind-independent is absurd.

Just in case, you are hasty, note this,
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing, Believing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

I am still waiting for you to prove reality and things exist absolutely independent of the human mind, i.e. they exist as things-in-themselves, or things-by-themselves?

And you know this damn well. But you're stuck with a peculiar intellectual distortion that depends on a defunct religious distinction between the mind (the soul secularised) and the rest of reality, which includes us.

Time to bin it and come back to reality.

This strawman again, the "10 millionth" times.

Rather you are the one who is delusional in insisting your 'what is fact' is 'a feature of reality' that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, state of affairs existing independent of the human conditions, unable to provide proof, thus floating in la la land.

[Peter Holmes]

What's the difference between a thing-as-it-appears and a thing-in-itself? What is a thing-in-itself?

[CIN]

Because it is human-based, it follows deductively, the resultant reality that is subsequently perceived, known, believed and described cannot be absolutely mind-independent or unrelated to the human body, brain and mind.

You persistently confuse two things: the proposition that all knowledge of reality is human knowledge, and the proposition that reality somehow depends on humans. There is no logical connection between these ideas, so when you use the word 'deductively', you're simply demonstrating that you don't understand how to do logic.

Can you prove reality and things exist absolutely independent of the human mind, i.e. they exist as things-in-themselves, or things-by-themselves?
I am sure you cannot do it???

No, I can't. And you can't prove that they don't. Reality is unknowable. That fact refutes both Peter Holmes's uncritical realism and your incomplete and currently unworkable idea that reality can't exist without humans. If you want a theory similar to yours that actually works, read Berkeley. Yours doesn't. (Where did humans come from?)

This thread is a complete and utter waste of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because it is human-based, it follows deductively, the resultant reality that is subsequently perceived, known, believed and described cannot be absolutely mind-independent or unrelated to the human body, brain and mind.

You persistently confuse two things: the proposition that all knowledge of reality is human knowledge, and the proposition that reality somehow depends on humans. There is no logical connection between these ideas, so when you use the word 'deductively', you're simply demonstrating that you don't understand how to do logic.

It is not a problem with understanding deductive logic, at most you can critique is the premises do not follow.

You are too arrogant and is blinded by your ignorance.

Note this to enlighten your ignorance:
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Before there is knowledge [knowing] there is a prior process within humans of the emergence and realization of reality.

Btw, I did not use the phrase 'somehow reality depends on humans.' The term 'depend' can be very misleading.

My focus is against the ideology of Philosophical Realism which claims that reality and things are mind-independent.
I do not agree with philosophical realism, thus my approach is ANTI-philosophical_realism, i.e. reality and things cannot be mind-independent; my view is that reality and things are somehow related or linked [not depend on] to humans.

my argument;
1. What is real and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
2. What is human-based means cannot be mind-independent.
3. Thus what is real and objective cannot be absolutely mind-independent (unrelated to the human body, brain and mind.)

Can you prove reality and things exist absolutely independent of the human mind, i.e. they exist as things-in-themselves, or things-by-themselves?
I am sure you cannot do it???

No, I can't. And you can't prove that they don't. Reality is unknowable.
That fact refutes both Peter Holmes's uncritical realism and your incomplete and currently unworkable idea that reality can't exist without humans. If you want a theory similar to yours that actually works, read Berkeley. Yours doesn't. (Where did humans come from?)

This thread is a complete and utter waste of time.

Philosophical realists make the positive claim reality and things are mind-independent, thus the onus on on p-realists to prove their positive claim.
I don't need to prove a negative.

I am very well-versed with Berkeley's which is Subjective Idealism grounded on God's created reality.
My view is that of Kant's Transcendental Idealism which is also Empirical Realism.
What is reality to me is;
What is real and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most realistic at present.
Thus if I need to claim what is real, I will adopt the scientific FSR-FSK.
Surely you will not deny the human-based scientific facts are real and objective?

[CIN]

You are too arrogant and is blinded by your ignorance.

In another discussion you called me a pervert. Tell me, were you always a rude and obnoxious little prat, or did you have to work at it?

my argument;
1. What is real and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
2. What is human-based means cannot be mind-independent.
3. Thus what is real and objective cannot be absolutely mind-independent (unrelated to the human body, brain and mind.)

Your statement 1 is false. You are misusing the words 'real' and 'objective'. These words have established meanings, and these meanings are incompatible with the way you are using them.

Philosophical realists make the positive claim reality and things are mind-independent, thus the onus on on p-realists to prove their positive claim.

If you had bothered to read my last post properly, you would see that I'm not a Philosophical Realist, I'm a sceptic.

What is real and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most realistic at present.
Thus if I need to claim what is real, I will adopt the scientific FSR-FSK.
Surely you will not deny the human-based scientific facts are real and objective?

You've just destroyed your entire theory. 'The most realistic at present' can only mean that we may in the future come up with something that is more realistic. But it could only be more realistic if it conforms more closely to reality, and that is only possible if reality is something different from our FSK-based view of reality — something that exists independently of human ideas about it.

Game over, I think.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are too arrogant and is blinded by your ignorance.

In another discussion you called me a pervert. Tell me, were you always a rude and obnoxious little prat, or did you have to work at it?

I have never initiated any personal perjorative attack on anyone unless provoked.
I suggest you re-read the previous posts to find out did I initiate that?

What I often do is to highlight the person's views as narrow, shallow, dogmatic and at times 'stupid' [literally unintelligent]. This is not a personal attack but I has to highlight that so that the other person can reflect on it and take some effort to expand his knowledge. That is at their own discretion.

my argument;
1. What is real and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
2. What is human-based means cannot be mind-independent.
3. Thus what is real and objective cannot be absolutely mind-independent (unrelated to the human body, brain and mind.)

Your statement 1 is false. You are misusing the words 'real' and 'objective'. These words have established meanings, and these meanings are incompatible with the way you are using them.

Where in the Philosophy of Linguistics that claim meanings to words are permanent.
What is the meaning of a word is its use as defined within a qualified context as I had done below [which I had not strayed too far];

Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Do you have any dispute to the above?

Philosophical realists make the positive claim reality and things are mind-independent, thus the onus on on p-realists to prove their positive claim.

If you had bothered to read my last post properly, you would see that I'm not a Philosophical Realist, I'm a sceptic.

Noted.
The way you present in your previous posts appear to be that of Philosophical Realism.

Skepticism itself is primarily concerned with the limits of knowledge and the justification of beliefs, not making definitive claims about the ontological nature of reality.

As such you could still be a Philosophical Realist, i.e. believe there is a mind-independent external reality but cannot have knowledge of it.
So, are you a skeptic philosophical realist or skeptic idealist or skeptic pragmatist?

What is real and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most realistic at present.
Thus if I need to claim what is real, I will adopt the scientific FSR-FSK.
Surely you will not deny the human-based scientific facts are real and objective?

You've just destroyed your entire theory. 'The most realistic at present' can only mean that we may in the future come up with something that is more realistic. But it could only be more realistic if it conforms more closely to reality, and that is only possible if reality is something different from our FSK-based view of reality — something that exists independently of human ideas about it.

I am not an omnipresent God [are you?] to have certain about the future.

Game over, I think.

It's at your discretion, I don't give a damn.

This is not a Charity, I will discuss anything purely for my VERY own selfish interest as long as the discussion is amiable.

[Atla]

Game over, I think.

Veritas's "narrow, shallow, dogmatic and at times 'stupid' [literally unintelligent]" claims have been refuted so badly by so many people here lately, that he's quickly descending into madness now. You too gave a perfect short refutation of his nonsensical claims, and he's losing his shit.

[Atla]

A central concern of morality is the question: what is good (or bad)? To answer this question, we first need to work out what the words 'good' and 'bad' mean, otherwise we don't know what the question itself means. Once we've worked out what 'good' and 'bad' mean, we can then ask if there are any things that are actually good and bad. Those are the things that will be fundamental to morality.

My theory is this:
1) 'Good' and 'bad' mean, respectively, 'merits a pro-response' and 'merits an anti-response'.
(This is a version of fitting attitude theory. Compare the following passage: 'Thus A. C. Ewing (1948) writes: “if we analyse good as ‘fitting object of a pro attitude’, it will be easy enough to analyse bad as ‘fitting object of an anti attitude’, this term covering dislike, disapproval, avoidance, etc.”' https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitt ... -theories/)

2) Pleasure intrinsically merits a pro-response. There is strong empirical evidence for this. Animals tend to seek out experiences that give them pleasure, e.g. eating and sex, and seeking out is a pro-response.

3) Pain intrinsically merits an anti-response. There is strong empirical evidence for this. Animals tend to avoid experiences that give them pain, e.g. getting injured, and avoidance is an anti-response.

So if my theory is correct, pleasure and pain are intrinsically good and bad. Since they are natural, and not ideas invented by humans like freedom and justice, they alone are fundamental to morality.

I consider pleasure and pain to be qualia, they are merely different qualia than red and yellow for example. In that sense, they are objective occurences, they objectively exist. I agree they alone are fundamental to morality.

But when pleasure and pain are part of a highly complex organism with a highly complex nervous system, such as humans, it becomes highly subjective, what is pleasurable and what is painful. So when it comes to moral systems shared by many people, we always go from objective to subjective morality, where we choose to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the group, but that will go against what is good to some members of the group.

For example the sadistic psychopath can mentally and physically torture other people, which is his main source of pleasure. The moral system can deem this kind of pleasure to be immoral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I consider pleasure and pain to be qualia, they are merely different qualia than red and yellow for example. In that sense, they are objective occurences, they objectively exist. I agree they alone are fundamental to morality.

But when pleasure and pain are part of a highly complex organism with a highly complex nervous system, such as humans, it becomes highly subjective, what is pleasurable and what is painful. So when it comes to moral systems shared by many people, we always go from objective to subjective morality, where we choose to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the group, but that will go against what is good to some members of the group.

For example the sadistic psychopath can mentally and physically torture other people, which is his main source of pleasure. The moral system can deem this kind of pleasure to be immoral.

Kicking your own back.
This is due to narrow, shallow and dogmatic thinking.

That is why pleasure and pain cannot be fundamental to morality.
Killing humans as pleasure could arise from a genocidal dictator who could kill billions.

A certain religion condone killing non-believers for the pleasure from 72 virgins; its followers when having access to cheap WMDs will not hesitate to press the red button to exterminate the human species [will get additional merit], since they are guaranteed eternal life regardless of what happened on Earth.

[Atla]

I consider pleasure and pain to be qualia, they are merely different qualia than red and yellow for example. In that sense, they are objective occurences, they objectively exist. I agree they alone are fundamental to morality.

But when pleasure and pain are part of a highly complex organism with a highly complex nervous system, such as humans, it becomes highly subjective, what is pleasurable and what is painful. So when it comes to moral systems shared by many people, we always go from objective to subjective morality, where we choose to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the group, but that will go against what is good to some members of the group.

For example the sadistic psychopath can mentally and physically torture other people, which is his main source of pleasure. The moral system can deem this kind of pleasure to be immoral.

Kicking your own back.
This is due to narrow, shallow and dogmatic thinking.

That is why pleasure and pain cannot be fundamental to morality.
Killing humans as pleasure could arise from a genocidal dictator who could kill billions.

A certain religion condone killing non-believers for the pleasure from 72 virgins; its followers when having access to cheap WMDs will not hesitate to press the red button to exterminate the human species [will get additional merit], since they are guaranteed eternal life regardless of what happened on Earth.

You didn't make it beyond the third sentence I see.

[Atla]

I consider pleasure and pain to be qualia, they are merely different qualia than red and yellow for example. In that sense, they are objective occurences, they objectively exist. I agree they alone are fundamental to morality.

But when pleasure and pain are part of a highly complex organism with a highly complex nervous system, such as humans, it becomes highly subjective, what is pleasurable and what is painful. So when it comes to moral systems shared by many people, we always go from objective to subjective morality, where we choose to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the group, but that will go against what is good to some members of the group.

For example the sadistic psychopath can mentally and physically torture other people, which is his main source of pleasure. The moral system can deem this kind of pleasure to be immoral.

Kicking your own back.
This is due to narrow, shallow and dogmatic thinking.

That is why pleasure and pain cannot be fundamental to morality.
Killing humans as pleasure could arise from a genocidal dictator who could kill billions.

A certain religion condone killing non-believers for the pleasure from 72 virgins; its followers when having access to cheap WMDs will not hesitate to press the red button to exterminate the human species [will get additional merit], since they are guaranteed eternal life regardless of what happened on Earth.

Good Lord
When the group = the human species, then maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the group means that fundamentalist Islam needs to be disbanded, and dictatorships should be prevented from existing, because there's a good chance that eventually they will get hold of WMDs and start nuking the planet, release new killer viruses etc. When many members of the group die or get radiation poisoning, and the world collapses, that's the opposite of maximizing pleasure for the group.

You unnecessarily invented a nonsensical alternative version of morality because you couldn't see the big picture?

[popeye1945]

Morality, the subjective sentiments of a conscious subject, the seed of which is compassion, and the seed of compassion is identification of one's self with the self in others, and it is compassion that enables civil societies to form and exist. An expanded concept of the self, perhaps a metaphysical breakthrough, that lets us know we are one with another. The social contract infers mutual dependence for survival.