What could make morality objective?

[Iwannaplato]

The oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is represented by a much larger complex set of neurons of which empathy with its mirror neurons are a part of.
Since the moral oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is a neural algorithm, it is an objective moral facts only as qualified within the human-based moral FSK.

So, you've changed your position. Which is fine, but as usual without any acknowledgement. You used to say that it was supported by the moral FSK. Now it seems to require the moral FSK.

But here's another problem. There is no 'the human-based moral FSK'. There are many human-based moral FSKs. And they don't agree with each other.

And if this was not true, then there wouldn't be any problems. Because everyone would agree on what is moral and what should be prioritized. What are values should be.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Double-posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

The oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is represented by a much larger complex set of neurons of which empathy with its mirror neurons are a part of.
Since the moral oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is a neural algorithm, it is an objective moral facts only as qualified within the human-based moral FSK.

So, you've changed your position. Which is fine, but as usual without any acknowledgement. You used to say that it was supported by the moral FSK. Now it seems to require the moral FSK.

In this case, there is no difference between 'supported' and 'require' the moral FSK.
The principle is;
Whatever is real, a fact, truth, knowledge, and objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
Thus, whatever the fact, it must be supported and require the existence of a human-based FSK.

But here's another problem. There is no 'the human-based moral FSK'. There are many human-based moral FSKs. And they don't agree with each other.

And if this was not true, then there wouldn't be any problems. Because everyone would agree on what is moral and what should be prioritized. What are values should be.

I have mentioned the need for morality-proper, the rest are of pseudo-morality that are optimal for the past and the present but not the future where human variables will be more complex, especially with the trend towards cheaper and easily available WMDs.

There are many human-based moral FSKs of various degrees of objectivity but the most objective [near to the scientific FSK] would be a credible, reliable, and objective human-based moral [re morality proper] FSR-FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

There's no logical connection between factual explanations for why we do what we do - such as neuroscientific ones - and moral assertions about what we should do.

VA wants to dodge this 'is-ought' problem by denying that 'morality-proper' has anything to do with rightness and wrongness - anything to do with what we should do.

But then VA says that morality-proper is about avoiding evil and promoting good - as though what constitutes evil and good, and avoiding the one and promoting the other, are simply factual matters. The should is there, but denied and ignored.

And then, to tie the bow on this farcical model, we're supposed to feed scientific facts into a 'credible and reliable morality framework and system of knowledge', out of which come 'moral facts' - so that morality is objective.

Stroll on.

[Iwannaplato]

There's no logical connection between factual explanations for why we do what we do - such as neuroscientific ones - and moral assertions about what we should do.

VA wants to dodge this 'is-ought' problem by denying that 'morality-proper' has anything to do with rightness and wrongness - anything to do with what we should do.

I think what VA is trying to say is that he wants to focus on improving character/attitude rather than giving people rules. So, we find ways to improve empathy, for example, and the positive fallout of this is people will be more empathetic-------> leading to less violence and murder. That's not ridiculous. He's resented when this has been connected to virtue ethics, but it bears some similarity, with a consequentialist goal tucked into it. IOW in fact it does have to do with preventing what he calls evil acts. But the pragmatics of the approach are not like the deontologists giving people rules and laws to control their behavior.

Of course, the way he describes this by immediately saying that mirror neurons present us with an objective moral fact of the oughtness not to kill.
It's further been confused by his criticism of the use of the terms of right and wrong because, get this, they can be used in things like math. As if context in communication plays no role.

But the root idea of trying to create let's call them kinder people, rather than focusing on rules and control is not silly in and of itself.

But then VA says that morality-proper is about avoiding evil and promoting good - as though what constitutes evil and good, and avoiding the one and promoting the other, are simply factual matters. The should is there, but denied and ignored.

Yes, and if you point out that evil has religious connotations...no response. If you point out that in philosophy right and wrong are often used and he can't just declare that those terms do not belong in morality-proper, no clear response. Of course, he can use whatever terms he likes, but he has a habit of declaring things are outside the realm of morality. For example, one cannot treat animals as ends in morality. One can only consider something moral in terms of how it affects humans. IOW he doesn't just say that he doesn't consider animals ends in themselves. He declares that such concerns are not morality.

And then, to tie the bow on this farcical model, we're supposed to feed scientific facts into a 'credible and reliable morality framework and system of knowledge', out of which come 'moral facts' - so that morality is objective.

Yes. the objectivity used to come from the fact that brains had empathy neurons. You fed this fact into morality and this gave it its objectivity. But our repeatedly pointing out that other facts about brain neurons would then give objectivity to other moral positions, ones he doesn't like. So now the objectivity is coming from the moral FSK. But the problem here, obviously, is there are many moral FSKs. And we can't use neural patterns to pick out the objective one. And they disagree with each other. This is also something he can't manage to present a coherent response to.

And each time he says it has to be conditioned on THE moral FSK, he's being disingenuous. Or perhaps can't even see it.

I do think our attention gives him an opportunity to 'rebut' our arguments. IOW I think our repeatedly pointing out the problems with his arguments i actually having the opposite effect of him ending up pleased with his non-responses. This fits with his repeated reference to links where he 'stated' or 'demonstrated' or 'showed' where he did not such thing.

Once he's given a chance to re-declare and and re-assert it only adds to his contentedness with his arguments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no logical connection between factual explanations for why we do what we do - such as neuroscientific ones - and moral assertions about what we should do.

VA wants to dodge this 'is-ought' problem by denying that 'morality-proper' has anything to do with rightness and wrongness - anything to do with what we should do.

But then VA says that morality-proper is about avoiding evil and promoting good - as though what constitutes evil and good, and avoiding the one and promoting the other, are simply factual matters. The should is there, but denied and ignored.

And then, to tie the bow on this farcical model, we're supposed to feed scientific facts into a 'credible and reliable morality framework and system of knowledge', out of which come 'moral facts' - so that morality is objective.

Stroll on.

Did you read this thread?

JL Mackie: There are Aesthetic Facts
viewtopic.php?t=40495

Mackie is like you is philosophical realists who reject moral facts in the absolute sense based on philosophical realism.
But philosophical realism as I had proved* is grounded on an illusion.
As such, there is NO credibility and objectivity to Mackie's view on morality.

*My proofs:
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
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
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Mackie is ignorant his acknowledgement of facts [aesthetic or otherwise] based on standard is most realistic than what is he is claiming as mind-independent real.

The facts based on standard that Mackie acknowledged but set aside is like those I claimed as conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most objective.

How come you are SO IGNORANT we cannot feed scientific facts into whatever human-based FSK to generate its specific FSK-fact.

If and when Rex Heuermann [recent news] is convicted as the Long Island Serial Killer, it will be a fact, i.e. a legal Fact conditioned upon a human-based legal FSK which is critical dependent on scientific fact of DNA.
This is how a scientific fact inputted into a legal FSK generate legal FSK fact.
In fact, there are already many unresolved serial murder cases which had been resolved and convictions confirmed [thus legal facts] based on the scientific DNA facts.
Do you have any counter for this?

Similarly, scientific facts can be inputted into a human-based moral FSK to generate FSK-ed moral facts.

Do insult your intelligence with narrow and shallow minded views.

[Peter Holmes]

There's no logical connection between factual explanations for why we do what we do - such as neuroscientific ones - and moral assertions about what we should do.

VA wants to dodge this 'is-ought' problem by denying that 'morality-proper' has anything to do with rightness and wrongness - anything to do with what we should do.

But then VA says that morality-proper is about avoiding evil and promoting good - as though what constitutes evil and good, and avoiding the one and promoting the other, are simply factual matters. The should is there, but denied and ignored.

And then, to tie the bow on this farcical model, we're supposed to feed scientific facts into a 'credible and reliable morality framework and system of knowledge', out of which come 'moral facts' - so that morality is objective.

Stroll on.

Did you read this thread?

JL Mackie: There are Aesthetic Facts
viewtopic.php?t=40495

Mackie is like you is philosophical realists who reject moral facts in the absolute sense based on philosophical realism.
But philosophical realism as I had proved* is grounded on an illusion.
As such, there is NO credibility and objectivity to Mackie's view on morality.

*My proofs:
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
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
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Mackie is ignorant his acknowledgement of facts [aesthetic or otherwise] based on standard is most realistic than what is he is claiming as mind-independent real.

The facts based on standard that Mackie acknowledged but set aside is like those I claimed as conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most objective.

How come you are SO IGNORANT we cannot feed scientific facts into whatever human-based FSK to generate its specific FSK-fact.

If and when Rex Heuermann [recent news] is convicted as the Long Island Serial Killer, it will be a fact, i.e. a legal Fact conditioned upon a human-based legal FSK which is critical dependent on scientific fact of DNA.
This is how a scientific fact inputted into a legal FSK generate legal FSK fact.
In fact, there are already many unresolved serial murder cases which had been resolved and convictions confirmed [thus legal facts] based on the scientific DNA facts.
Do you have any counter for this?

Similarly, scientific facts can be inputted into a human-based moral FSK to generate FSK-ed moral facts.

Do insult your intelligence with narrow and shallow minded views.

What you call your proofs are nothing more than fallacious arguments that I and others have refuted countless times. You have either not understood or simply ignored these refutations.

And I suggest you consider the possibility that a philosopher you come across may be well known and understood by others. Mackie's ideas may be new to you, but to some of us here, they're old news.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no logical connection between factual explanations for why we do what we do - such as neuroscientific ones - and moral assertions about what we should do.

VA wants to dodge this 'is-ought' problem by denying that 'morality-proper' has anything to do with rightness and wrongness - anything to do with what we should do.

But then VA says that morality-proper is about avoiding evil and promoting good - as though what constitutes evil and good, and avoiding the one and promoting the other, are simply factual matters. The should is there, but denied and ignored.

And then, to tie the bow on this farcical model, we're supposed to feed scientific facts into a 'credible and reliable morality framework and system of knowledge', out of which come 'moral facts' - so that morality is objective.

Stroll on.

Did you read this thread?

JL Mackie: There are Aesthetic Facts
viewtopic.php?t=40495

Mackie is like you is philosophical realists who reject moral facts in the absolute sense based on philosophical realism.
But philosophical realism as I had proved* is grounded on an illusion.
As such, there is NO credibility and objectivity to Mackie's view on morality.

*My proofs:
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
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
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Mackie is ignorant his acknowledgement of facts [aesthetic or otherwise] based on standard is most realistic than what is he is claiming as mind-independent real.

The facts based on standard that Mackie acknowledged but set aside is like those I claimed as conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most objective.

How come you are SO IGNORANT we cannot feed scientific facts into whatever human-based FSK to generate its specific FSK-fact.

If and when Rex Heuermann [recent news] is convicted as the Long Island Serial Killer, it will be a fact, i.e. a legal Fact conditioned upon a human-based legal FSK which is critical dependent on scientific fact of DNA.
This is how a scientific fact inputted into a legal FSK generate legal FSK fact.
In fact, there are already many unresolved serial murder cases which had been resolved and convictions confirmed [thus legal facts] based on the scientific DNA facts.
Do you have any counter for this?

Similarly, scientific facts can be inputted into a human-based moral FSK to generate FSK-ed moral facts.

Do insult your intelligence with narrow and shallow minded views.

What you call your proofs are nothing more than fallacious arguments that I and others have refuted countless times. You have either not understood or simply ignored these refutations.

And I suggest you consider the possibility that a philosopher you come across may be well known and understood by others. Mackie's ideas may be new to you, but to some of us here, they're old news.

The usual handwaving "I and others" ad populum fallacy, which display cowardice.
Surely when you have 100 Flat Earthers agreeing that the Earth is flat against 1 non-Flat-Earther, it does not mean the majority claim is true?

Refuted countless times??
Show where have you refuted the above links?

and the following;
PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

If you are so confident you have refuted my main arguments, show them.

So you are aware with Mackie's acknowledgement of aesthetic facts as conditioned within certain agreed standards albeit not agreeing with them?
If so, you are lying because you claimed to be very blur when I mentioned such and similar concepts.

[Peter Holmes]

Did you read this thread?

JL Mackie: There are Aesthetic Facts
viewtopic.php?t=40495

Mackie is like you is philosophical realists who reject moral facts in the absolute sense based on philosophical realism.
But philosophical realism as I had proved* is grounded on an illusion.
As such, there is NO credibility and objectivity to Mackie's view on morality.

*My proofs:
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
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
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Mackie is ignorant his acknowledgement of facts [aesthetic or otherwise] based on standard is most realistic than what is he is claiming as mind-independent real.

The facts based on standard that Mackie acknowledged but set aside is like those I claimed as conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most objective.

How come you are SO IGNORANT we cannot feed scientific facts into whatever human-based FSK to generate its specific FSK-fact.

If and when Rex Heuermann [recent news] is convicted as the Long Island Serial Killer, it will be a fact, i.e. a legal Fact conditioned upon a human-based legal FSK which is critical dependent on scientific fact of DNA.
This is how a scientific fact inputted into a legal FSK generate legal FSK fact.
In fact, there are already many unresolved serial murder cases which had been resolved and convictions confirmed [thus legal facts] based on the scientific DNA facts.
Do you have any counter for this?

Similarly, scientific facts can be inputted into a human-based moral FSK to generate FSK-ed moral facts.

Do insult your intelligence with narrow and shallow minded views.

What you call your proofs are nothing more than fallacious arguments that I and others have refuted countless times. You have either not understood or simply ignored these refutations.

And I suggest you consider the possibility that a philosopher you come across may be well known and understood by others. Mackie's ideas may be new to you, but to some of us here, they're old news.

The usual handwaving "I and others" ad populum fallacy, which display cowardice.
Surely when you have 100 Flat Earthers agreeing that the Earth is flat against 1 non-Flat-Earther, it does not mean the majority claim is true?

Refuted countless times??
Show where have you refuted the above links?

and the following;
PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

If you are so confident you have refuted my main arguments, show them.

So you are aware with Mackie's acknowledgement of aesthetic facts as conditioned within certain agreed standards albeit not agreeing with them?
If so, you are lying because you claimed to be very blur when I mentioned such and similar concepts.

Demonstrable consistency with criteria doesn't confer objectivity on value-judgements. So Mackie was wrong on this issue - in my opinion.

Now, I don't think you understand my first sentence above. But if you do, by all means present your rebuttal.

PS. Anticipating your failure to do that, I expect you won't understand the implication of what I'm saying for your 'theory' of moral objectivism. But here it is anyway.

The premises of your invented 'morality fsk' are criteria. If those criteria are factual, then they have no moral entailment. But if they're moral, then consistency with those criteria doesn't mean the conclusions are factual. All you've done is argue from moral premises to moral conclusions.

So your 'theory' or 'model' is incoherent.

PPS. And perhaps needless to say, the same argument applies with aesthetic judgements, which is why the claim that there are aesthetic facts is false. There are only aesthetic judgements which are more or less consistent with aesthetic criteria.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The usual handwaving "I and others" ad populum fallacy, which display cowardice.
Surely when you have 100 Flat Earthers agreeing that the Earth is flat against 1 non-Flat-Earther, it does not mean the majority claim is true?

Refuted countless times??
Show where have you refuted the above links?

and the following;
PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

If you are so confident you have refuted my main arguments, show them.

So you are aware with Mackie's acknowledgement of aesthetic facts as conditioned within certain agreed standards albeit not agreeing with them?
If so, you are lying because you claimed to be very blur when I mentioned such and similar concepts.

Demonstrable consistency with criteria doesn't confer objectivity on value-judgements. So Mackie was wrong on this issue - in my opinion.

Now, I don't think you understand my first sentence above. But if you do, by all means present your rebuttal.

PS. Anticipating your failure to do that, I expect you won't understand the implication of what I'm saying for your 'theory' of moral objectivism. But here it is anyway.

I am not discussing Mackie's ethical theories.
I am only interested in his acknowledgement that there can be aesthetic facts and similarly FSK-ed Facts.

1. The premises of your invented 'morality fsk' are criteria.
2. If those criteria are factual, then they have no moral entailment.
3. But if they're moral, then consistency with those criteria doesn't mean the conclusions are factual.
4. All you've done is argue from moral premises to moral conclusions.

So your 'theory' or 'model' is incoherent.

As I had argued, your reliance on philosophical realism, i.e. absolute mind-independence is grounded on an illusion.
As such your points 2 & 3 above has no credibility at all.

As I had claimed my moral facts from the human-based moral FSK has near equivalent objectivity to the human-based scientific FSK objectivity.
If you accept scientific facts from the human-based FSK are factual and objective, then you have to accept my human based FSK moral facts are also factual objective.
You have not countered this claim at all.

In addition I have challenged you to prove your philosophical realism mind independent facts are really real, you have not done so.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

I have raised the various threads as highlighted above to expose the illusions within your grounds, but you have not defended your grounds at all.

PPS. And perhaps needless to say, the same argument applies with aesthetic judgements, which is why the claim that there are aesthetic facts is false. There are only aesthetic judgements which are more or less consistent with aesthetic criteria.

Mackie accepted the evaluation from the following are aesthetic facts but did not accept them for his ethical theory;

• The classing of wool, the grading of apples, the awarding of prizes at sheepdog trials, flower shows, skating and diving championships, and even the marking of examination papers .....

Mackie point is one can have aesthetic facts as long as there is a STANDARD to be conditioned upon.
From his examples one can infer he is referring to "STANDARD" within a FSR-FSK to can be applied to anything.

I have always asserted,
What is real, fact, truth, knowledge, objectivity, is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

Taking one of Mackie's example, i.e. a diving competition,

• Chen Yuxi and Quan Hongchan capped a Chinese one-two in the women's 10m platform at the World Aquatics Championships 2023
  https://olympics.com/en/news/world-aqua ... rm-results

1. Do you deny that Chen Yuxi is the world champion in the women's 10m platform at the World Aquatics Championships 2023, is an objective fact as conditioned upon the World Aquatics Championship FSR-FSK?

2. Tesla Share Price = 260.02 USD
Closed: 21 Jul, 7:59 pm
Do you deny the above from Nasdaq [FSK] is an objective fact; this is based on intersubjectivity of human sentiments.

Do you deny the above, 1 & 2?

3. You may probably accept the fact that 'the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth' as objective.
Do you?
However do you realize the above is based on a criteria of 'what is one foot' on someone's foot based on intersubjective agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(uni ... cal_origin
Since then to the present, what is the standard of one foot has changed but it is always based on intersubjective agreement.

If you accept 3 is objective, why the double standard on other facts which are grounded on intersubjectivity?

[Peter Holmes]

The usual handwaving "I and others" ad populum fallacy, which display cowardice.
Surely when you have 100 Flat Earthers agreeing that the Earth is flat against 1 non-Flat-Earther, it does not mean the majority claim is true?

Refuted countless times??
Show where have you refuted the above links?

and the following;
PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

If you are so confident you have refuted my main arguments, show them.

So you are aware with Mackie's acknowledgement of aesthetic facts as conditioned within certain agreed standards albeit not agreeing with them?
If so, you are lying because you claimed to be very blur when I mentioned such and similar concepts.

Demonstrable consistency with criteria doesn't confer objectivity on value-judgements. So Mackie was wrong on this issue - in my opinion.

Now, I don't think you understand my first sentence above. But if you do, by all means present your rebuttal.

PS. Anticipating your failure to do that, I expect you won't understand the implication of what I'm saying for your 'theory' of moral objectivism. But here it is anyway.

I am not discussing Mackie's ethical theories.
I am only interested in his acknowledgement that there can be aesthetic facts and similarly FSK-ed Facts.

1. The premises of your invented 'morality fsk' are criteria.
2. If those criteria are factual, then they have no moral entailment.
3. But if they're moral, then consistency with those criteria doesn't mean the conclusions are factual.
4. All you've done is argue from moral premises to moral conclusions.

So your 'theory' or 'model' is incoherent.

As I had argued, your reliance on philosophical realism, i.e. absolute mind-independence is grounded on an illusion.
As such your points 2 & 3 above has no credibility at all.

As I had claimed my moral facts from the human-based moral FSK has near equivalent objectivity to the human-based scientific FSK objectivity.
If you accept scientific facts from the human-based FSK are factual and objective, then you have to accept my human based FSK moral facts are also factual objective.
You have not countered this claim at all.

In addition I have challenged you to prove your philosophical realism mind independent facts are really real, you have not done so.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

I have raised the various threads as highlighted above to expose the illusions within your grounds, but you have not defended your grounds at all.

PPS. And perhaps needless to say, the same argument applies with aesthetic judgements, which is why the claim that there are aesthetic facts is false. There are only aesthetic judgements which are more or less consistent with aesthetic criteria.

Mackie accepted the evaluation from the following are aesthetic facts but did not accept them for his ethical theory;

• The classing of wool, the grading of apples, the awarding of prizes at sheepdog trials, flower shows, skating and diving championships, and even the marking of examination papers .....

Mackie point is one can have aesthetic facts as long as there is a STANDARD to be conditioned upon.
From his examples one can infer he is referring to "STANDARD" within a FSR-FSK to can be applied to anything.

I have always asserted,
What is real, fact, truth, knowledge, objectivity, is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

Taking one of Mackie's example, i.e. a diving competition,

• Chen Yuxi and Quan Hongchan capped a Chinese one-two in the women's 10m platform at the World Aquatics Championships 2023
  https://olympics.com/en/news/world-aqua ... rm-results

1. Do you deny that Chen Yuxi is the world champion in the women's 10m platform at the World Aquatics Championships 2023, is an objective fact as conditioned upon the World Aquatics Championship FSR-FSK?

2. Tesla Share Price = 260.02 USD
Closed: 21 Jul, 7:59 pm
Do you deny the above from Nasdaq [FSK] is an objective fact; this is based on intersubjectivity of human sentiments.

Do you deny the above, 1 & 2?

3. You may probably accept the fact that 'the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth' as objective.
Do you?
However do you realize the above is based on a criteria of 'what is one foot' on someone's foot based on intersubjective agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(uni ... cal_origin
Since then to the present, what is the standard of one foot has changed but it is always based on intersubjective agreement.

If you accept 3 is objective, why the double standard on other facts which are grounded on intersubjectivity?

I reject your premise that facts depend on human beings. And I've explained why.

I reject your claim that there's no difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion. And I've explained why.

I reject your claim that, though there are no such things as what we call facts, there are nonetheless moral facts. And I've explained why.

As expected, you fail to rebut my claim that demonstrable consistency with criteria does not confer objectivity on value judgements.

I'm probably as bored as you and everyone else must be with this discussion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You did not respond to the question and challenges I raised above.

I reject your premise that facts depend on human beings. And I've explained why.

I reject your claim that there's no difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion. And I've explained why.

I reject your claim that, though there are no such things as what we call facts, there are nonetheless moral facts. And I've explained why.

But I have argued your 'I've explained why' is based on philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.
You have not defended why your ground is not illusory.

As expected, you fail to rebut my claim that demonstrable consistency with criteria does not confer objectivity on value judgements.

In relation to the above I challenged you on this;

Mackie accepted the evaluation from the following are aesthetic facts but did not accept them for his ethical theory;

• The classing of wool, the grading of apples, the awarding of prizes at sheepdog trials, flower shows, skating and diving championships, and even the marking of examination papers .....

Mackie point is one can have aesthetic facts as long as there is a STANDARD to be conditioned upon.
From his examples one can infer he is referring to "STANDARD" within a FSR-FSK to can be applied to anything.

I have always asserted,
What is real, fact, truth, knowledge, objectivity, is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

Taking one of Mackie's example, i.e. a diving competition,

• Chen Yuxi and Quan Hongchan capped a Chinese one-two in the women's 10m platform at the World Aquatics Championships 2023
  https://olympics.com/en/news/world-aqua ... rm-results

1. Do you deny that Chen Yuxi is the world champion in the women's 10m platform at the World Aquatics Championships 2023, is an objective fact as conditioned upon the World Aquatics Championship FSR-FSK?

2. Tesla Share Price = 260.02 USD
Closed: 21 Jul, 7:59 pm
Do you deny the above from Nasdaq [FSK] is an objective fact; this is based on intersubjectivity of human sentiments.

Do you deny the above, 1 & 2?

3. You may probably accept the fact that 'the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth' as objective.
Do you?
However do you realize the above is based on a criteria of 'what is one foot' on someone's foot based on intersubjective agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(uni ... cal_origin
Since then to the present, what is the standard of one foot has changed but it is always based on intersubjective agreement.

If you accept 3 is objective, why the double standard on other facts which are grounded on intersubjectivity?

I'm probably as bored as you and everyone else must be with this discussion.

That is a sure sign of running away by giving the 'I and others' and "everyone else" of the same feathers and stripes excuses. (I was like that when I was naive and not knowledgeable in the early days).

Hey! this is your thread and I have issued my challenges to your OP, thus by protocol you ought to defend it.

Why don't you respond to the above ??? I have raised?

It is so obvious that moral decisions based on right and wrong cannot never be objective.
That is a TRUISM.
You are like a Venus Fly Trap waiting for a stupid fool to fall in, that is not me.

[Peter Holmes]

VA, if I still thought it worthwhile to take every one of your fatuous claims seriously, and worthwhile patiently to falsify them - if it had ever once had an effect - if it had once got you to concede your mistake - then I'd still think it worthwhile to argue with you.

But this never happens. You are incapable of actually addressing anything that challenges your dogmas. And that's why it's so boring arguing with you. In all the time we've been sparring, you have never once conceded anything of substance, and provided a coherent, rational defence of your falsehoods. So it's been a waste of time and effort.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Double Posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA, if I still thought it worthwhile to take every one of your fatuous claims seriously, and worthwhile patiently to falsify them - if it had ever once had an effect - if it had once got you to concede your mistake - then I'd still think it worthwhile to argue with you.

But this never happens. You are incapable of actually addressing anything that challenges your dogmas. And that's why it's so boring arguing with you. In all the time we've been sparring, you have never once conceded anything of substance, and provided a coherent, rational defence of your falsehoods. So it's been a waste of time and effort.

You are just giving silly excuses.

Why should I concede anything when your fundamental views are grounded on an illusion.

I have been in Philosophical Forums discussions for a long time; when I first started as a very naive poster in various forums, I was attack left, right & center and with wider & deeper research had to concede many of my hardcore beliefs then, including theism.
Since then, from experience, I'd strove very hard to cover all possible holes in my philosophical beliefs, if there are any that would be rare and much welcomed.

I challenged you to prove the soundness of your fundamental claim but you have not done so.

All my claims are against your fundamental claim of what is fact.
I challenged you to prove the soundness of your fundamental claim but you have not done so.
If you can prove your claim is really real, then all that I have claimed would be false.

You can concentrate on a few of my main arguments, example these?
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992
Prove I am wrong and you are right.

If you think you have done so in the past, then summarize the various relevant post in a separate thread like what I have done. This is what Philosophy is all about.

I have raised a lot of threads to counter your OP, they are like a Bibliography or References to a Thesis which I can easily refer to. It is stupid and effective of me to hunt for the relevant references and posts within this >550 pages-dumpster.

Btw, I have not come across any moral-objectivist-proper taking up your challenge per your OP.
IC is a moral realist of the theistic morality genre.
Henry's is that of moral intuitionism.
Who else [if any is rare].

What I have argued is your OP is fatuous.
My alternative is that of moral realism conditioned within a human-based moral FSK which is not within the ambit of your OP because you are ignorant of such alternative as real.

Nevertheless for philosophy sake I am interested in you proving your ground of 'what is fact' is realistic?