What could make morality objective?

[Iwannaplato]

Can you link us to a post where you conceded that someone had a good point about your theism? When you were Spectrum I believe you were already a non-theist. But if Spectrum was originally a theist can you link us to where you conceded someone had made a good argument against your position and you conceded they were right? If it was before Spectrum, same thing. Can you link us?

I have never explicitly conceded to anyone re the above.
It was sort of accumulated and beliefs eroded over some years from discussions in various philosophical forums which had since closed for good.

As a theist, I used to insist atheists are fools, so stupid, unintelligent, etc. in not grasping the so obvious and the need for a creator of the obvious things and universe.
[/quote]
Well, here's the thing. I was responding to you saying to Peter Holmes....

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.

And there you say you had hardcore beliefs that you gave and conceded. But now you say you didn't concede. YOu changed your mind.

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.

And your response above would make it seems not that you merely changed your mind, but that you conceded. That other people would experience that something they said changed your mind. That someone made a good point or helped you see that an argument you had put forward was problematic.

But that's not what happened even back then when you made changes to hardcore beliefs.

So, Peter H is reacting to a real pattern on your part. Perhaps his reaction isn't correct. Who knows? But you acted as if the pattern was not real, but it is real.

[FlashDangerpants]

You refuse to recognise that an is can't entail an ought - so that the ought has to come from elsewhere. That we ought to enhance 'ought-not-to-kill' is a moral judgement or opinion, and can never be a fact.

You don't understand Hume thoroughly and the limitations he had then in the 1700s.
Hume's focus on the 'oughts' that were imposed on believers via commands from a God and other oughts from subjective feelings, opinions, beliefs and judgments re right vs wrong.
As an empiricist, Hume's other target were the rationalists' view on ethics.

• Book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):
  In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs;
  when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

You are reading that passage incorrectly. Here's some additional highlighting to help you understand your own error...

• Book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):
  In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs;
  when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

His focus is not on God, it applies equally to moral arguments predicated on custom, biology or any other state of human affairs.

Just concern yourself with the mysterious copulation of propositions of the is type with those of the ought type and quit outsmarting yourself.

[Peter Holmes]

My principle is this;
1. Whatever is reality, fact, knowledge, truths and objectivity are conditioned within a specific human-based FSK.
In the first place the 'ought-not-to-kill' and 'violent rage' mechanisms are both biological facts within the science biology FSK.
It is obvious the 'ought-not-to-kill' when inputted into the human-based moral [proper] FSK, it is an objective moral fact.
Since the "violent rage' mechanisms" and the 'ought-kill' are also inputted into the human-based moral [proper] FSK [1] as an evil element, it is also an objective moral fact. [... I have never deny this absolutely]

Here is your argument.

1 All facts exist within (are 'conditioned' within or upon) a framework and system of knowledge.

This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - and this has nothing to do with knowledge.

2 Any framework and system of knowledge produces or can produce facts.

This does not follow from 1, and anyway is obviously false. For example, alchemy and astrology do not produce facts. Your 'FSK' model gets the situation precisely back to front. For example, it's because there are neurological facts that neuroscience exists and can describe them. And there is no astrological FSK, because there are no astrological facts.

3 There is a morality framework and system of knowledge.

This assumes there are moral things or properties ('moral facts') that can be known. That there can be such a thing as 'moral knowledge' of those facts is what you are trying to demonstrate, so assuming it exists begs the question. (Please make sure you understand what 'begging the question' means.)

4 From 3, it follows that there are moral facts.

This is false, because steps 1 to 3 are false and/or fallacious.

Now, you can repeat your claims and argument - saying 'I have argued that...' to the crack of doom - but it will make no difference.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And your response above would make it seems not that you merely changed your mind, but that you conceded. That other people would experience that something they said changed your mind. That someone made a good point or helped you see that an argument you had put forward was problematic.

But that's not what happened even back then when you made changes to hardcore beliefs.

So, Peter H is reacting to a real pattern on your part. Perhaps his reaction isn't correct. Who knows? But you acted as if the pattern was not real, but it is real.

Strawman
I did not state 'concede' in any specific arguments.

I don't think the term 'concede' must be qualified to a specific argument or person.

In this case, my intent was in reference to conceding to [give up and the like] one's own hardcore beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My principle is this;
1. Whatever is reality, fact, knowledge, truths and objectivity are conditioned within a specific human-based FSK.
In the first place the 'ought-not-to-kill' and 'violent rage' mechanisms are both biological facts within the science biology FSK.
It is obvious the 'ought-not-to-kill' when inputted into the human-based moral [proper] FSK, it is an objective moral fact.
Since the "violent rage' mechanisms" and the 'ought-kill' are also inputted into the human-based moral [proper] FSK [1] as an evil element, it is also an objective moral fact. [... I have never deny this absolutely]

Here is your argument.
1 All facts exist within (are 'conditioned' within or upon) a framework and system of knowledge.

This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - and this has nothing to do with knowledge.

Hey, we have gone through this "10 million" times but you keep ignoring it.

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

There are many other similar threads I raised to counter your 'what is fact' is nonsensical. As such you don't have any credibility to counter my 1 with an illusory ground.

2 Any framework and system of knowledge produces or can produce facts.

This does not follow from 1, and anyway is obviously false. For example, alchemy and astrology do not produce facts. Your 'FSK' model gets the situation precisely back to front. For example, it's because there are neurological facts that neuroscience exists and can describe them. And there is no astrological FSK, because there are no astrological facts

.
This again, I have explained a 'million' times.

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 Jan 13, 2023
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

If you have gone through the above, you would not have raised the above crude objections, but rather have to address the points I raised in the above threads.

3 There is a morality framework and system of knowledge.

This assumes there are moral things or properties ('moral facts') that can be known. That there can be such a thing as 'moral knowledge' of those facts is what you are trying to demonstrate, so assuming it exists begs the question. (Please make sure you understand what 'begging the question' means.)

In scientific anti-realism, there is no assumption of facts that can be known.
Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

4 From 3, it follows that there are moral facts.

This is false, because steps 1 to 3 are false and/or fallacious.

Your counter argument in step 1 to 3 are false and grounded on an illusion.

Now, you can repeat your claims and argument - saying 'I have argued that...' to the crack of doom - but it will make no difference.

You are merely babbling from a tall dark silo.
Try and get out to face the sunlight from the windows of the arguments from the threads I presented below.

I have covered all the counters you have raised.

[Peter Holmes]

My principle is this;
1. Whatever is reality, fact, knowledge, truths and objectivity are conditioned within a specific human-based FSK.
In the first place the 'ought-not-to-kill' and 'violent rage' mechanisms are both biological facts within the science biology FSK.
It is obvious the 'ought-not-to-kill' when inputted into the human-based moral [proper] FSK, it is an objective moral fact.
Since the "violent rage' mechanisms" and the 'ought-kill' are also inputted into the human-based moral [proper] FSK [1] as an evil element, it is also an objective moral fact. [... I have never deny this absolutely]

Here is your argument.
1 All facts exist within (are 'conditioned' within or upon) a framework and system of knowledge.

This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - and this has nothing to do with knowledge.

Hey, we have gone through this "10 million" times but you keep ignoring it.

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

There are many other similar threads I raised to counter your 'what is fact' is nonsensical. As such you don't have any credibility to counter my 1 with an illusory ground.

2 Any framework and system of knowledge produces or can produce facts.

This does not follow from 1, and anyway is obviously false. For example, alchemy and astrology do not produce facts. Your 'FSK' model gets the situation precisely back to front. For example, it's because there are neurological facts that neuroscience exists and can describe them. And there is no astrological FSK, because there are no astrological facts

.
This again, I have explained a 'million' times.

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 Jan 13, 2023
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

If you have gone through the above, you would not have raised the above crude objections, but rather have to address the points I raised in the above threads.

3 There is a morality framework and system of knowledge.

This assumes there are moral things or properties ('moral facts') that can be known. That there can be such a thing as 'moral knowledge' of those facts is what you are trying to demonstrate, so assuming it exists begs the question. (Please make sure you understand what 'begging the question' means.)

In scientific anti-realism, there is no assumption of facts that can be known.
Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

4 From 3, it follows that there are moral facts.

This is false, because steps 1 to 3 are false and/or fallacious.

Your counter argument in step 1 to 3 are false and grounded on an illusion.

Now, you can repeat your claims and argument - saying 'I have argued that...' to the crack of doom - but it will make no difference.

You are merely babbling from a tall dark silo.
Try and get out to face the sunlight from the windows of the arguments from the threads I presented below.

I have covered all the counters you have raised.

No, you haven't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is your argument.
1 All facts exist within (are 'conditioned' within or upon) a framework and system of knowledge.

This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case - and this has nothing to do with knowledge.

Hey, we have gone through this "10 million" times but you keep ignoring it.

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

There are many other similar threads I raised to counter your 'what is fact' is nonsensical. As such you don't have any credibility to counter my 1 with an illusory ground.

2 Any framework and system of knowledge produces or can produce facts.

This does not follow from 1, and anyway is obviously false. For example, alchemy and astrology do not produce facts. Your 'FSK' model gets the situation precisely back to front. For example, it's because there are neurological facts that neuroscience exists and can describe them. And there is no astrological FSK, because there are no astrological facts

.
This again, I have explained a 'million' times.

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 Jan 13, 2023
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

If you have gone through the above, you would not have raised the above crude objections, but rather have to address the points I raised in the above threads.

3 There is a morality framework and system of knowledge.

This assumes there are moral things or properties ('moral facts') that can be known. That there can be such a thing as 'moral knowledge' of those facts is what you are trying to demonstrate, so assuming it exists begs the question. (Please make sure you understand what 'begging the question' means.)

In scientific anti-realism, there is no assumption of facts that can be known.
Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

4 From 3, it follows that there are moral facts.

This is false, because steps 1 to 3 are false and/or fallacious.

Your counter argument in step 1 to 3 are false and grounded on an illusion.

Now, you can repeat your claims and argument - saying 'I have argued that...' to the crack of doom - but it will make no difference.

You are merely babbling from a tall dark silo.
Try and get out to face the sunlight from the windows of the arguments from the threads I presented below.

I have covered all the counters you have raised.

No, you haven't.

Handwaving is a sign of intellectual cowardice.
Show me the specifics?

I have you cornered.
I have raised >250 to almost 300 threads in this Ethics Theory section to counter your denial "Morality is Objective".
& thanks for using your resistance as a leverage to expand so extensively my knowledge of Ethics.
I believe I have covered and understood [not agree with] everything that is available out there in the topic of Ethics and Morality. Tell me what I am likely to have missed out and not covered? Hume's 'No Ought from Is'?

[FlashDangerpants]

I have raised >250 to almost 300 threads in this Ethics Theory section to counter your denial "Morality is Objective".

If only you had tried doing a single one that was good.

[Peter Holmes]

Hey, we have gone through this "10 million" times but you keep ignoring it.

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

There are many other similar threads I raised to counter your 'what is fact' is nonsensical. As such you don't have any credibility to counter my 1 with an illusory ground.


.
This again, I have explained a 'million' times.

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 Jan 13, 2023
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

If you have gone through the above, you would not have raised the above crude objections, but rather have to address the points I raised in the above threads.


In scientific anti-realism, there is no assumption of facts that can be known.
Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145



Your counter argument in step 1 to 3 are false and grounded on an illusion.


You are merely babbling from a tall dark silo.
Try and get out to face the sunlight from the windows of the arguments from the threads I presented below.

I have covered all the counters you have raised.

No, you haven't.

Handwaving is a sign of intellectual cowardice.
Show me the specifics?

I have you cornered.
I have raised >250 to almost 300 threads in this Ethics Theory section to counter your denial "Morality is Objective".
& thanks for using your resistance as a leverage to expand so extensively my knowledge of Ethics.
I believe I have covered and understood [not agree with] everything that is available out there in the topic of Ethics and Morality. Tell me what I am likely to have missed out and not covered? Hume's 'No Ought from Is'?

For all the reading and filing and posting you do, the problem remains your reasoning. When a flaw in your argument is pointed out, the right thing to do is either rebut the claim or improve your argument. And you do neither.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, you haven't.

Handwaving is a sign of intellectual cowardice.
Show me the specifics?

I have you cornered.
I have raised >250 to almost 300 threads in this Ethics Theory section to counter your denial "Morality is Objective".
& thanks for using your resistance as a leverage to expand so extensively my knowledge of Ethics.
I believe I have covered and understood [not agree with] everything that is available out there in the topic of Ethics and Morality. Tell me what I am likely to have missed out and not covered? Hume's 'No Ought from Is'?

For all the reading and filing and posting you do, the problem remains your reasoning. When a flaw in your argument is pointed out, the right thing to do is either rebut the claim or improve your argument. And you do neither.

Again?? Handwaving is a sign of intellectual cowardice.
For philosophy sake, show me the specifics?

To charge that I do seek improvements is ignorance, especially re the >250 threads I have raised to counter your 'Morality is not Objective' which is grounded on an illusion.

Note this;
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic 3
viewtopic.php?t=40509

My original argument was claimed to be fallacious but I did not agree.
I believe because the opponents are from a strong tribalistic camp, it is not likely they would seen that 500 pound gorilla.
So I raised a 2nd thread to seek clarifications.
Still no agreement insisting the argument is fallacious.
So I raised a 3rd thread with assistance from ChatGPT which I think is a super valid presentation of my argument.
This 3rd improved argument is no different from the other 2 arguments if only the opponents are not so ignorant and tribalistic and dogmatic.

Regardless, the 3 series of argument is indication of my aggressiveness in striving for improvements in my arguments.

[Peter Holmes]

Handwaving is a sign of intellectual cowardice.
Show me the specifics?

I have you cornered.
I have raised >250 to almost 300 threads in this Ethics Theory section to counter your denial "Morality is Objective".
& thanks for using your resistance as a leverage to expand so extensively my knowledge of Ethics.
I believe I have covered and understood [not agree with] everything that is available out there in the topic of Ethics and Morality. Tell me what I am likely to have missed out and not covered? Hume's 'No Ought from Is'?

For all the reading and filing and posting you do, the problem remains your reasoning. When a flaw in your argument is pointed out, the right thing to do is either rebut the claim or improve your argument. And you do neither.

Again?? Handwaving is a sign of intellectual cowardice.
For philosophy sake, show me the specifics?

To charge that I do seek improvements is ignorance, especially re the >250 threads I have raised to counter your 'Morality is not Objective' which is grounded on an illusion.

Note this;
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic 3
viewtopic.php?t=40509

My original argument was claimed to be fallacious but I did not agree.
I believe because the opponents are from a strong tribalistic camp, it is not likely they would seen that 500 pound gorilla.
So I raised a 2nd thread to seek clarifications.
Still no agreement insisting the argument is fallacious.
So I raised a 3rd thread with assistance from ChatGPT which I think is a super valid presentation of my argument.
This 3rd improved argument is no different from the other 2 arguments if only the opponents are not so ignorant and tribalistic and dogmatic.

Regardless, the 3 series of argument is indication of my aggressiveness in striving for improvements in my arguments.

But I and others have explained why your premises are false, and your arguments invalid or unsound. And we've done this countless times. You simply don't understand these explanations, or ignore them because they demolish your position. So it's pointless to keep doing it.

[Iwannaplato]

So I raised a 3rd thread with assistance from ChatGPT which I think is a super valid presentation of my argument.
This 3rd improved argument is no different from the other 2 arguments if only the opponents are not so ignorant and tribalistic and dogmatic.

But unfortunately despite assistance from ChatGPT, ChatGPT itself considers that argument poor......I asked CHATgpt about the deduction in your third thread and even it said......

The deduction presented in the argument is not logically valid. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises given.

Let's analyze the argument step by step:

Premise 1 states that philosophical realists (who are also transcendental realists) believe in a mind-independent reality.

Premise 2 states that Kant argues that Transcendental Realism leads to difficulties and gives way to Empirical Idealism, which considers mere appearances as self-subsistent beings existing outside us.

Premise 3 states that Empirical Idealism considers the objects of outer sense as distinct from the senses themselves, implying that reality and other minds are confined to the empirical idealist's mind.

The problem arises in the conclusion:

"Conclusion: Therefore, philosophical realists (who are transcendental realists) are implicitly solipsistic, as they subscribe to a view that confines reality and other minds to the mind of the empirical idealist."

The conclusion jumps to a claim about philosophical realists being implicitly solipsistic. However, the premises do not necessarily lead to this conclusion. The argument does not establish a direct connection between the belief in mind-independent reality and being implicitly solipsistic.

Additionally, there seems to be an unwarranted leap in the conclusion by assuming that Empirical Idealism's position on reality and other minds applies directly to philosophical realists who are also transcendental realists. The two groups may have different views on the nature of reality and the mind, and the argument fails to demonstrate a connection between the two.

To strengthen the argument, more explicit premises and logical steps would be needed to show how the belief in mind-independent reality, in the context of philosophical realists who are also transcendental realists, would lead to implicit solipsism. As it stands, the argument does not provide a valid deduction for its conclusion.

[Peter Holmes]

So I raised a 3rd thread with assistance from ChatGPT which I think is a super valid presentation of my argument.
This 3rd improved argument is no different from the other 2 arguments if only the opponents are not so ignorant and tribalistic and dogmatic.

But unfortunately despite assistance from ChatGPT, ChatGPT itself considers that argument poor......I asked CHATgpt about the deduction in your third thread and even it said......

The deduction presented in the argument is not logically valid. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises given.

Let's analyze the argument step by step:

Premise 1 states that philosophical realists (who are also transcendental realists) believe in a mind-independent reality.

Premise 2 states that Kant argues that Transcendental Realism leads to difficulties and gives way to Empirical Idealism, which considers mere appearances as self-subsistent beings existing outside us.

Premise 3 states that Empirical Idealism considers the objects of outer sense as distinct from the senses themselves, implying that reality and other minds are confined to the empirical idealist's mind.

The problem arises in the conclusion:

"Conclusion: Therefore, philosophical realists (who are transcendental realists) are implicitly solipsistic, as they subscribe to a view that confines reality and other minds to the mind of the empirical idealist."

The conclusion jumps to a claim about philosophical realists being implicitly solipsistic. However, the premises do not necessarily lead to this conclusion. The argument does not establish a direct connection between the belief in mind-independent reality and being implicitly solipsistic.

Additionally, there seems to be an unwarranted leap in the conclusion by assuming that Empirical Idealism's position on reality and other minds applies directly to philosophical realists who are also transcendental realists. The two groups may have different views on the nature of reality and the mind, and the argument fails to demonstrate a connection between the two.

To strengthen the argument, more explicit premises and logical steps would be needed to show how the belief in mind-independent reality, in the context of philosophical realists who are also transcendental realists, would lead to implicit solipsism. As it stands, the argument does not provide a valid deduction for its conclusion.

Thanks. Of course, validity deals with the consistency of assertions, which is a linguistic matter. But soundness - which deals with the truth of premises - is what really matters.

So if, as I argue, there's no such thing as mind-as-a-separate-non-physical-thing, then the whole distinction between mind-dependence and mind-independence - and arguments that assume them - collapse.

[Iwannaplato]

Thanks. Of course, validity deals with the consistency of assertions, which is a linguistic matter. But soundness - which deals with the truth of premises - is what really matters.

So if, as I argue, there's no such thing as mind-as-a-separate-non-physical-thing, then the whole distinction between mind-dependence and mind-independence - and arguments that assume them - collapse.

Yes, VA equivocations and shifts around the semantics of 'dependence' and related words has been a carnival for years now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For all the reading and filing and posting you do, the problem remains your reasoning. When a flaw in your argument is pointed out, the right thing to do is either rebut the claim or improve your argument. And you do neither.

Again?? Handwaving is a sign of intellectual cowardice.
For philosophy sake, show me the specifics?

To charge that I do seek improvements is ignorance, especially re the >250 threads I have raised to counter your 'Morality is not Objective' which is grounded on an illusion.

Note this;
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic 3
viewtopic.php?t=40509

My original argument was claimed to be fallacious but I did not agree.
I believe because the opponents are from a strong tribalistic camp, it is not likely they would seen that 500 pound gorilla.
So I raised a 2nd thread to seek clarifications.
Still no agreement insisting the argument is fallacious.
So I raised a 3rd thread with assistance from ChatGPT which I think is a super valid presentation of my argument.
This 3rd improved argument is no different from the other 2 arguments if only the opponents are not so ignorant and tribalistic and dogmatic.

Regardless, the 3 series of argument is indication of my aggressiveness in striving for improvements in my arguments.

But I and others have explained why your premises are false, and your arguments invalid or unsound. And we've done this countless times. You simply don't understand these explanations, or ignore them because they demolish your position. So it's pointless to keep doing it.

The usual "I and others" but no specifics which is cowardice.