What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Waste of time.

Agreed.

Your conclusion is already formed, and nobody else will ever change that.

You are not here to learn. You are here to instruct.

Waste of time. (Some of us need instruction.)

[Wizard22]

So instruct me then, Peter Holmes...

Is 1+1=2 what you call a "fact"—or a mere opinion?

And how do you know the difference?

[Peter Holmes]

So instruct me then, Peter Holmes...

Is 1+1=2 what you call a "fact"—or a mere opinion?

And how do you know the difference?

1 It's better to make assertions, rather than ask questions. What's your point?
2 This has nothing to do with morality.

[Peter Holmes]

So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

[Skepdick]

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is a sophist extraordinaire.

He demands facts, but can't tell us what a fact is (something somethign feature of reality, something something independent from opinion)
He demands facts, but then he can't tell us why "Stop signs are red." is a fact, not an opinion even though colors have no physical existence and are NOT "features of reality".

This is not burden of proof - this is burdening with proof. While openly admittting of having no sufficiency criteria.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

Yep. Let that sink in.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes rejects the soundness of the above tautological argument.
Peter "Dumb Immoral Cunt" Holmes rejects the wrongness of murder as a true premise!

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

The above is your usual handwaving.

"And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact."

My general argument is this;
1. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-to-breathe.
2. This oughtness-to-breathe has its neural correlates, thus a science-biological fact.
3. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, thus a science-biological fact. [1-3 is an analogy for the below]
4. Whatever is a fact is conditioned within a human-based specific FSK.
5. The above 3 is inputted into a human-based moral FSK.
6. The oughtness-not-to-kill-human is an objective moral fact.

The above is a general argument, thus need details which I had provided a 1000 time in this ethical section.
Can you show with more detailed argument why the below is fallacious taking into account the detailed proofs I had given.

[Peter Holmes]

So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

The above is your usual handwaving.

"And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact."

My general argument is this;
1. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-to-breathe.
2. This oughtness-to-breathe has its neural correlates, thus a science-biological fact.
3. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, thus a science-biological fact. [1-3 is an analogy for the below]
4. Whatever is a fact is conditioned within a human-based specific FSK.
5. The above 3 is inputted into a human-based moral FSK.
6. The oughtness-not-to-kill-human is an objective moral fact.

The above is a general argument, thus need details which I had provided a 1000 time in this ethical section.
Can you show with more detailed argument why the below is fallacious taking into account the detailed proofs I had given.

I've demolished your argument, in detail, point by point, countless times - to no effect. You merely repeat it, regardless. So I see no point in doing it again.

[Skepdick]

I've demolished your argument, in detail, point by point, countless times - to no effect. You merely repeat it, regardless. So I see no point in doing it again.

Did you "demolish" it in the same way you "demolished"

P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

By rejecting the wrongness of murder.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

The above is your usual handwaving.

"And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact."

My general argument is this;
1. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-to-breathe.
2. This oughtness-to-breathe has its neural correlates, thus a science-biological fact.
3. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, thus a science-biological fact. [1-3 is an analogy for the below]
4. Whatever is a fact is conditioned within a human-based specific FSK.
5. The above 3 is inputted into a human-based moral FSK.
6. The oughtness-not-to-kill-human is an objective moral fact.

The above is a general argument, thus need details which I had provided a 1000 time in this ethical section.
Can you show with more detailed argument why the below is fallacious taking into account the detailed proofs I had given.

I've demolished your argument, in detail, point by point, countless times - to no effect. You merely repeat it, regardless. So I see no point in doing it again.

Demolished? in your imagination? Where??
Just give me reference to one [or two] significant post you have done so and I will show you the rebuttals [in various threads >250 and posts] to your counter-arguments.

[Peter Holmes]

The above is your usual handwaving.

"And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact."

My general argument is this;
1. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-to-breathe.
2. This oughtness-to-breathe has its neural correlates, thus a science-biological fact.
3. All humans are programmed with an oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, thus a science-biological fact. [1-3 is an analogy for the below]
4. Whatever is a fact is conditioned within a human-based specific FSK.
5. The above 3 is inputted into a human-based moral FSK.
6. The oughtness-not-to-kill-human is an objective moral fact.

The above is a general argument, thus need details which I had provided a 1000 time in this ethical section.
Can you show with more detailed argument why the below is fallacious taking into account the detailed proofs I had given.

I've demolished your argument, in detail, point by point, countless times - to no effect. You merely repeat it, regardless. So I see no point in doing it again.

Demolished? in your imagination? Where??
Just give me reference to one [or two] significant post you have done so and I will show you the rebuttals [in various threads >250 and posts] to your counter-arguments.

I've also demolished your rebuttals, in detail, point by point - to no effect. And the fact that you want me to refer you to these posts demonstrates my point.

Just one example, I've explained that the claim 'Humans are programmed with oughtness-to-breathe' is gibberish. It's as silly as saying that human hearts are programmed with oughtness-to-pump-blood, or that living being are programmed with oughtness-to-live. Where the 'oughtness' comes in here - and what it means - is a mystery.

I'm all too painfully aware of your bs arguments about this, so there's no point rehearsing them. It's wasting your time as much as mine. Perhaps we should just agree that we'll never agree.

[Skepdick]

I'm all too painfully aware of your bs arguments about this, so there's no point rehearsing them. It's wasting your time as much as mine. Perhaps we should just agree that we'll never agree.

Eternal disagreement is not possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem

How you say... If you aren't going to play the language games by the rules then go play by yourself.

[Harbal]

So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

"Dick-for-brains" is just being deliberately obstructive. No matter what you say, he will contradict it out of principle. VA is just plain bonkers. IC is approaching the matter in the same way a lawyer approaches a legal case. Truth and fairness are not his concern; his only job is to present his own case while trying to demolish that of his opponent by any means (fair or foul) available to him. He isn't here in the role of philosopher, but purely as God's advocate.

[Peter Holmes]

So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

"Dick-for-brains" is just being deliberately obstructive. No matter what you say, he will contradict it out of principle. VA is just plain bonkers. IC is approaching the matter in the same way a lawyer approaches a legal case. Truth and fairness are not his concern; his only job is to present his own case while trying to demolish that of his opponent by any means (fair or foul) available to him. He isn't here in the role of philosopher, but purely as God's advocate.

Yep. Don't know how you feel - but I'd quite like to come across a rational, thought-out argument for moral objectivity. I haven't seen one yet - and I think it doesn't exist. But I could be wrong.

[Skepdick]

"Dick-for-brains" is just being deliberately obstructive. No matter what you say, he will contradict it out of principle.

I know, it's ludicrous, right?

Here we are, on a philosophy website, where some idiots keep insisting that there are no objective moral facts.

And here I am repeatably and reproducibly (almost like it's a science or something!) keep demonstrating a principle that doesn't objectively exist.

Like a law, or something. A rule that you are suposed to adhere to when playing the game.

[FlashDangerpants]

So, Just to recap. The objectivists here have the subjectivists and atheists (?) 'by the balls'.

This, even though all the arguments for moral objectivity are demonstrably fallacious - and even though the objectivists can't produce one example of a moral fact, or show why it's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

Dick-for-brains has this: P1 Murder is wrong. P2 Murder is wrong. C Therefore, murder is wrong.

And IC has this: My team's god says homosexuality is morally wrong; therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

And VA has this: Humans are programmed with ought-not-to-kill-humans; therefore, humans-ought-not-to-kill-humans is a moral fact.

These magnificent, slam-dunk arguments are the fruit of objectivist reasoning.

Laugh Out Loud.

"Dick-for-brains" is just being deliberately obstructive. No matter what you say, he will contradict it out of principle. VA is just plain bonkers. IC is approaching the matter in the same way a lawyer approaches a legal case. Truth and fairness are not his concern; his only job is to present his own case while trying to demolish that of his opponent by any means (fair or foul) available to him. He isn't here in the role of philosopher, but purely as God's advocate.

Yep. Don't know how you feel - but I'd quite like to come across a rational, thought-out argument for moral objectivity. I haven't seen one yet - and I think it doesn't exist. But I could be wrong.

It's just an accident of the internet that the vocal proponents of moral objectivism at this particular site happen to be one guy who thinks he is living in the mad hatter's tea party and is just a relativist who says relativism is real; a religious hack with a dishonesty addiction; and the great austistic savant.

But it's certainly possible to make a serious argument for moral realism. The problem is that they are all a little bit more sphisticated than this site can honestly handle.