What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

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.

What could a subjectivist possibly mean by "dishonesty" ?

It's so damn ironic that you keep using these words while you openly admit that other people's dihonesty is not objectively true.

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.

There is no need for a "serious" argument. The fact that you have criteria for appraising "seriousness" but no criteria for appraising morality ends you in the exact same shithole every time.

If you insist that proof by contradiction/reductio ad absurdum is a valid proof methodology (and it is in Classical Logic). Then the absurdity of assuming that morality is NOT objective sufficient proof for moral objectivism.

This is how logic and logical proofs work. That you refuse to accept the conclusion based on the logical criteria you claim to practice is entirely a different issue.

Nothing an argument can fix.

[Peter Holmes]

But it's certainly possible to make a serious argument for moral realism.

Interesting. Can you give an example? (Sophistication's fine.)

[FlashDangerpants]

But it's certainly possible to make a serious argument for moral realism.

Interesting. Can you give an example? (Sophistication's fine.)

Putnam's the best I've read on the subject, but I've only read Ethics without Ontlogy myself. In that book (which I read about 5 years ago, so this is rusty) he's arguing that ethics is more like mathematics than it is like aesthetics (I assume that you, like me, typically hold the reverse to be true), but his take is pragmatic and so he doesn't argue that values exist ontologically any more than numbers do....

Same guy is also known for his claims about the collapse of the fact/value dichotomy, so here he is explaining that. It's worth a watch, near the start he is making a much better attempt at explainin non-congitivism than my efforts when IC was on that weird tear.

I don't agree with Putnam on either case, but I have to accept that it's serious. I still hold that our moral assertions and beliefs and whatnot just don't amount to knowledge or objectivity, but Putnam's take on this isn't that therefore I must be an evil retarded meth ghost, so that puts him well ahead of Can and Aquafresh.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I have argued your fundamental ground is countering my arguments is based on an illusion;
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

Until you counter the above, which you have not done, whatever counter-arguments to all my various arguments related to 'Morality is Objective', do not have any credibility.

PH: 'Humans are programmed with oughtness-to-breathe' is gibberish
It is undeniable, the above is a physical fact, i.e. a science-biological fact.
I did not state 'ought-to' as a command, but the 'oughtness' is a noun i.e. a biological and psychological potential and force within a living human head, body and mind.

The instinct to breathe is totally different from the typical human instincts in that it is unavoidable [absolutely necessary, imperative (categorically), uncompromisable,], as compared to some instincts like fear of snakes, height, and the likes.
Thus to apply ought_ness, must_ness, should_ness to the necessity to breathe within human nature [though not commonly done] is relevant within the stated contexts.

If you do not agree there is an 'oughtness to breathe' [noun] within yourself, try not breathing for 1 or 2 minutes.

It is silly to say legs are programmed with an "oughtness to walk",
but not silly re the 'oughtness of the heart to do its supposed work' and
not silly, 'all humans are programmed with the oughtness-to-live' which is represented by the specific physical neural correlates.

When that oughtness-to-live is damaged, that will lead to suicide; this is the evident why the oughtness-to-live is physical and objectively real.

I am applying the above as an analogy to objective moral facts [within a moral FSK] programmed in ALL humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But it's certainly possible to make a serious argument for moral realism.

Interesting. Can you give an example? (Sophistication's fine.)

I posted the following;
Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759
Here is another upper-cut to those who insist there is no objectivity in Morality and using the Fact-Value Dichotomy as a defense.

[Skepdick]

I don't agree with Putnam on either case, but I have to accept that it's serious. I still hold that our moral assertions and beliefs and whatnot just don't amount to knowledge or objectivity.

So ethics (which is more like mathematics) doesn't amount to knowledge, or objectivity but it amounts to seriousness? Does your calculation of this amounting seriousness amount to knowledge? Does mathematics amount to knowledge?

Perhaps if you give us the equations we can make it amount to objectivity for you?

Also, how exactly does an ethical system without ontology amounts to a "serious argument for moral realism"? Ontology and reality are practically synonymous in philosophy. Arguing against ontology is arguing against realism

And then this is even more puzzling for me. If you accept that ethics is "more like mathematics" then ethics is more like physics too - you can't DO any physics without it! But if physics is founded on numbers and quantities and numbers aren't ontological...how can physicalism be a realist position?

Your head is an absolute categorical mess.

You way of thinking is centuries away from synthesizing "fundamental categories" on the spot and abandoning them moments later - as soon as they've served their practical purpose. Your thinking is still in the realm of categorical permanence.

[Sculptor]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IfkB4luypbc

That about wraps it up then.

[Skepdick]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IfkB4luypbc

That about wraps it up then.

Q.E.D morality is objective!

We are constantly improving it.

It's not just change for the sake of change.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ooops, I forgotted to actually link to the Putnam video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SurX_oe_MPo&t=679s

[Peter Holmes]

There's no reason to think that changing what we humans believe, know and say about reality would change reality. And, to my knowledge, there's no evidence that it does.

But this strange and silly idea - mistaking what we say for the way things are - informs a lot of the bs arguments (paradoxically) paraded here in defence of moral objectivism - the existence of moral facts.

I think it informed Putnam's proposed (but unsuccessful) abolition of the fact/value dichotomy. Apart from our ways of thinking, it would change nothing in reality. Would a dog-as-value be any different from a dog-as-fact?

It informs the silly idea that agreement on the use of signs constitutes what - at the moment! - we call facts and, therefore, objectivity - as though agreement on the use of signs in the assertion 'there are pink unicorns on the moon' constitutes a fact. (One genius retort: if what we now call an American flag we instead call a pink unicorn, then there would be a pink unicorn on the moon. Lol.)

And, of course, it informs VA's peculiar and ridiculous 'fsk' argument, which 'twere tedious to rehearse.

My proposal. Begin with and stick to a clear methodological distinction - a way of thinking and talking - between features of reality that are or were the case, and what we humans perceive, believe, know and say about them. (Of course, what we humans perceive, etc, are also features of reality, so this distinction is methodological only.)

I think this method or approach dissolves most if not all of philosophy's perennial so-called problems - or at least radically changes their nature. And specifically, the debate about moral objectivity - the supposed existence of moral facts - becomes much easier to assess.

[LuckyR]

There's no reason to think that changing what we humans believe, know and say about reality would change reality. And, to my knowledge, there's no evidence that it does.

But this strange and silly idea - mistaking what we say for the way things are - informs o lot of the bs arguments (paradoxically) paraded here in defence of moral objectivism - the existence of moral facts.

Yeah, pretty obvious, though to be fair if one is interested in tilting at windmills, what better place to do it than a Forum dedicated to exploring the potentially illogical?

[Skepdick]

There's no reason to think that changing what we humans believe, know and say about reality would change reality. And, to my knowledge, there's no evidence that it does.

What evidence does a tautology require?!?

Humans are part of reality therefore changing anything about ourselves changes a part of reality.

Why are you struggling with basic deduction?

[Skepdick]

Yeah, pretty obvious, though to be fair if one is interested in tilting at windmills, what better place to do it than a Forum dedicated to exploring the potentially illogical?

On any logical forum changing humans amounts to changing a part of reality. Because humans are part of reality.

If you want to explore a universe in which that's not true then move to another universe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no reason to think that changing what we humans believe, know and say about reality would change reality. And, to my knowledge, there's no evidence that it does.

What evidence does a tautology require?!?

Humans are part of reality therefore changing anything about ourselves changes a part of reality.

Why are you struggling with basic deduction?

Great point and VERY realistic.
Humans are intricately part and parcel of reality, so yes, therefore changing anything about ourselves changes a part and the 'whole' of reality.

The whole of reality-at-t1 before PH farted is a different reality-at-t2 after PH farted which then 'caused' [Chaos Theory] a typhoon in China.
The change of reality does not matter whether t [time] is in nano-seconds or minutes, hours, days, years and so on.

It is the same with the act of perceiving, believing and knowing where there are changes in the neuron connections in the brain from t1 to t2; such neural changes effect the emergence and realization of reality process within the individual[s] and the collective.

This is such a realistic fact [need a paradigm shift] that PH is not likely to grasp because he is trapped in the delusional mind-independence of philosophical realism which is an evolutionary default [a primal instinct].

PH's mind is just like that of the Flat-Earthers and the Geocentrists who are habituated by mere common sense [vulgar sense] and unable to progress to be more intellectual and wiser on this matter of reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no reason to think that changing what we humans believe, know and say about reality would change reality. And, to my knowledge, there's no evidence that it does.

But this strange and silly idea - mistaking what we say for the way things are - informs o lot of the bs arguments (paradoxically) paraded here in defence of moral objectivism - the existence of moral facts.

I think it informed Putnam's proposed (but unsuccessful) abolition of the fact/value dichotomy. Apart from our ways of thinking, it would change nothing in reality. Would a dog-as-value be any different from a dog-as-fact?

It informs the silly idea that agreement on the use of signs constitutes what - at the moment! - we call facts and, therefore, objectivity - as though agreement on the use of signs in the assertion 'there are pink unicorns on the moment' constitutes a fact. (One genius retort: if what we now call an American flag we instead call a pink unicorn, then there would be a pink unicorn on the moon. Lol.)

And, of course, it informs VA's peculiar and ridiculous 'fsk' argument, which 'twere tedious to rehearse.

My proposal. Begin with and stick to a clear methodological distinction - a way of thinking and talking - between features of reality that are or were the case, and what we humans perceive, believe, know and say about them. (Of course, what we humans perceive, etc, are also features of reality, so this distinction is methodological only.)

I think this method or approach dissolves most if not all of philosophy's perennial so-called problems - or at least radically changes their nature. And specifically, the debate about moral objectivity - the supposed existence of moral facts - becomes much easier to assess.

As I had argued, your point above has no credibility in terms of reality because your fundamental is based on the primal philosophical realism [mind-independence] which is grounded on an illusion.

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

So far, you have not countered my arguments above.

There is no ULTIMATE and absolutely mind-independent objective "features of reality that are or were the case" or facts awaiting discovery by humans. Note this;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
Reality has to emerge within and realized by humans [within 13.5 billion years of conditions] before it is perceived, believed, known and described.

Note my point in the previous post re "humans are intricately part and parcel of reality, therefore ..."

The only way to realize reality [ANTI-philosophical_realism {Kantian}] most realistically is via a specific human based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective.