What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

There is only one way that morality could be objective.

An all powerful ultimate being who imposes hos moral values and his will upon all living things, and punishes transgressions whilst rewarding complaince to his will. Only in this way could morality be onjective, universal and unbias. Such rules would have to apply to all moral beings equally and without favour.

There is just one little problem with this. For the morality to remain objective that would entail the supreme being also complying and obeying the rules. Because he is setting the rules, that would mean that the ultmiate being himself would have to allow all other moral being to be able to have the same power to set rules too. And then the cicle of subjectivity would close in upon the whole subjct extinguishing the objectivity of morality.

Your claim is baseless and groundless.
What you are ignorant of is there are two main senses of objectivity.

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.

• 1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
  
  2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense

Your basis of 'objectivity' is as in,
1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense

In this case, objectivity is a myth, illusory and nonsensical which is same as that claimed by theists.

What is Objectivity-proper is this;
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

[Sculptor]

There is only one way that morality could be objective.

An all powerful ultimate being who imposes hos moral values and his will upon all living things, and punishes transgressions whilst rewarding complaince to his will. Only in this way could morality be onjective, universal and unbias. Such rules would have to apply to all moral beings equally and without favour.

There is just one little problem with this. For the morality to remain objective that would entail the supreme being also complying and obeying the rules. Because he is setting the rules, that would mean that the ultmiate being himself would have to allow all other moral being to be able to have the same power to set rules too. And then the cicle of subjectivity would close in upon the whole subjct extinguishing the objectivity of morality.

The problem with self-determination is the problem with everything else: interpretation.

I have determined that I am following my own rules.
You have determined that I am not following my own rules.

Whose interpretation of the rules is correct? Well, mine. Of course. They are my rules, not your rules.

This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule--L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations §201a

You have not expressed a problem with what I said, but with the idea of moral obectivity.
Were you aware that you were agreeing with me?
Or did that pass you by?

[Skepdick]

You have not expressed a problem with what I said, but with the idea of moral obectivity.

What's the difference? It is precisely your idea of moral objectivity that is problematic.

Were you aware that you were agreeing with me?

Were you aware that I was pointing out that you are wrong?

At least you agree that we agree that you are wrong.

Or did that pass you by?

Did it?

[Sculptor]

You have not expressed a problem with what I said, but with the idea of moral obectivity.

What's the difference? It is precisely your idea of moral objectivity that is problematic.

Were you aware that you were agreeing with me?

Were you aware that I was pointing out that you are wrong?

At least you agree that we agree that you are wrong.

Or did that pass you by?

Did it?

You truly are a total moron.

[Skepdick]

You truly are a total moron.

And still a lesser moron than you.

[Sculptor]

You truly are a total moron.

And still a lesser moron than you.

CANT YOU FUCKING READ YOU FUCKING IDIOT?

[Skepdick]

You truly are a total moron.

And still a lesser moron than you.

CANT YOU FUCKING READ YOU FUCKING IDIOT?

I can. Much better than you even.

[Peter Holmes]

Spot the fallacy.

Each human being constructs its own reality as it grows.
Therefore, there is no reality independent from human beings.

[Skepdick]

Spot the fallacy.

Each human being constructs its own reality as it grows.
Therefore, there is no reality independent from human beings.

Spot the fallacy fallacy.

Lets assume that there exists a reality independent from human beings.

If there exists such a reality then human beings would be unable to acquire any knowledge thereof.
Without acquiring any knowledge about such reality then human beings would not be able to establish or assert the existence thereof.
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is asserting the existence of such reality.

The assumption leads to contradiction, therefore the assumption that reality is independent from human beings must be false. Proof by contradiction.

Q.E.D

[Veritas Aequitas]

Spot the fallacy.

Each human being constructs its own reality as it grows.
Therefore, there is no reality independent from human beings.

Your above merely exposed your ignorance and dogmatism to your narrow view of philosophical realism driven by primal psychological impulses.

I have posted several threads re how humans construct and are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of;

• Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
  
  Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476
  
  Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In [3]
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35227
  Enactivism
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31690

Also note,

• Radical constructivism is an approach to epistemology that situates knowledge in terms of knowers' experience. It looks to break with the conception of knowledge as a correspondence between a knower's understanding of their experience and the world beyond that experience.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_constructivism

Btw, the problem is you are taking 'construct' is as if like 'a builder constructing a house' but that is not the case with 'humans construct their own reality' which shares with others.
'Construct' is in the sense like;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Because humans are participating in the construction of their own reality, reality and things CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent as you relying upon to support your "Spot the fallacy."
In a way, your Spot the fallacy" is itself fallacious, i.e. grounded upon an illusion.

Also, note, your idea of mind-independent is an invented concept;
Morality: How Humans Enable [Invent] a Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40749

Therefore your idea that reality is absolutely mind-independent cannot be ultimately mind-independent because such an idea is invented by humans.
To insist an absolutely mind-independent reality exists is fallacious.

Now, you are relying on this fallacious idea of mind-independence to insist there are no objective moral facts because moral elements cannot be mind-independent.
Your denial and rejection that 'morality is objective' is fallacious.

[Atla]

Spot the fallacy.

Each human being constructs its own reality as it grows.
Therefore, there is no reality independent from human beings.

Your above merely exposed your ignorance and dogmatism to your narrow view of philosophical realism driven by primal psychological impulses.

I have posted several threads re how humans construct and are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of;

• Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
  
  Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476
  
  Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In [3]
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35227
  Enactivism
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31690

Also note,

• Radical constructivism is an approach to epistemology that situates knowledge in terms of knowers' experience. It looks to break with the conception of knowledge as a correspondence between a knower's understanding of their experience and the world beyond that experience.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_constructivism

Btw, the problem is you are taking 'construct' is as if like 'a builder constructing a house' but that is not the case with 'humans construct their own reality' which shares with others.
'Construct' is in the sense like;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Because humans are participating in the construction of their own reality, reality and things CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent as you relying upon to support your "Spot the fallacy."
In a way, your Spot the fallacy" is itself fallacious, i.e. grounded upon an illusion.

Also, note, your idea of mind-independent is an invented concept;
Morality: How Humans Enable [Invent] a Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40749

Therefore your idea that reality is absolutely mind-independent cannot be ultimately mind-independent because such an idea is invented by humans.
To insist an absolutely mind-independent reality exists is fallacious.

Now, you are relying on this fallacious idea of mind-independence to insist there are no objective moral facts because moral elements cannot be mind-independent.
Your denial and rejection that 'morality is objective' is fallacious.

There is SOME participation of humans. And the exact extents and ways of this is still a mistery.

But modern science is chock full of discoveries that no human throughout the history of humanity could have come up with via constructivism. Looks like radical constructivism is for kids and lazy philosophers.

[Peter Holmes]

Now, you are relying on this fallacious idea of mind-independence to insist there are no objective moral facts because moral elements cannot be mind-independent.

Nope. Given that there's no evidence for 'mind' independent from 'body', the expressions 'mind-dependence' and 'mind-independence' are incoherent.

And ask: what and whose is the supposed mind on which reality is supposed to depend? One human mind? All human minds? The minds of all sentient beings? The mind of a god?

This is mystical nonsense as ridiculous as any theistic twaddle.

Like any facts, moral facts either do or don't exist - and moral realists and objectivists have produced not even one example of a moral fact. The end.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Now, you are relying on this fallacious idea of mind-independence to insist there are no objective moral facts because moral elements cannot be mind-independent.

Nope. Given that there's no evidence for 'mind' independent from 'body', the expressions 'mind-dependence' and 'mind-independence' are incoherent.

And ask: what and whose is the supposed mind on which reality is supposed to depend? One human mind? All human minds? The minds of all sentient beings? The mind of a god?

This is mystical nonsense as ridiculous as any theistic twaddle.

Like any facts, moral facts either do or don't exist - and moral realists and objectivists have produced not even one example of a moral fact. The end.

There you go again.
I have mentioned many times, I am not referring to Descartes dualism
There is something wrong with you on this because you keep reverting to Descartes Dualism at the sight of the term 'mind-independent'.

The term "mind-independent" is a common term at present to represent that reality and things are independent of the human conditions, i.e. brain, body, opinions, beliefs, judgments, descriptions.

We have agreed on that and I stated when I used the term 'mind-independent' it means the above; this is to avoid me having to explain again and again.
At times, I added 'independent of the human conditions' to ensure you do not revert to your dogmatic Descartes dualism.

Should I write the following every time I used the term 'mind-independent'

• "Now, you are relying on this fallacious idea of mind-independence [meaning reality and things are independent of the human conditions, i.e. brain, body, opinions, beliefs, judgments, descriptions] to insist there are no objective moral facts because moral elements cannot be mind-independent."

You seem to be from a lost tribe in the middle of a continental size jungle who is unable to adapt to modern philosophical usage of certain terms. e.g. 'mind-independent'.
I am a veteran philosophical forum, you are the only one I have come across who have such a problem.

Like any facts, moral facts either do or don't exist - and moral realists and objectivists have produced not even one example of a moral fact. The end.

I have argued [you have not countered] your above is grounded on a fallacious argument that all moral elements are not facts [i.e. philosophical-realism-facts].

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

WHO ARE YOU to decide there are no objective FSK-ed moral facts;

I have argued there are objective FSK-ed moral facts;
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34619 Apr 16, 2022
What is a [FSK-ed] Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

Spot the fallacy.

Each human being constructs its own reality as it grows.
Therefore, there is no reality independent from human beings.

Your above merely exposed your ignorance and dogmatism to your narrow view of philosophical realism driven by primal psychological impulses.

I have posted several threads re how humans construct and are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of;

• Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
  
  Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476
  
  Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In [3]
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35227
  Enactivism
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31690

Also note,

• Radical constructivism is an approach to epistemology that situates knowledge in terms of knowers' experience. It looks to break with the conception of knowledge as a correspondence between a knower's understanding of their experience and the world beyond that experience.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_constructivism

Btw, the problem is you are taking 'construct' is as if like 'a builder constructing a house' but that is not the case with 'humans construct their own reality' which shares with others.
'Construct' is in the sense like;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

Because humans are participating in the construction of their own reality, reality and things CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent as you relying upon to support your "Spot the fallacy."
In a way, your Spot the fallacy" is itself fallacious, i.e. grounded upon an illusion.

Also, note, your idea of mind-independent is an invented concept;
Morality: How Humans Enable [Invent] a Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40749

Therefore your idea that reality is absolutely mind-independent cannot be ultimately mind-independent because such an idea is invented by humans.
To insist an absolutely mind-independent reality exists is fallacious.

Now, you are relying on this fallacious idea of mind-independence to insist there are no objective moral facts because moral elements cannot be mind-independent.
Your denial and rejection that 'morality is objective' is fallacious.

There is SOME participation of humans. And the exact extents and ways of this is still a mistery.

But modern science is chock full of discoveries that no human throughout the history of humanity could have come up with via constructivism. Looks like radical constructivism is for kids and lazy philosophers.

There are no absolutely mind-independent things that are "discovered" by modern science.

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

It is not the task of science to conclude it has discovered a thing that is absolutely mind-independent.
What science conclude are conclusions based on inductive inferences from human-based empirical evidences as conditioned within its Framework and System.
This is a process of human-based radical constructivism.

Note, Laws of Nature are never discovered but are constructed.
Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature
viewtopic.php?t=40248

Van Fraasen: There are No Laws of Nature
viewtopic.php?t=40451