What could make morality objective?

[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.

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

1 Don't use the terms 'mind-dependent' and 'mind-independent' - when what you mean is 'human-dependent' and 'human-independent'. Then the absurdity of the claim that the universe is not independent from human beings stands out in all its glory. That is a ridiculous idea contradicted by all the evidence we have.

2 Please answer my question. On which human is reality dependent - and why? Or is it all humans - in which case, how does that dependence work? Or is it all sentient creatures - because, why single out humans? Why isn't reality also or instead dependent on hamsters?

3 I haven't decided that there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotistical think their own moral opinions are facts. I merely point out that no one has established the existence of a moral fact. And I've argued that this is because such a chimera can't exist. And you haven't refuted or even rebutted this argument.

[Skepdick]

1 Don't use the terms 'mind-dependent' and 'mind-independent' - when what you mean is 'human-dependent' and 'human-independent'. Then the absurdity of the claim that the universe.

Aaaand back on the merry go round we go.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes uses the term "universe". This term is human-dependent. Obviously. Because all terms are.

But outside of language, what or where is this "universe"?!? Surely we should prove the existence of this 'universe" before we believe in it ?!?

Go ahead and prove it then!

Burden tennis.BEGIN!

[Peter Holmes]

What and where are the referents for the terms 'referent' and 'term'. How does language work? How do we use it?

[Skepdick]

What and where are the referents for the terms 'referent' and 'term'. How does language work? How do we use it?

All this language on our screens... Language that I am writing. Language that Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is writing.

What or where is the "use" of our language? Where can I find the "use" of Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's language?

[Peter Holmes]

What can it possibly mean to ask 'what or where is the use of language?' Where can these questions possibly end?

Do they stretch out to the crack of doom?

[Skepdick]

What can it possibly mean to ask 'what or where is the use of language?' Where can these questions possibly end?

Do they stretch out to the crack of doom?

See. More words. More language by Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

But how is he "using" this language?
Why is he "using" this language?
What or where is the "use" in asking "Where can these questions possibly end?"

It can't be in his mind - he doesn't have one of those.

So which part of his brain do we have to smash; or examine under a microscope to find it?

[Peter Holmes]

Someone keeps using signs to ask questions about the use of signs. Who knows where the problem lies?

[Skepdick]

Someone keeps using signs to ask questions about the use of signs.

Who? Can you point them out so I can talk to them?

I want to know what "Using signs to ask questions" entails over and above simply asking questions. Because that's what I am doing. I am just asking questions.

What or where is the "use" of language?

Who knows where the problem lies?

Speaking of which. Where do problems exist?

[Atla]

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

Laws of nature are discovered, there's no reason to think otherwise. A few delusional people won't change that. Discovering them is what science does, and there are laws of nature that no human could have come up with. They had to come from investigating the external world.

And funnily enough, your "Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing" is a noumenal process, so it can't exist according to you. There are no things prior to appearances according to you, dummy.
I would just call that process pre-processing, which the human brain probably indeed does imo, and there is zero reason to think that it refutes realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

1 Don't use the terms 'mind-dependent' and 'mind-independent' - when what you mean is 'human-dependent' and 'human-independent'. Then the absurdity of the claim that the universe is not independent from human beings stands out in all its glory. That is a ridiculous idea contradicted by all the evidence we have.

I have never used the term 'human-dependent' in its literal sense.

The main issue start with your claim,
A. What is fact is a feature of reality that is 'just-is' being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs which is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. brain, body, opinions, beliefs, judgments, descriptions.
The above can be conveniently summarized as 'mind-independent' which is accepted by the majority within the philosophical community or in another way, independent of the total human conditions.

That reality is independent from human beings is an evolutionary default common to all humans even a young child can understand and assert.
Your philosophical views of mind-independence in this case [A] is infantile philosophically.
This is similar to Hume's Problem of Induction where the basic reason is psychological and traceable to be an evolutionary default.

On a more reflective thinking basis, reality as it is CANNOT be [A] or as a convenience, CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
There are loads of strong argument against this and note my usual

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

but you have never bothered to counter the above.

2 Please answer my question. On which human is reality dependent - and why? Or is it all humans - in which case, how does that dependence work? Or is it all sentient creatures - because, why single out humans? Why isn't reality also or instead dependent on hamsters?

As I had stated, the intention of ANTI-Philosophical_Realism is not that human is reality dependent.
If philosophical realists do not make claims [without proofs] such as [A] above, then ANTI-Philosophical_Realist do not have to counter 'reality cannot be [A].

The onus is on the philosophical realists to prove their positive claim. It is at the discretion ANTI-Philosophical_Realist to prove the philosophical realists wrong, which I had done.

Hamsters??
Do Hamsters make the claims as in [A].
"What is fact is a feature of reality that is 'just-is' being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs which is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. brain, body, opinions, beliefs, judgments, descriptions."

It is only philosophical realists as humans who make the above claim [A].
This is why the reference is 'reality cannot be [A]' i.e. cannot be independent of the human conditions.

I have given a general clue,
All humans are intricately part and parcel of the reality [all there is] they are in.
In this general, sense, reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
I have given detailed argument for the above, in addition to other detailed arguments why reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent of the human conditions.

3 I haven't decided that there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotistical think their own moral opinions are facts. I merely point out that no one has established the existence of a moral fact. And I've argued that this is because such a chimera can't exist. And you haven't refuted or even rebutted this argument.

Have not rebutted your claims??
I have raised more than 250 threads in this section directed to rebut your stance that all moral elements asserted so far are not moral facts.

Of course, opinions are not facts but,
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

It is not likely that anyone can convince you there are moral facts because your basis of 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion.
There are justified true moral facts but they will NEVER meet your expectations which are illusory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Laws of nature are discovered, there's no reason to think otherwise. A few delusional people won't change that. Discovering them is what science does, and there are laws of nature that no human could have come up with. They had to come from investigating the external world.

You are merely making unsupported assertions without counter arguments to the above claims from anti-Science_Realism.
Show me references where science make claims there are pre-existing laws that science discover?

And funnily enough, your "Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing" is a noumenal process, so it can't exist according to you. There are no things prior to appearances according to you, dummy.
I would just call that process pre-processing, which the human brain probably indeed does imo, and there is zero reason to think that it refutes realism.

"Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing" is conditioned upon a human-based FSK, how can 'human-based' be noumenal, when what is noumenal is independent of humans.

Realism [philosophical] claims the noumenal is mind-independent therefore "Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing" as conditioned upon a human-based FSK, refutes philosophical realism.

[Atla]

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

Laws of nature are discovered, there's no reason to think otherwise. A few delusional people won't change that. Discovering them is what science does, and there are laws of nature that no human could have come up with. They had to come from investigating the external world.

You are merely making unsupported assertions without counter arguments to the above claims from anti-Science_Realism.
Show me references where science make claims there are pre-existing laws that science discover?

And funnily enough, your "Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing" is a noumenal process, so it can't exist according to you. There are no things prior to appearances according to you, dummy.
I would just call that process pre-processing, which the human brain probably indeed does imo, and there is zero reason to think that it refutes realism.

"Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing" is conditioned upon a human-based FSK, how can 'human-based' be noumenal, when what is noumenal is independent of humans.

Realism [philosophical] claims the noumenal is mind-independent therefore "Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing" as conditioned upon a human-based FSK, refutes philosophical realism.

Noumenal has nothing to do with independence from humans. You just made that up entirely. Noumenal is, at best, what is inferred from appearances, but can't be directly experienced.

[Atla]

You are merely making unsupported assertions without counter arguments to the above claims from anti-Science_Realism.
Show me references where science make claims there are pre-existing laws that science discover?

Unsupported? UNSUPPORTED?

Have you never in your life read anything about science? How does science NOT support it? Sure, "laws" are abstractions about the regularities of the natural world, "laws" are articulated by humans. Did this step confuse you?

[Peter Holmes]

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions.

What we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from belief, judgement or opinion. (VA denies that such things exist.)

Therefore, the only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of moral facts: moral features of reality that are or were the case, independent from belief, judgement or opinion. (VA both denies that such things exist, and maintains that morality is objective. Sic transit.)

A factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - is one that claims a feature of reality is or was the case. So a factual assertion has a truth-value, independent from belief, judgement or opinion: true, if the feature of reality is or was the case; false if it isn't or wasn't.

Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts, so that moral assertions - such as 'abortion is morally wrong' and 'capital punishment is morally right' - have a truth-value independent from belief, judgement or opinion.

To be explicit. If the assertion 'rape is morally wrong' is a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from belief, judgement or opinion, then it must be possible for the assertion 'rape is not morally wrong' to be such an assertion. In other words, it must be possible for the assertion 'rape is not morally wrong' to be true.

A question for moral objectivists: what in reality could make the assertion 'rape is not morally wrong' true, independent from belief, judgement or opinion?

Point is: if (as I believe) nothing in reality could make the assertion 'rape is not morally wrong' true, independent from belief, judgement or opinion, then that is not a factual assertion with a truth-value.

And with that (I think unavoidable) conclusion, moral objectivism and realism collapse into incoherence.

The end.

[Skepdick]

<blah blah blah - lame attempt to recover framing>

So if there are no such things as moral facts, then how could any speech-acts ever amount to lying?

If there is no fact on the matter then it can't be true, a factual statement, that people lie.

You may not be into anal sex, but you have definitely fucked yourself.