The Objective Realm

[Harbal]

I have no idea about what God thinks is morally acceptable, so I would have to ask somebody who supposedly does know. People who claim to know what God wants are invariably not fit to give anyone moral advice.

Without moral guidance, humans revert back into animals, and behave as such... so what's your alternative?
POST A REPLY

I think you would be amazed at how civilised I am out in the real world, and I don't need "guidance". Most of the people I know are not religious, and none of them tends to run amok.

You and Iwanna are quite self-centered... it's not about you, it's about 99% of everybody else.

What did the 1% of everybody else do wrong?

I think American, US liberty, politics, history, is the best system Earth has come up with thus far...doesn't mean it's perfect.

You say that even though you are a product of it?

[Wizard22]

What did the 1% of everybody else do wrong?

The 1% doesn't fall in line with expectations of society.

You say that even though you are a product of it?

...Yup

[Sculptor]

Funny guy.

Every single one of them, few as they are, have had to fight to orthodoxy of the RCC.

That observation doesn't help your argument.

Because "Science" isn't morally objective anyway.

Irrelevant.

[promethean75]

Bro i still don't know what you're saying. What I'm saying is that if this radical Berkeleyean empiricism were true, if two and only two people were hanging out and one of em fell over dead, in order for the other guy to continue existing, there would have to be another observer perceiving him. Ergo, a third party.

See whuddum sayin?

That's why your homeboy the bishop said a god had to exist. Basically to resolve this very problem.

[promethean75]

Holy shit I think I'm in the wrong thread.

Commonsense that was a reply to your last reply to me, wherever it was.

Edit: Page 3. Damn where have I been.

[LuckyR]

1. Morality isn't objective, since we all choose our own personal blend of criteria to determine our moral code.

The general understanding is 'Morality is not Objective'.

However based on my definition of what is objectivity as conditioned upon a human FSK, morality is objective but the question to what degree of objectivity.

In most cases in the present, morality is dealing with what are right and wrong actions based on opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals and group; this is highly subjective and has low degrees of objectivity.

However, I argued my proposed Morality-proper within a credible moral-FSK has a high degree of objectivity which is as close to that of scientific objectivity, because most of the inputs of my proposed morality-FSK are scientific facts from the science-FSK.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34619

Analogy:
That one ought to breathe is a biological fact.
I argue 'that one ought not kill humans' is a moral fact grounded on biological facts.
It is too complicated to explain here.

Actually, Christianity 'thou shall not kill' is intuitively referenced from an inherent biological and moral fact, but it is unfortunately grounded on an illusory God, thus has low degree of objectivity.
Henry's 'Slavery is Wrong' period! is intuitively right on target but that is based on his own personal FSK and unjustified beliefs.

For detailed discussion on whether Morality is Objective or Subjective, note this thread.
Is morality objective or subjective?
viewtopic.php?t=24531

and this;
viewtopic.php?t=24601

Well you're free to redefine words, I suppose and you're free to draw conclusions using the new definitions. But it is (an obvious) error to insert those musings into general conversation. That is, your conclusions require a large asterix to qualify them as only being valid using a particular, nonstandard set of definitions.

To my ear you'd be on more solid ground using your brand of definitions to define "optimal moral codes" rather than "objective moral codes", thus acknowledging the reality that essentially everyone has suboptimal individual examples within their set of moral codes.

[LuckyR]

Well your conclusion (in the post I addressed) was:

"This is why Science has no answers and no authority, in matters of 'objective' morality."

So mine made two points, which I guess you agree with, based on your response.

1. Morality isn't objective, since we all choose our own personal blend of criteria to determine our moral code.

Morality is objective in the sense that there are better/superior "modes of being" relative to average human life... higher meaning or purpose in life, for example.

2. Science and religion can both be participating factor in those criteria.

Also we're both right that many (I would say lazy) folks abdicate their freedom to calculate their own moral code and succumb to peer pressure and merely adopt (at least externally) the moral code of the religion of their parents.

The "trust the experts" (pro-"science") were seen during the Covid pandemic. I don't think there's anything close to consensus on those matters.

Florida and Scandinavia, did objectively better with Disease than most the rest of the world. Didn't they?

"Better" according to whom (or whose criteria)? I agree with you IF one pre-defines the criteria. But that brings up the (inconvenient for your argument) concept that the "betterness" or "superiority" of a particular stance will rise and fall depending on the set of criteria used, which is essentially part of the definition of subjectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Morality isn't objective, since we all choose our own personal blend of criteria to determine our moral code.

The general understanding is 'Morality is not Objective'.

However based on my definition of what is objectivity as conditioned upon a human FSK, morality is objective but the question to what degree of objectivity.

In most cases in the present, morality is dealing with what are right and wrong actions based on opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals and group; this is highly subjective and has low degrees of objectivity.

However, I argued my proposed Morality-proper within a credible moral-FSK has a high degree of objectivity which is as close to that of scientific objectivity, because most of the inputs of my proposed morality-FSK are scientific facts from the science-FSK.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34619

Analogy:
That one ought to breathe is a biological fact.
I argue 'that one ought not kill humans' is a moral fact grounded on biological facts.
It is too complicated to explain here.

Actually, Christianity 'thou shall not kill' is intuitively referenced from an inherent biological and moral fact, but it is unfortunately grounded on an illusory God, thus has low degree of objectivity.
Henry's 'Slavery is Wrong' period! is intuitively right on target but that is based on his own personal FSK and unjustified beliefs.

For detailed discussion on whether Morality is Objective or Subjective, note this thread.
Is morality objective or subjective?
viewtopic.php?t=24531

and this;
viewtopic.php?t=24601

Well you're free to redefine words, I suppose and you're free to draw conclusions using the new definitions. But it is (an obvious) error to insert those musings into general conversation. That is, your conclusions require a large asterix to qualify them as only being valid using a particular, nonstandard set of definitions.

To my ear you'd be on more solid ground using your brand of definitions to define "optimal moral codes" rather than "objective moral codes", thus acknowledging the reality that essentially everyone has suboptimal individual examples within their set of moral codes.

It is not "MY" definition but rather I was referring to my presentation in this earlier post,
viewtopic.php?p=668089#p668089

Note,
There are Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Philosophical Realism's "absolutely mind-independent objectivity"
2. Human-based FSK-ed Objectivity.

I believe the more rational term of "what is objectivity" is the one related to 2 above, i.e. as in 'scientific objectivity' grounded on the human-based scientific method.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
Do you deny scientific facts are objective?

It is on the above basis that I claim 'Morality is Objective'.

[LuckyR]

The general understanding is 'Morality is not Objective'.

However based on my definition of what is objectivity as conditioned upon a human FSK, morality is objective but the question to what degree of objectivity.

In most cases in the present, morality is dealing with what are right and wrong actions based on opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals and group; this is highly subjective and has low degrees of objectivity.

However, I argued my proposed Morality-proper within a credible moral-FSK has a high degree of objectivity which is as close to that of scientific objectivity, because most of the inputs of my proposed morality-FSK are scientific facts from the science-FSK.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34619

Analogy:
That one ought to breathe is a biological fact.
I argue 'that one ought not kill humans' is a moral fact grounded on biological facts.
It is too complicated to explain here.

Actually, Christianity 'thou shall not kill' is intuitively referenced from an inherent biological and moral fact, but it is unfortunately grounded on an illusory God, thus has low degree of objectivity.
Henry's 'Slavery is Wrong' period! is intuitively right on target but that is based on his own personal FSK and unjustified beliefs.

For detailed discussion on whether Morality is Objective or Subjective, note this thread.
Is morality objective or subjective?
viewtopic.php?t=24531

and this;
viewtopic.php?t=24601

Well you're free to redefine words, I suppose and you're free to draw conclusions using the new definitions. But it is (an obvious) error to insert those musings into general conversation. That is, your conclusions require a large asterix to qualify them as only being valid using a particular, nonstandard set of definitions.

To my ear you'd be on more solid ground using your brand of definitions to define "optimal moral codes" rather than "objective moral codes", thus acknowledging the reality that essentially everyone has suboptimal individual examples within their set of moral codes.

It is not "MY" definition but rather I was referring to my presentation in this earlier post,
viewtopic.php?p=668089#p668089

Note,
There are Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Philosophical Realism's "absolutely mind-independent objectivity"
2. Human-based FSK-ed Objectivity.

I believe the more rational term of "what is objectivity" is the one related to 2 above, i.e. as in 'scientific objectivity' grounded on the human-based scientific method.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
Do you deny scientific facts are objective?

It is on the above basis that I claim 'Morality is Objective'.

Well, "scientific facts" is just too inaccurate of a label to make much sense, in this context.

If you mean scientific data ie the raw data from experimentation and/or observation, it does tend towards the objective, though since it commonly runs through post hoc human interaction and always are subject to human influence due to human study design, they are definitely subject to bias, typically unintentional though occasionally intentional.

Now, if you mean the interpretation of raw scientific data, that is wholly of human origin. Hence why "scientific understanding" changes over time. Thus is subjective by it's nature. Now are there subjective "understandings" that are so elementary that they are "generally accepted as fact (or true)"? Yes, those are ubiquitous, though as high quality as our understanding is, it can always improve. If we were having this conversation in 1850, when what we currently call Classical mechanics, was "generally accepted as fact (or true)", no one would know that up ahead in time Quantum mechanics was going to change this "understanding".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well you're free to redefine words, I suppose and you're free to draw conclusions using the new definitions. But it is (an obvious) error to insert those musings into general conversation. That is, your conclusions require a large asterix to qualify them as only being valid using a particular, nonstandard set of definitions.

To my ear you'd be on more solid ground using your brand of definitions to define "optimal moral codes" rather than "objective moral codes", thus acknowledging the reality that essentially everyone has suboptimal individual examples within their set of moral codes.

It is not "MY" definition but rather I was referring to my presentation in this earlier post,
viewtopic.php?p=668089#p668089

Note,
There are Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Philosophical Realism's "absolutely mind-independent objectivity"
2. Human-based FSK-ed Objectivity.

I believe the more rational term of "what is objectivity" is the one related to 2 above, i.e. as in 'scientific objectivity' grounded on the human-based scientific method.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
Do you deny scientific facts are objective?

It is on the above basis that I claim 'Morality is Objective'.

Well, "scientific facts" is just too inaccurate of a label to make much sense, in this context.

If you mean scientific data ie the raw data from experimentation and/or observation, it does tend towards the objective, though since it commonly runs through post hoc human interaction and always are subject to human influence due to human study design, they are definitely subject to bias, typically unintentional though occasionally intentional.

Now, if you mean the interpretation of raw scientific data, that is wholly of human origin. Hence why "scientific understanding" changes over time. Thus is subjective by it's nature. Now are there subjective "understandings" that are so elementary that they are "generally accepted as fact (or true)"? Yes, those are ubiquitous, though as high quality as our understanding is, it can always improve. If we were having this conversation in 1850, when what we currently call Classical mechanics, was "generally accepted as fact (or true)", no one would know that up ahead in time Quantum mechanics was going to change this "understanding".

By Scientific facts, truths of knowledge I mean the scientific conclusions that are inferred from the "scientific data i.e. the raw data from experimentation and/or observation" as conditioned to the scientific method, i.e. the scientific-FSK.
E.g. 'water is H20' conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.

Surely, you are not denying these scientific facts are objective?

Scientific facts are objective [in the modern sense] because they are independent of "a" subject's [or loose group of people] opinion belief or judgment.

There is no denying that scientific facts are objective; but this objectivity is grounded on the collective consensus of subjects within a credible framework and system, i.e. a credible institution.
This is why in one sense, objectivity is intersubjectivity.

Scientific facts can be improved indefinitely and we [fallible humans] cannot insist there is a final conclusion where there is no more improvement is possible.
As such, we have to live in suspension of continuous improvement without finitude.

This is the same sense of "objectivity" I apply to 'morality is objective'.

The other sense of 'objective' from philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] of insisting on a final ultimate conclusion is grounded on an illusion.
As Hume had implied, this drive for finitude is very psychological.

[LuckyR]

It is not "MY" definition but rather I was referring to my presentation in this earlier post,
viewtopic.php?p=668089#p668089

Note,
There are Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Philosophical Realism's "absolutely mind-independent objectivity"
2. Human-based FSK-ed Objectivity.

I believe the more rational term of "what is objectivity" is the one related to 2 above, i.e. as in 'scientific objectivity' grounded on the human-based scientific method.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
Do you deny scientific facts are objective?

It is on the above basis that I claim 'Morality is Objective'.

Well, "scientific facts" is just too inaccurate of a label to make much sense, in this context.

If you mean scientific data ie the raw data from experimentation and/or observation, it does tend towards the objective, though since it commonly runs through post hoc human interaction and always are subject to human influence due to human study design, they are definitely subject to bias, typically unintentional though occasionally intentional.

Now, if you mean the interpretation of raw scientific data, that is wholly of human origin. Hence why "scientific understanding" changes over time. Thus is subjective by it's nature. Now are there subjective "understandings" that are so elementary that they are "generally accepted as fact (or true)"? Yes, those are ubiquitous, though as high quality as our understanding is, it can always improve. If we were having this conversation in 1850, when what we currently call Classical mechanics, was "generally accepted as fact (or true)", no one would know that up ahead in time Quantum mechanics was going to change this "understanding".

By Scientific facts, truths of knowledge I mean the scientific conclusions that are inferred from the "scientific data i.e. the raw data from experimentation and/or observation" as conditioned to the scientific method, i.e. the scientific-FSK.
E.g. 'water is H20' conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.

Surely, you are not denying these scientific facts are objective?

Scientific facts are objective [in the modern sense] because they are independent of "a" subject's [or loose group of people] opinion belief or judgment.

There is no denying that scientific facts are objective; but this objectivity is grounded on the collective consensus of subjects within a credible framework and system, i.e. a credible institution.
This is why in one sense, objectivity is intersubjectivity.

Scientific facts can be improved indefinitely and we [fallible humans] cannot insist there is a final conclusion where there is no more improvement is possible.
As such, we have to live in suspension of continuous improvement without finitude.

This is the same sense of "objectivity" I apply to 'morality is objective'.

The other sense of 'objective' from philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] of insisting on a final ultimate conclusion is grounded on an illusion.
As Hume had implied, this drive for finitude is very psychological.

Ha ha, really? "water is H2O"? That's not science any more than the alphabet is literature. If you want science how about the valence bond theory (as opposed to the molecular orbital theory)? Both theories were dreamed up by humans based on their interpretation of data plus a bit of their imagination. Thus not entirely free of opinion, belief or judgement.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, "scientific facts" is just too inaccurate of a label to make much sense, in this context.

If you mean scientific data ie the raw data from experimentation and/or observation, it does tend towards the objective, though since it commonly runs through post hoc human interaction and always are subject to human influence due to human study design, they are definitely subject to bias, typically unintentional though occasionally intentional.

Now, if you mean the interpretation of raw scientific data, that is wholly of human origin. Hence why "scientific understanding" changes over time. Thus is subjective by it's nature. Now are there subjective "understandings" that are so elementary that they are "generally accepted as fact (or true)"? Yes, those are ubiquitous, though as high quality as our understanding is, it can always improve. If we were having this conversation in 1850, when what we currently call Classical mechanics, was "generally accepted as fact (or true)", no one would know that up ahead in time Quantum mechanics was going to change this "understanding".

By Scientific facts, truths of knowledge I mean the scientific conclusions that are inferred from the "scientific data i.e. the raw data from experimentation and/or observation" as conditioned to the scientific method, i.e. the scientific-FSK.
E.g. 'water is H20' conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.

Surely, you are not denying these scientific facts are objective?

Scientific facts are objective [in the modern sense] because they are independent of "a" subject's [or loose group of people] opinion belief or judgment.

There is no denying that scientific facts are objective; but this objectivity is grounded on the collective consensus of subjects within a credible framework and system, i.e. a credible institution.
This is why in one sense, objectivity is intersubjectivity.

Scientific facts can be improved indefinitely and we [..fallible humans] cannot insist there is a final conclusion where there is no more improvement is possible.
As such, we have to live in suspension of continuous improvement without finitude.

This is the same sense of "objectivity" I apply to 'morality is objective'.

The other sense of 'objective' from philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] of insisting on a final ultimate conclusion is grounded on an illusion.
As Hume had implied, this drive for finitude is very psychological.

Ha ha, really? "water is H2O"? That's not science any more than the alphabet is literature. If you want science how about the valence bond theory (as opposed to the molecular orbital theory)? Both theories were dreamed up by humans based on their interpretation of data plus a bit of their imagination. Thus not entirely free of opinion, belief or judgement.

I think your have a problem?
You insist there is a permanent fixed true objective reality that science is striving to discover? Yes? No?

I stated,
'water is H20' conditioned upon the (human-based) science-chemistry FSK.
what is wrong with that?
All scientists involved in this [.. I know of none] will not deny the above and accept it with its implied limitations within the science-chemistry FSK.
Within either the valence bond theory (as opposed to the molecular orbital theory), water is still H20, but we need to qualify which theory we are relying upon.

The point is the human-based science-chemistry has many other conditions within different sub-FSK.

In another more detailed science-chemistry FSK taking into account isomers,
"water is not H20"
I have raised this before;
'water is H20' conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.
Water is Not H20
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

You can't pull a fast one on me regarding this, I have taken a certified BioChemistry Course from HarvardX not too long ago.

You familiar with Model-dependent Realism??

Model-dependent Realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

What is critical is all the terms, conditions, limitations, assumptions, etc. must be clearly defined, of which the conclusion must be qualified upon.

[Wizard22]

"Better" according to whom (or whose criteria)? I agree with you IF one pre-defines the criteria. But that brings up the (inconvenient for your argument) concept that the "betterness" or "superiority" of a particular stance will rise and fall depending on the set of criteria used, which is essentially part of the definition of subjectivity.

Better than all Subjective interpretations, added together.

[Wizard22]

Objectivity is not a matter of categorical imperative, water = h2o, or 1+1=2.

Instead, Objectivity is a matter of logical deduction, that some condition or set is true for All space and time, and cannot be (subjectively) refuted.

[LuckyR]

"Better" according to whom (or whose criteria)? I agree with you IF one pre-defines the criteria. But that brings up the (inconvenient for your argument) concept that the "betterness" or "superiority" of a particular stance will rise and fall depending on the set of criteria used, which is essentially part of the definition of subjectivity.

Better than all Subjective interpretations, added together.

That's not an answer to my question. Which is perfectly okay, especially if you can't find an answer.