Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What Flash says. And. Anyway. Why is it 'evil' for humans to kill humans - given that 'morality-proper' has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour - which is a matter of opinion?

As I had stated, your thinking driven by an evolutionary default [primitive] and ideologized as philosophical realism is very narrow, shallow and dogmatic due to negative psychological impulses.

Morality-proper vision is to develop as fully as possible the natural inherent moral function within ALL humans on the individual level such that they are moral beings who spontaneously do not kill humans due to their efficient management of the inherent impulse to kill. [A]
In this case, it is critical to recognize the existence of objective moral facts to be developed.

Take the majority of humans [you personally for example -presumed not a malignant psychopath] at present, they do not deliberate most of the time whether murder is right or wrong, they naturally and spontaneously do not go about killing other humans because their moral sense are reasonable developed but not highly developed.
This is why the majority and probably you can easily be brainwashed, triggered to kill another human or agree humans can be killed under certain circumstances.

Re morality-proper vision in A above, the objective is to achieve critical mass of humans with more higher developed moral sense.
In such a state, humanity will focus on the root level to develop a higher moral sense in all; at the same time it will also focus on the root cause of evil and prevent it from rising at the root level. In this case, there is no need for right or wrong consideration in moral elements.

I defined 'evil' as any act or thought is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

That we should promote the well-being and flourishing of the individual and therefore humanity is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

As I've been saying all along, there is subjectivism at the start and heart of your moral 'theory'. It's just that you refuse to recognise it.

Where did I mentioned 'should' in your sense in the above. That is from your bias and dogmatic thinking.

My emphasis is on the "moral oughtness" [noun and physical] which is a moral fact as conditioned upon a credible moral FSK. I have already argued on this a "1000" times.

On the other hand, your ground [independent fact] to reject my argument is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

You have avoided the above.

[Peter Holmes]

That we should promote the well-being and flourishing of the individual and therefore humanity is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

As I've been saying all along, there is subjectivism at the start and heart of your moral 'theory'. It's just that you refuse to recognise it.

Where did I mentioned 'should' in your sense in the above. That is from your bias and dogmatic thinking.

My emphasis is on the "moral oughtness" [noun and physical] which is a moral fact as conditioned upon a credible moral FSK. I have already argued on this a "1000" times.

There's no difference between 'moral shouldness' and 'moral oughtness'. And both refer to opinions, which are subjective. Your blather about fsks is worthless. And saying there's a morality fsk merely begs the question, because it assumes there are moral facts which can therefore be known.

[Skepdick]

There's no difference between 'moral shouldness' and 'moral oughtness'. And both refer to opinions, which are subjective. Your blather about fsks is worthless. And saying there's a morality fsk merely begs the question, because it assumes there are moral facts which can therefore be known.

According to Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes it is impossible to tell a lie.

Because telling lies would be a fact, but morality is subjective. So what makes the lying factual? What makes the subjective objective?

What a fucking idiotic world-view.

Stop fucking lying, you dumb Philosopher. It's objectively immoral.

[Peter Holmes]

Consider the following moronic argument.

P1 It's a fact that people can tell lies. (True factual assertion: 'objective'.)
P2 Telling lies is morally wrong. (Moral assertion expressing an opinion: 'subjective'.)
C Therefore, telling lies is both objective and subjective.

[Skepdick]

Consider the following moronic argument.

P1 It's a fact that people can tell lies.
P2 Telling lies is morally wrong. (Moral assertion expressing an opinion: 'subjective'.)
C Therefore, telling lies is both objective and subjective.

Unsound. P1 is not proven true.

In what framework do you determine whether a "lie" has been told?
What's a lie in non-moral factual terms?
What's a true factual lying?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That we should promote the well-being and flourishing of the individual and therefore humanity is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

As I've been saying all along, there is subjectivism at the start and heart of your moral 'theory'. It's just that you refuse to recognise it.

Where did I mentioned 'should' in your sense in the above. That is from your bias and dogmatic thinking.

My emphasis is on the "moral oughtness" [noun and physical] which is a moral fact as conditioned upon a credible moral FSK. I have already argued on this a "1000" times.

There's no difference between 'moral shouldness' and 'moral oughtness'. And both refer to opinions, which are subjective.
Your blather about fsks is worthless.
And saying there's a morality fsk merely begs the question, because it assumes there are moral facts which can therefore be known.

Strawman[s] again .. the "millionth" times.

Yes there is no difference between 'moral shouldness' [noun] and 'moral oughtness' [noun] but they are different from moral shoulds [modal verbs] and moral oughts [modal verbs].

Your blather about fsks is worthless.

The scientific FSK with is scientific methods and all other conditions are worthless?
What world are you living in?

And saying there's a morality fsk merely begs the question, because it assumes there are moral facts which can therefore be known.

No.. no .. no ..
Objective moral facts emerged from the moral FSK and not the other way round, just as objective scientific facts emerged from the science-FSK.
If there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers].

The moral FSK is the same as the science-FSK albeit in different degrees of objectivity and credibility.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your argument is deceptive.
Yes, "murder' is strongly associated with moral wrongfulness" but there is a conflation of concepts in this statement which need to be specified and separated;

"Murder" is related specifically to the political and legal FSK which independent from morality.

What concerns morality in the above is the 'killing of humans by humans'.

Well fuck me sideways with a bargepole, the blind squirrel finally found a nut. Up to a point anyway.

Murder isn't some legal term of art, it is a normal word, so we don't need to invoke some additional FSK thing. Murder is a morally loaded term in any sentence where the word gets used to describe any killing, because it contains the wrongness of the act. So if you remove the pre-judged wrongfulness, you are describing a killing not a murder. The killing could be wrongful (in which case it is a murder) or it could be justified (a defensive act, or a necessary intervantion in a hostage situation etc...) and if so it is not a murder.

So it is true that it is meaningless to try and prove that murder is wrong, or to ask God if murder is wrong, or to doubt whether murder is wrong, or to boast that my special moral theory is the one that explains why murder is wrong.

In all these cases, what you are actually looking for is how to justify killings you approve of while condemning those you don't approve of, so the can was simply kicked down the road because after 'proving' that murder is wrong, you have done nothing at all to tell anyone which killings are murders.

You are too arrogant but actually ignorant in this case.
From all the dictionaries and wiki I have checked, they give the same meaning, i.e.

• Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

As such, the meaning of 'murder' is more specific when qualified to a political and legal FSK which has their own definition of what is considered 'murder' when a human is killed.

Within morality-proper the critical element is 'no human ought to be killed' absolutely. There is no question of whether it is right or wrong.

And yet murder is also a normal word in standard quotidian language for an unjustified killing. It can be a matter of political-and-legal-FSK fact that George Zimmerman is not a murderer but also that most people think what he did was murder.

Similarly, under a strict definition within New York law, Donald J Trump was found to be liable for sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll on the basis that she couldn't be 100% certain that what he inserted into her vagina was his penis and not a finger, but under NY law, it is not rape unless it is a penis that does the deed. Nevertheless, when Trump sued Carroll after she called him a rapist anyway, the law sided with her on the basis that in common language what he did to her is still rape.

So unless you are proving that only the legalist version of the word is wrongful, while the common language version is somehow not, the distinction is meaningless in this context.

Sadly, if your claim that "Within morality-proper the critical element is 'no human ought to be killed' absolutely. There is no question of whether it is right or wrong" is accurate, then morqality-proper is still garbage with no future.

[Skepdick]

And yet murder is also a normal word in standard quotidian language for an unjustified killing. It can be a matter of political-and-legal-FSK fact that George Zimmerman is not a murderer but also that most people think what he did was murder.

Similarly, under a strict definition within New York law, Donald J Trump was found to be liable for sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll on the basis that she couldn't be 100% certain that what he inserted into her vagina was his penis and not a finger, but under NY law, it is not rape unless it is a penis that does the deed. Nevertheless, when Trump sued Carroll after she called him a rapist anyway, the law sided with her on the basis that in common language what he did to her is still rape.

So unless you are proving that only the legalist version of the word is wrongful, while the common language version is somehow not, the distinction is meaningless in this context.

Sadly, if your claim that "Within morality-proper the critical element is 'no human ought to be killed' absolutely. There is no question of whether it is right or wrong" is accurate, then morqality-proper is still garbage with no future.

Now do lying! Do lying!

Tell us why lying is never wrong.

[Peter Holmes]

Where did I mentioned 'should' in your sense in the above. That is from your bias and dogmatic thinking.

My emphasis is on the "moral oughtness" [noun and physical] which is a moral fact as conditioned upon a credible moral FSK. I have already argued on this a "1000" times.

There's no difference between 'moral shouldness' and 'moral oughtness'. And both refer to opinions, which are subjective.
Your blather about fsks is worthless.
And saying there's a morality fsk merely begs the question, because it assumes there are moral facts which can therefore be known.

Strawman[s] again .. the "millionth" times.

Yes there is no difference between 'moral shouldness' [noun] and 'moral oughtness' [noun] but they are different from moral shoulds [modal verbs] and moral oughts [modal verbs].

So what? Since there's no difference between the verbs should and ought, there's also no difference between their nominalisations, shouldness and oughtness - whatever they refer to. These are fabricated nouns that, because we use nouns to name things, you've decided must name things that actually exist.

Your blather about fsks is worthless.

The scientific FSK with is scientific methods and all other conditions are worthless?
What world are you living in?

Don't be obtuse. Blather about fsks is useless in this context. And your claim that a fact exists only because there's an fsk is demonstrably false. It's because there are facts that we can know them; our knowing them doesn't produce them.

And saying there's a morality fsk merely begs the question, because it assumes there are moral facts which can therefore be known.

No.. no .. no ..
Objective moral facts emerged from the moral FSK and not the other way round, just as objective scientific facts emerged from the science-FSK.
If there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers].

No, no, no. You have this completely the wrong way around.

The moral FSK is the same as the science-FSK albeit in different degrees of objectivity and credibility.

False, false, false. The 'moral fsk' is your question-begging invention. (Btw, do you know what 'begging the question' means? If not, check it out.)

[Skepdick]

False, false, false.

Who cares? If morality is subjective there's no difference between Truth and Falsehood.

What's wrong with saying false things?

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes wins the prize for most spectacular own goal.

[Peter Holmes]

Consider the following moronic claim.

'If morality is subjective, there's no difference between truth and falsehood.'

Anyone any idea how to penetrate this stupidity?

[Skepdick]

Consider the following moronic claim.

'If morality is subjective, there's no difference between truth and falsehood.'

Anyone any idea how to penetrate this stupidity?

I've tried penetrating it. So far your stupidity is impenetrable.

Sound and valid arguments don't work, so let us know how we can get through to you...

[Peter Holmes]

Some points for morons to mull over.

1 'Telling the truth is morally right.' This expresses an opinion, which is subjective.
2 'Telling lies is morally wrong.' This expresses an opinion, which is subjective.

Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. So these conclusions don't follow deductively from non-moral premises. In other words, there's no logical connection between truth and falsehood and morality. So such a connection has to be asserted or assumed.

On second thoughts - that's probably way beyond a moron's comprehension.

[Skepdick]

Some points for morons to mull over.

1 'Telling the truth is morally right.' This expresses an opinion, which is subjective.
2 'Telling lies is morally wrong.' This expresses an opinion, which is subjective.

Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. So these conclusions don't follow deductively from non-moral premises. In other words, there's no logical connection between truth and falsehood and morality. So such a connection has to be asserted or assumed.

On second thoughts - that's probably way beyond a moron's comprehension.

Some points for the troll to digest.

If non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions then from where does falsehood come; and why is saying false things "wrong" ?

Any and all premises are true by necessity. In reality there is only truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no difference between 'moral shouldness' and 'moral oughtness'. And both refer to opinions, which are subjective.
Your blather about fsks is worthless.
And saying there's a morality fsk merely begs the question, because it assumes there are moral facts which can therefore be known.

Strawman[s] again .. the "millionth" times.

Yes there is no difference between 'moral shouldness' [noun] and 'moral oughtness' [noun] but they are different from moral shoulds [modal verbs] and moral oughts [modal verbs].

So what? Since there's no difference between the verbs should and ought, there's also no difference between their nominalisations, shouldness and oughtness - whatever they refer to. These are fabricated nouns that, because we use nouns to name things, you've decided must name things that actually exist.

Surely your English is not that bad to the above extent to differentiate between a verb and a noun.

The 'oughtness' or shouldness is a potential that is represented by its physical neural correlates [which is beyond your ken].

Note:

• Potential = noun
  1. latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.

The scientific FSK with is scientific methods and all other conditions are worthless?
What world are you living in?

Don't be obtuse. Blather about fsks is useless in this context. And your claim that a fact exists only because there's an fsk is demonstrably false. It's because there are facts that we can know them; our knowing them doesn't produce them.

I have argued your basis of what is fact is grounded on an illusion.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

You have not countered the above.

That 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers] is a scientific fact conditioned upon the science-chemistry FSK.
IF there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20'.
You have not countered this as well.

No.. no .. no ..
Objective moral facts emerged from the moral FSK and not the other way round, just as objective scientific facts emerged from the science-FSK.
If there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers].

No, no, no. You have this completely the wrong way around.

Surely you are not that blurr.
If there is no science-chemistry FSK on what authority is 'water is H20'?
On your mother or father's authority?

The moral FSK is the same as the science-FSK albeit in different degrees of objectivity and credibility.

False, false, false. The 'moral fsk' is your question-begging invention. (Btw, do you know what 'begging the question' means? If not, check it out.)

Note I have raised this thread to counter your above.
PH: FSKs are Worthless
viewtopic.php?t=40861

You have not countered the above.

Most of your points above are merely blabbering without rational justification.