What could make morality objective?

[Magnus Anderson]

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

I don't understand why you find this extremely simple issue so difficult to grasp.

When you say that "Rape is not morally wrong", you're saying that there are situations in which the best course of action to take is to rape someone. That's either true or it is not, regardless of what anyone thinks.

Moral subjectivism is simply an indefensible position. It's as indefensible as the position that the Law of Identity is false.

[Peter Holmes]

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

I don't understand why you find this extremely simple issue so difficult to grasp.

When you say that "Rape is not morally wrong", you're saying that there are situations in which the best course of action to take is to rape someone. That's either true or it is not, regardless of what anyone thinks.

Moral subjectivism is simply an indefensible position. It's as indefensible as the position that the Law of Identity is false.

I don't understand your argument. And I don't think you understand my argument about the difference between factual and non-factual assertions, which is to do with having truth-value independent from opinion. Perhaps you don't understand that an opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

Your appeal to what constitutes 'the best course of action' merely begs the question.

And your comparison between the empty (because tautological) rules of classical logic and the supposed 'truth' of some moral assertions is ridiculous.

But thanks anyway.

[Skepdick]

And your comparison between the empty (because tautological) rules of classical logic and the supposed 'truth' of some moral assertions is ridiculous.

Stop lying.

Tautology means true in all interpretations.

A tautological logical system has only one truth-value. The truth-value of true. This is a single-value/unary logic.

Classical logic is not tautological; and it's not unary - because it has two values, not one.

Tautologies are not falsehoods. So what are falsehoods?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

I have argued
There are Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Your approach is grounded on an illusion.
What is proper is,
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

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.)

Your basis of what is fact is grounded on an illusion, i,e,

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 but kept repeating your claim despite the presence of counter to your claims.

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.)

Strawman.
I argued, FSK-ed objective moral facts [same as scientific facts] are independent of the individual scientist belief, judgment or opinion; however, they are not absolutely independent of the human conditions.

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.

That is merely a linguistic fact as per the linguistic FSK not a real fact as equivalent to a scientific fact.
In any case, linguistic fact is conditioned upon a specific linguistic FSK and thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

For example,

"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The above implied the fact therein are conditioned within a human-based FSK, they cannot be standalone fact-in-themselves.

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.

Yes, they are objective, i.e. independent from the belief, judgement or opinion of the individuals within the specific human-based FSK.
You cannot deny this.
The only question is to what degrees are these moral facts objective.
It is evident the objectivity of any moral claims from a theological moral FSK has low or negligible objectivity in contrast to that of the objective scientific facts.

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.

Above is not relevant for me, because I do not believe morality should be considered within rightness or wrongness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Yes, the inference of the noumenal itself is not independent from humans.

The contention with philosophical realists is, they insist the noumenal in the positive sense [which cannot be experienced directly] is real and exists absolutely mind-independent from humans.
In other words, the noumenal exists independent by itself unconditionally from humans.
This is why the PRs claim the noumenal moon exists even if there are no humans.
This is supported with reference from Kant;
see:
viewtopic.php?t=40170

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

What are you talking about?

You wrote:
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.

In the above, you assumed 'Laws of Nature' pre-exist humans and are subsequently discovered by scientists.

Thus, I asked,
"Show me references where science make claims there are pre-existing laws that science discover?"

I had posted this;
Van Fraasen: There are No Laws of Nature other than those "invented" by humans.
viewtopic.php?t=40451

[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?

What are you talking about?

You wrote:
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.

In the above, you assumed 'Laws of Nature' pre-exist humans and are subsequently discovered by scientists.

Thus, I asked,
"Show me references where science make claims there are pre-existing laws that science discover?"

I had posted this;
Van Fraasen: There are No Laws of Nature other than those "invented" by humans.
viewtopic.php?t=40451

Reference what? All of science is consistent with the idea of an objectively existing world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

What are you talking about?

You wrote:
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.

In the above, you assumed 'Laws of Nature' pre-exist humans and are subsequently discovered by scientists.

Thus, I asked,
"Show me references where science make claims there are pre-existing laws that science discover?"

I had posted this;
Van Fraasen: There are No Laws of Nature other than those "invented" by humans.
viewtopic.php?t=40451

Reference what? All of science is consistent with the idea of an objectively existing world.

If you made a claim, surely you have have references to support your claim?

Are you aware of claims that oppose to yours and why they are wrong?
Have you researched into Scientific_Realism vs ANTI-Scientific_Realism?
The mark of good philosophy is to understand objections and provide counter to them.

[Atla]

What are you talking about?

You wrote:
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.

In the above, you assumed 'Laws of Nature' pre-exist humans and are subsequently discovered by scientists.

Thus, I asked,
"Show me references where science make claims there are pre-existing laws that science discover?"

I had posted this;
Van Fraasen: There are No Laws of Nature other than those "invented" by humans.
viewtopic.php?t=40451

Reference what? All of science is consistent with the idea of an objectively existing world.

If you made a claim, surely you have have references to support your claim?

Are you aware of claims that oppose to yours and why they are wrong?
Have you researched into Scientific_Realism vs ANTI-Scientific_Realism?
The mark of good philosophy is to understand objections and provide counter to them.

Yes I'm aware of the CLAIMS, and unaware of any part of science where they really work. All of science is consistent with an objective reality.

[Skepdick]

Perhaps you don't understand that an opinion held by everyone is still an opinion

Stop lying, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

Everyone's opinion determines the objective boiling point of water.

[Skepdick]

All of science is consistent with an objective reality.

What objective consistency criteria are you presupposing?

[Atla]

All of science is consistent with an objective reality.

What objective consistency criteria are you presupposing?

There are no contradictions and gaps. Your mind can't process logic (you exist in pure chaos) you don't what a contradiction is.

[Skepdick]

There are no contradictions and gaps.

Stop lying. Contradictions exist only in minds; as do gaps in our "origin story".

Your mind can't process logic (you exist in pure chaos) you don't what a contradiction is.

Oh, you know what a contradiction is? Right after telling me that there are NO contradictions?

Contradiction!

Shut the fuck up, moron

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reference what? All of science is consistent with the idea of an objectively existing world.

If you made a claim, surely you have have references to support your claim?

Are you aware of claims that oppose to yours and why they are wrong?
Have you researched into Scientific_Realism vs ANTI-Scientific_Realism?
The mark of good philosophy is to understand objections and provide counter to them.

Yes I'm aware of the CLAIMS, and unaware of any part of science where they really work. All of science is consistent with an objective reality.

You are making personal claims.
Where is your argument and supporting references.

What about the opposing view from say Hawking;

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.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
How do you counter above against yours?

Note there are many other opposing claims in opposition to what you are claiming.

[Atla]

If you made a claim, surely you have have references to support your claim?

Are you aware of claims that oppose to yours and why they are wrong?
Have you researched into Scientific_Realism vs ANTI-Scientific_Realism?
The mark of good philosophy is to understand objections and provide counter to them.

Yes I'm aware of the CLAIMS, and unaware of any part of science where they really work. All of science is consistent with an objective reality.

You are making personal claims.
Where is your argument and supporting references.

What about the opposing view from say Hawking;

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.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
How do you counter above against yours?

Note there are many other opposing claims in opposition to what you are claiming.

See this is what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. Model-dependent realism doesn't contradict or support objective reality. So it's not "opposing".