What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

But not all statements have truth-value.

Oh goodie! We can work with this!

Given the moral accusation "Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is making intentionally false statements e.g he is lying".

Is it true that the statement has no truth-value;
OR
Is true that the truth-value of the statement is true.

[LuckyR]

If in your post you are equating "Truth" with "rape is wrong" and "Falsehood" with "rape is acceptable", then you're missing the point that over various time periods in various communities, both opinions have occupied the "Truth" position. It is merely hubris that awards philosophical superiority to what is currently and locally popular.

I am not missing the point at all. Your entire line of reasoning rests on the presupposition that Truth is good, Truth is great (so everybody tries to steal the banner of Truth because it carries brand recognition) while philosophers try to protect it.

Truth is locally popular in philosophy.

If you are going to pretend to be a moral skeptic - burn the banner; scrap the very idea that we should strive for Truth and protect it. Worship Falsehood instead.

Lets do the experiment. See how many moral skeptics are left after that. Moral skepticism is a bullshit position. The only reason it exists is because of contrarianism. Nobody actually believes it.

Dude, you're all over the place. First of all, I am not personally a moral skeptic (as a moral relatavist), rather I am reporting on historical truths. What you or I make of these historical realities is another matter, hence the debate that is the purpose of the Forum format.

I'm just encouraging us to take a step back and realize that now in 2023 certain current opinions appear to be Correct and certain opinions from 1823 appear to our 2023 sensibilities to be Incorrect. We conclude this because 2023 views must be "more advanced" than those from 1823. However, what of the year 2223 view? Our 2023 opinions will likely be viewed by those 2223 observers as Incorrect, since their 2223 opinions will be "more advanced".

[Skepdick]

Dude, you're all over the place.

Dude. I haven't moved. I am at a fixed location. Morality is objective in the way that scientists use the word "objective". There would be a consensus amongst the participants on the value of the measurement.

It must be your relativism moving around.

First of all, I am not personally a moral skeptic (as a moral relatavist) , rather I am reporting on historical truths. What you or I make of these historical realities is another matter, hence the debate that is the purpose of the Forum format.

That's a contradiction of terms. Moral relativism is moral skepticism in the limit.

If you were a true moral skeptic you would be unable to make any judgments about whether society is improving; or regressing. Those are moral judgments! A moral relativist says "society is changing". Relative to some societies it's changing for the better; and relative to other societies it's changing for the worse.

So ask a moral relativist any of these questions:

Is slavery getting better or worse as history progresses?
Is education improving as history progresses?
Is wellbeing improving as history progresses?
Is violence reducing as history progresses?
Is society becoming healthier as history progresses?

And the answer you get is: It depends on who you ask.

But if morality is objective I shouldn't have to ask anybody ?!?
Look at the evidence and decide. Is the future generally better; or generally worse than the past?

Oh riiiiight a relativist has no notions of "better" or worse".

I'm just encouraging us to take a step back and realize that now in 2023 certain current opinions appear to be Correct and certain opinions from 1823 appear to our 2023 sensibilities to be Incorrect. We conclude this because 2023 views must be "more advanced" than those from 1823. However, what of the year 2223 view? Our 2023 opinions will likely be viewed by those 2223 observers as Incorrect, since their 2223 opinions will be "more advanced".

None of those coclusions or reasoning are necessary.

Was the morality of 2500 BC better than the morality of 2023 AD? If yes - lets bring 2500 BC back!
Was the morality of 2500 BC worse than the morality of 2023 AD? If no - lets NOT bring 2500 BC back!

If you are a moral relativist then you should say that 2500 BC was neither better nor worse than 2023 AD. They are morally the same.

Having murder laws is no better or worse than not having them.
Having rape laws is no better or worse than not having them.
Having better education is no better or worse than not having it.
Having access to healthcare is no better or worse than not having healthcare at all.

No difference whatsoever. Everything's the same. Nothing improved or regressed. Morality is dead.

Moral relativism = Moral Skepticism = Nihilism

[Magnus Anderson]

The factual assertion 'I like cake' does indeed, if only trivially, have a truth-value. But the assertion 'cake is delicious' doesn't - and that's why the assertion 'rape is wrong' also has no truth-value. It expresses an opinion.

"Cake is dilicious" isn't much different from "I like cake". "I like cake" means "Cake is delicious to me". "Cake is delicious" means "Cake is delicious to an unspecified set of people". If it isn't explicit, it does not mean it isn't implicit. In any particular instance, the statement might even mean the same exact thing as "Cake is delicious to me". The question is merely who constitutes the unspecified set of people.

I'll pay attention when you try to put forward a valid and sound argument for moral objectivity.

I highly doubt it but I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[Skepdick]

The factual assertion 'I like cake' does indeed, if only trivially, have a truth-value. But the assertion 'cake is delicious' doesn't - and that's why the assertion 'rape is wrong' also has no truth-value. It expresses an opinion.

"Cake is dilicious" isn't much different from "I like cake". "I like cake" means "Cake is delicious to me". "Cake is delicious" means "Cake is delicious to an unspecified set of people". If it isn't explicit, it does not mean it isn't implicit. In any particular instance, the statement might even mean the same exact thing as "Cake is delicious to me". The question is merely who constitutes the unspecified set of people.

I'll pay attention when you try to put forward a valid and sound argument for moral objectivity.

I highly doubt it but I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

For as long as you keep trying to "persuade" him - you are on the back foot. He is intentionally dogmatic.

This is a language game and your strategy sucks.

Attack, don't defend.

[Peter Holmes]

I wrote: Not all statements have truth value.

A moron responded with: Oh goodie! We can work with this! Given the moral accusation "Peter "Dumb ****" Holmes is making intentionally false statements e.g he is lying".

Leaving aside the unpleasantness, the moron seems unable to distinguish between a factual assertion with a truth-value - such as 'PH is lying' - and a non-factual assertion - such as 'cake is delicious' or 'homosexuality is morally wrong' - which has no truth-value, but rather expresses an opinion.

To respond to 'cake is delicious' or 'homosexuality is morally wrong' with 'you're lying' would be moronic - because they're not factual assertions.

Sadly, the moron is not alone in failing to grasp the distinction. Perhaps this is the stupidity at the heart of moral objectivism: 'it's just a fact that X is morally right/wrong'. No it fucking isn't. That's an opinion.

[Skepdick]

Leaving aside the unpleasantness, the moron seems unable to distinguish between a factual assertion with a truth-value - such as 'PH is lying' - and a non-factual assertion - such as 'cake is delicious' or 'homosexuality is morally wrong' - which has no truth-value, but rather expresses an opinion.

The intellectually challenged troll is desperatelly trying to blur the lines between facts and morals.

"Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is lying" is NOT a factual claim. It's an accusation of a moral transgression.

"Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is lying" amounts to the claim "Your morally neutral speech-act constitutes the moral transgression of lying"

Either it's true that your speech-act amounts to a moral transgression lying; or it's NOT true that your speech act amounts to a moral transgression.

[Peter Holmes]

The factual assertion 'I like cake' does indeed, if only trivially, have a truth-value. But the assertion 'cake is delicious' doesn't - and that's why the assertion 'rape is wrong' also has no truth-value. It expresses an opinion.

"Cake is delicious" isn't much different from "I like cake". "I like cake" means "Cake is delicious to me". "Cake is delicious" means "Cake is delicious to an unspecified set of people". If it isn't explicit, it does not mean it isn't implicit. In any particular instance, the statement might even mean the same exact thing as "Cake is delicious to me". The question is merely who constitutes the unspecified set of people.

And by exactly the same argument, 'X is morally wrong' isn't much different from 'X is morally wrong to me'. And here dies moral objectivism, by your own hand.

I'll pay attention when you try to put forward a valid and sound argument for moral objectivity.

I highly doubt it but I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Whoa. You accuse me of lazy arrogance. Produce your valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, or shove that accusation up your arse.

[Skepdick]

Whoa. You accuse me of lazy arrogance. Produce your valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, or shove that accusation up your arse.

The a priori distinction between valid and invalid arguments depends on moral values.
The a priori distinction between sound and unsound arguments depends on moral values.
The a priori distinction true and false premises depends on moral values.

Logic is the viciously recursive presupposition of right (true) and wrong (false).

Fucking hypocrite. Appeals to the authority of deduction.

Refuses to address the viciously circular reasoning necessary to inductively construct any two-valued system of deductive reasoning from facts alone.

Reality is the totality of truths. Where do you get your falsehoods from?

[Peter Holmes]

The factual assertion 'PH is lying' says nothing about moral rightness and wrongness, so it's not 'an accusation of a moral transgression'. 'Lying is morally wrong' is a moral assertion. Spot the difference?

But a moron who doesn't understand the difference between factual and non-factual assertions is unable to grasp the distinction. For such a moron, 'water is H2O' may as well be a moral assertion.

[Skepdick]

The factual assertion 'PH is lying' says nothing about moral rightness and wrongness, so it's not 'an accusation of a moral transgression'.

And here we have Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes graduating with a PhD, obtraining Professorship and tennure from the university of dumb cunts.

He is necessarily claiming that lying is NOT morally wrong.

'Lying is morally wrong' is a moral assertion. Spot the difference?

Yes, I spot the difference very well.

"Lying is NOT morally wrong." is also a moral assertion. Spot the similarity?

[Skepdick]

But a moron who doesn't understand the difference between factual and non-factual assertions is unable to grasp the distinction. For such a moron, 'water is H2O' may as well be a moral assertion.

The fucking imbecille doesn't understand that both factual and non-factual assertions are still assertions.

This is fact, a true assertion about the nature of assertions. Irrespective of what anybody thinks or believes.

Don't talk to me about distinctions you fucking hypocrite, address the viciously circular reasoning necessary to inductively construct any two-valued system of deductive reasoning from facts alone.

Justify your ability to draw distinctions in a world which is comprises the totality of facts.

[FlashDangerpants]

The factual assertion 'I like cake' does indeed, if only trivially, have a truth-value. But the assertion 'cake is delicious' doesn't - and that's why the assertion 'rape is wrong' also has no truth-value. It expresses an opinion.

"Cake is dilicious" isn't much different from "I like cake". "I like cake" means "Cake is delicious to me". "Cake is delicious" means "Cake is delicious to an unspecified set of people". If it isn't explicit, it does not mean it isn't implicit. In any particular instance, the statement might even mean the same exact thing as "Cake is delicious to me". The question is merely who constitutes the unspecified set of people.

It seems like you are actually arguing that "Cake is delicious" means "Cake is delicious to us" and by extension making it express the proposition "we like cake". The fact/value divide isn't going to be overcome with this line of argument.

[Skepdick]

The fact/value divide isn't going to be overcome with this line of argument.

That's the usual burden-shifting bullshit. Does the fact-value divide even exist or are you just making shit up? Where is it? Justify your presupposition.

If it doesn't even exist then why are you asking me to "overcome" it?

Reality is the totality of truths/facts, including facts about ourselves, about our state of mind and about our memories of the past.
Every moment in time is always the present moment. The past is just history - everywhere I look I see truth, truth and more truth.

If the fact/value divide "can't be overcome" then please explain to me how you have overcome it to construct a value-system which values Truth and devalues Falsehood starting from the facts alone. This is an inductive, not a deductive attack on moral skepticism so if you accept the premises, you can't reject the conclusions.

And now it's on the moral skeptics to explain what it even means to "tell a lie" or "speak a falsehood". I am just exercising my freedom of thought and freedom of speech, man! What's wrong with the way I think; or the way I speak?

Tag, you are it!

[Peter Holmes]

Here's a moral assertion, with no truth-value: Lying is morally wrong.

And here's another moral assertion, with no truth-value: Lying is not morally wrong.

And here's a factual assertion, with a truth-value: PH is lying.

Guidance for a fucking moron: A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, or morally good or bad/evil - or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's morally right or wrong, etc.

If it doesn't say that, it isn't a moral assertion.