What could make morality objective?

[Magnus Anderson]

And by exactly the same argument, 'X is morally wrong' isn't much different from 'X is morally wrong to me'.

That's correct. "X is morally wrong" means "X is morally wrong for a set of people not explicitly mentioned in this statement" where "a set of people" can be 1) an individual, such as you, 2) a group of people, such as everyone living on certain territory, 3) every single living human benig, 4) every single human being that can be conceived, or 5) any other combination that I did not cover.

And here dies moral objectivism, by your own hand.

This is a mere assertion, not an argument. Certainly, you did not present a complete argument. There is a premise and a conclusion but no explanation as to how the latter follows from the former.

In any case, it's false. The truth value of the statement "X is morally wrong for me" is independent from what anyone thinks. It's similar to how "Eating junk food is bad for me" is independent from what anyone thinks. It's not a matter of opinion. Either eating junk food is bad for you or it isn't. It does not matter what you think. Even if you think that it's good, it's still bad for you.

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

Nothing can be shown to a man who keeps his eyes closed. If you want him to see anything, you must first open his eyes.

If you don't carefully listen to what other people are saying, and if you're not willing to explore their reasoning process, you don't have an open mind, and thus, it's near impossible to prove anything to you.

[Skepdick]

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.

Q.E.D! Three assertions.

By the law of excluded middle every assertion/proposition is either true; or its negation is true.

How is it that some of your assertions have truth-values; and others don't?

That seems like am unjustified double standard.

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.

Stop lying, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

Either It is NOT wrong to lie; or It is wrong to lie.

By law of excluded middle one of these is necessarily true.

If you reject the laws of reason, then please explain to us what's "wrong" with the law; and on what authority you are asserting its "wrongness". What makes you think you are above the law?

[Skepdick]

it's near impossible to prove anything to you.

No, it's absolutely impossible to prove anything to him.

But it's not impossible to prove something ABOUT him.

What is obvious to everyone, except the accudes is that he is objectively lying about the subjectivity of morality.

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

A fact is that which is the case. You are a fact. I am a fact. Mountains are facts. Rocks are facts. This forum is a fact.

However, values are facts too.

A value is a property of a thing, such as a physical object, denoting how useful that thing is in helping someone get as close as possible to attaining their highest goal ( which is something they are born with and over which they have no control whatsoever. )

If you don't drink water, you will die. And since your highest goal is to live as long as possible, dying is something you want to avoid. As such, water has value to you. And since water has value to all human beings, it can also be said that water has universal value.

If you want to avoid any possibility of confusion, the fact / value distinction should be renamed to non-value / value distinction.

Physical objects, such as rocks, mountains, rivers, etc, are non-values. They aren't values even though we often say things such as "Water is a value" to mean "Water has value / is of value to people". That's merely figurative language. Value is actually a property of things. Each thing has certain value to each person.

A factual statement would be a non-value statement, i.e. one that describes a non-value. An example would be "Peter Holmes is lying". That's describing something that is not a value. It's describing what someone [ Peter Holmes ] is doing [ lying ].

A value statement would be one that describes a value. An example would be "It is bad for Peter Holmes to lie". That's describing the value of lying for Peter Holmes.

Both types of statements have truth value. And in both cases, the truth value is independent from what anyone thinks about it ( in fact, there is no such thing as truth value that is NOT independent from what anyone thinks of it. )

[Skepdick]

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.

A fact is that which is the case. You are a fact. I am a fact. Mountains are facts. Rocks are facts. This forum is a fact.

However, values are facts too.

A value is a property of a thing, such as a physical object, denoting how useful that thing is in helping someone get as close as possible to attaining their highest goal ( which is something they are born with and over which they have no control whatsoever. )

If you don't drink water, you will die. And since your highest goal is to live as long as possible, dying is something you want to avoid. As such, water has value to you. And since water has value to all human beings, it can also be said that water has universal value.

If you want to avoid any possibility of confusion, the fact / value distinction should be renamed to non-value / value distinction.

Physical objects, such as rocks, mountains, rivers, etc, are non-values. They aren't values even though we often say things such as "Water is a value" to mean "Water has value / is of value to people". That's merely figurative language. Value is actually a property of things. Each thing has certain value to each person.

A factual statement would be a non-value statement, i.e. one that describes a non-value. An example would be "Peter Holmes is lying". That's describing something that is not a value. It's describing what someone [ Peter Holmes ] is doing [ lying ].

A value statement would be one that describes a value. An example would be "It is bad for Peter Holmes to lie". That's describing the value of lying for Peter Holmes.

Both types of statements have truth value. And in both cases, the truth value is independent from what anyone thinks about it ( in fact, there is no such thing as truth value that is NOT independent from what anyone thinks of it. )

All of that is long-form.

Here's the short form.

All values are valuable. A tautology, and therefore true whether anyone believes it or not.
By deduction: Truth-values are values, therefore truth-values are valuable.
By deduction: True and False are truth-values, and truth-values are valuable therefore Truth and False are valuable.

Truth and Falsehood are NOT equally valuable.

¬(True ≡ False)

Which is why ( True ≡ -False ) ≡ (-True ≡ False)

[Iwannaplato]

A fact is that which is the case. You are a fact. I am a fact. Mountains are facts. Rocks are facts. This forum is a fact.

We can define things as we like, but going with my definition, I am not a fact. Rocks aren't facts. To facts are about other things. A sentence could be a fact or it could be fictional.

[Skepdick]

A fact is that which is the case. You are a fact. I am a fact. Mountains are facts. Rocks are facts. This forum is a fact.

We can define things as we like, but going with my definition, I am not a fact. Rocks aren't facts. To facts are about other things. A sentence could be a fact or it could be fictional.

Yeah... that's the problem with saying stuff like "facts exist independent of minds.".

I've looked everywhere for facts, all I see is phenomena.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah... that's the problem with saying stuff like "facts exist". Where do we put them now?

Inside heads or outside of heads?

Or both at once/in-between, like a fact in a book. It's not quite a fact when no one is reading it.
Perhaps it's best to think of facts as processes. That's not specific. One could argue that everything is a process or part of the process.

[Skepdick]

Yeah... that's the problem with saying stuff like "facts exist". Where do we put them now?

Inside heads or outside of heads?

Or both at once/in-between, like a fact in a book. It's not quite a fact when no one is reading it.
Perhaps it's best to think of facts as processes. That's not specific. One could argue that everything is a process or part of the process.

Everything's a process in The Simulation!

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah... that's the problem with saying stuff like "facts exist". Where do we put them now?

Inside heads or outside of heads?

Or both at once/in-between, like a fact in a book. It's not quite a fact when no one is reading it.
Perhaps it's best to think of facts as processes. That's not specific. One could argue that everything is a process or part of the process.

Everything's a process in The Simulation!

You aren't going to start talking about the Matrix, are you?

[Atla]

someone get as close as possible to attaining their highest goal ( which is something they are born with and over which they have no control whatsoever. )

Who or what decides what their highest goal will be?

[Impenitent]

someone get as close as possible to attaining their highest goal ( which is something they are born with and over which they have no control whatsoever. )

Who or what decides what their highest goal will be?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/118 ... worldwide/

these are all in South America

-Imp

[Skepdick]

You aren't going to start talking about the Matrix, are you?

Well... you kow.

The Big Bang is in your head, not "out there" anywhere for you to find.

Thank The Matrix for helping you remember something which happened 13.8 billion years before you were even born.

You are plugged in to the body of knowledge/memories whether you want to or not.

[Magnus Anderson]

someone get as close as possible to attaining their highest goal ( which is something they are born with and over which they have no control whatsoever. )

Who or what decides what their highest goal will be?

Probably their genes. But the fact of the matter is that, at each point in time, there exists a goal that is at the top of the hierarchy of your goals, the highest goal, that you're pursuing and that is beyond your control. Exactly what controls it is a topic on its own.

[Peter Holmes]

And by exactly the same argument, 'X is morally wrong' isn't much different from 'X is morally wrong to me'.

That's correct. "X is morally wrong" means "X is morally wrong for a set of people not explicitly mentioned in this statement" where "a set of people" can be 1) an individual, such as you, 2) a group of people, such as everyone living on certain territory, 3) every single living human benig, 4) every single human being that can be conceived, or 5) any other combination that I did not cover.

Try this analysis with 'water is H2O'. Its truth or falsehood has nothing to do with who it's 'true for. It just is or isn't true. Cos it's a factual assertion, unlike 'X is morally wrong'. Shot in the foot?

And here dies moral objectivism, by your own hand.

This is a mere assertion, not an argument. Certainly, you did not present a complete argument. There is a premise and a conclusion but no explanation as to how the latter follows from the former.

Not so. Your example demonstrates the truth of what I'm saying. Non-factual assertions have no truth-value independent from opinion.

In any case, it's false. The truth value of the statement "X is morally wrong for me" is independent from what anyone thinks. It's similar to how "Eating junk food is bad for me" is independent from what anyone thinks. It's not a matter of opinion. Either eating junk food is bad for you or it isn't. It does not matter what you think. Even if you think that it's good, it's still bad for you.

Wtf? As I've explained, 'X is morally wrong for me' has a trivial truth-value, in that I may or may not think X is morally wrong. But the whole point of moral objectivism is that an assertion such as 'X is morally wrong' has a truth-value regardless of what I or anyone thinks. That's what 'having a truth-value' means. And 'X is morally wrong' obviously doesn't have such an independent truth-value, which is why moral objectivism is untenable.

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

Nothing can be shown to a man who keeps his eyes closed. If you want him to see anything, you must first open his eyes.

If you don't carefully listen to what other people are saying, and if you're not willing to explore their reasoning process, you don't have an open mind, and thus, it's near impossible to prove anything to you.

Oh, stop tap dancing. Try to produce a valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, and then I'll carefully listen to what you're saying. And then I'll show you why your argument is either invalid or unsound - because ( with one trivial exception) non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.