What could make morality objective?

[Gary Childress]

Are you telling me to "fuck off" or are you telling someone else to? Again, I just want to say something and I need it to go to the right person.

Definitely not telling you to fuck off, but I have no idea who the right person is.

I know that and neither do I. However, my information is very important. How long will it take for it to reach the right person without being distorted and misunderstood?

[Skepdick]

I know that and neither do I. However, my information is very important. How long will it take for it to reach the right person without being distorted and misunderstood?

Once you figure out who that person is - it can be as quick as it takes you to communicate it.

[Gary Childress]

I know that and neither do I. However, my information is very important. How long will it take for it to reach the right person without being distorted and misunderstood?

Once you figure out who that person is - it can be super quick.

Well, can you tell me who that person is?

[FlashDangerpants]

You spent all day trying to convince everyone you are mad, but when faced with a true madman you couldn't maintain.

Hey look, when I present you with first principles reasoning, game theory, proof theory, formal logic, system dynamics (you know, standard formal sciences stuff) - silence.

But when I constantly point out that you are playing a fucking stupid zero-sum language game - I am the madman.

You have a personality disorder.

[Gary Childress]

Never mind. It's important. I'd like it to be known by someone and I don't know who to tell. If it takes the rest of time to get to that person, then there's no use in me saying it. Oh well. Either there's a God or there isn't.

[Gary Childress]

But if it doesn't get to them in time, then the Internet will become overwhelmed with extinct information that needs to be flushed from the system.

[Skepdick]

You have a personality disorder.

The sooner you stop lying to yourself that you are actually qualified to assess my personality, the sooner you'll come to realise that your "personality disorder" is philosophy.

It is an inherently pathological activity with its propensity for contrarianism.

You yap a lot, but think too little. You are so convinced of your own superior intellect that you have a super hard time of seeing how dumb you are the moment your abstract bullshit makes contact with the ground.

You are an opinionista at best. A wordsmith with a temper. Knowledge's not in your job description; or your skillset.

That's why we keep philosopers away from the important things in society. You are like toddlers with a hammer.

[LuckyR]

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

Sorry, still all over the place. Here you declare moral skepticism as equivalent to moral relativism. There you go into a (very reasonable to my eye) description of the differences between the two. Huh?

As to moral objectivism, let's say there is a moral question that has 5 possible choices on how to address it. Five moral skeptics say, "there is no better nor worse, choose whatever fits your fancy" and the five each choose one of the five possible options. Five moral objectivists look at the question and each put forth a logical and well referenced argument to support one of the choices as clearly superior to the other 4... except that each has made this argument in favor of a different choice, such that one objectivist is supporting each of the choices. What is the practical difference between the two scenarios?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As to moral objectivism, let's say there is a moral question that has 5 possible choices on how to address it.
Five moral skeptics say, "there is no better nor worse, choose whatever fits your fancy" and the five each choose one of the five possible options.
Five moral objectivists look at the question and each put forth a logical and well referenced argument to support one of the choices as clearly superior to the other 4... except that each has made this argument in favor of a different choice, such that one objectivist is supporting each of the choices. What is the practical difference between the two scenarios?

You don't seem to understand what is moral objectivism.

For moral objectivism there is no choices for each moral element.
Say, the moral principle 'no human ought to kill another human' period!
In moral objectivism there is no choice to the above, otherwise that would be moral relativism.
The question to the above is, to what degree of objectivity is the above grounded upon.

Within the Christian moral FSK, the above universal principle [thou shall not kill, period!] is grounded on the existence of God, which I claim is illusory.
As such while the Christian moral FSK is based on moral objectivism, its degree of objectivity is negligible.

In my case, my moral FSK is based on a physical ought-not-ness to kill humans which is supported by its neural correlates which is justifiable by the science-biology FSK.
Since this moral elements is grounded on scientific facts, it has a higher degree of objectivity.

There are other nuances, but the above is sufficient to represent what is moral objectivism.

[Skepdick]

Sorry, still all over the place. Here you declare moral skepticism as equivalent to moral relativism. There you go into a (very reasonable to my eye) description of the differences between the two. Huh?

What difference? When you equate all the options THAT is nihilism.

You are saying the options can't be moraly ranked. Neither is most or least worst. Neither is most or least best

A = B = C = D = E

If everything has the same value then nothing has any value.

As to moral objectivism, let's say there is a moral question that has 5 possible choices on how to address it.
Five moral skeptics say, "there is no better nor worse, choose whatever fits your fancy" and the five each choose one of the five possible options.

Q.E.D That is moral nihilism!

Rape = NO rape
Murder = NO murder
War = NO war
Poverty = NO poverty
Education = NO education
Democracy = NO democracy

That's a hellhole.

Five moral objectivists look at the question and each put forth a logical and well referenced argument to support one of the choices as clearly superior to the other 4... except that each has made this argument in favor of a different choice, such that one objectivist is supporting each of the choices. What is the practical difference between the two scenarios?

But they have all assigned a ranking to their choices (from best to worst) and when you sum up those points amongst all the objectivist you can pick the least terrible democratic way forward.

There is an algorithm which can help arrive at an answer iteratively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem

At some point you will arrive with a ranking: D < B < E < A < C

Moral objectivism is simply the rejection of the claim that A = B = C = D = E.
If they are NOT equal, then they can be ranked. Somehow. Eventually.

[LuckyR]

Five moral objectivists look at the question and each put forth a logical and well referenced argument to support one of the choices as clearly superior to the other 4... except that each has made this argument in favor of a different choice, such that one objectivist is supporting each of the choices. What is the practical difference between the two scenarios?

But they have all assigned a ranking to their choices (from best to worst) and when you sum up those points amongst all the objectivist you can pick the least terrible democratic way forward.

There is an algorithm which can help arrive at an answer iteratively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem

At some point you will arrive with a ranking: D < B < E < A < C

Moral objectivism is simply the rejection of the claim that A = B = C = D = E.
If they are NOT equal, then they can be ranked. Somehow. Eventually.

Except that you haven't pointed to a practical difference between two skeptics who say slavery=no slavery with one selecting each randomly and two objectivists who argue (with logic and references), one with slavery<not slavery and the other slavery>not slavery.

[LuckyR]

As to moral objectivism, let's say there is a moral question that has 5 possible choices on how to address it.
Five moral skeptics say, "there is no better nor worse, choose whatever fits your fancy" and the five each choose one of the five possible options.
Five moral objectivists look at the question and each put forth a logical and well referenced argument to support one of the choices as clearly superior to the other 4... except that each has made this argument in favor of a different choice, such that one objectivist is supporting each of the choices. What is the practical difference between the two scenarios?

You don't seem to understand what is moral objectivism.

For moral objectivism there is no choices for each moral element.
Say, the moral principle 'no human ought to kill another human' period!
In moral objectivism there is no choice to the above, otherwise that would be moral relativism.
The question to the above is, to what degree of objectivity is the above grounded upon.

Within the Christian moral FSK, the above universal principle [thou shall not kill, period!] is grounded on the existence of God, which I claim is illusory.
As such while the Christian moral FSK is based on moral objectivism, its degree of objectivity is negligible.

In my case, my moral FSK is based on a physical ought-not-ness to kill humans which is supported by its neural correlates which is justifiable by the science-biology FSK.
Since this moral elements is grounded on scientific facts, it has a higher degree of objectivity.

There are other nuances, but the above is sufficient to represent what is moral objectivism.

So you acknowledge that by using different FSKs, objectivists can come to opposite conclusions.

[Skepdick]

Five moral skeptics say... Five moral objectivists...

Except that you haven't pointed to a practical difference between two skeptics who say slavery=no slavery with one selecting each randomly and two objectivists who argue (with logic and references), one with slavery<not slavery and the other slavery>not slavery.

If I hadn't pointed out the practical difference, you wouldn't have moved the goal posts.

[Magnus Anderson]

Google
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Of course the wording is ambiguous. A thing that is known, or proved, to be true. Is that what they meant? I don't know. Either way is certainly includes my definition.

Truth would be "a statement or proposition that is true". The above is saying "a thing". That can be anything. However, if we're talking about a thing that is proven to be true, then it cannot be anything other than a proposition, for only propositions can be proven to be true. That said, I guess you're right.

Perhaps I have a very odd life of experiences, but what I hear when people refer to facts (and books of facts) is assertions considered true.

Well, that might be the case. I can't guarantee that my understanding of what the word "fact" means is 100% accurate.

But in the case of fact / value distinction, the word "fact" seems to mean no more than "what is". In other words, it means the same thing as the word "existence". Would you agree with that? Or do you think it means "true assertion"? Surely, there is a distinction between true assertions and values, for values aren't assertions. But what would then be the distinction between statements of fact and statements of value? What would then be a statement of fact?

[LuckyR]

Five moral skeptics say... Five moral objectivists...

Except that you haven't pointed to a practical difference between two skeptics who say slavery=no slavery with one selecting each randomly and two objectivists who argue (with logic and references), one with slavery<not slavery and the other slavery>not slavery.

If I hadn't pointed out the practical difference, you wouldn't have moved the goal posts.

... so you can't /won't address my question. Says a lot.