What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Why is Peter upset? Why does he rant and call VA "idiotic," and "wrong"? Why does he indict VA's manifest and manifold inconsistencies?

Manifest Answer: Peter is a tacit moral objectivist who refuses to recognize or to admit he is. He thinks some things, like what VA is saying, is [sic] objectively wrong. He thinks he/she is dishonest, illogical, unethical, irrational...and that's BAD. He gets all incensed about it, as you can tell from his rhetoric.

Notice IC's rhetorical trick. The predicate 'objectively wrong' equivocates on 'wrong'. We can use the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good'. 'bad', 'should' and 'ought to' morally and non-morally. I think VA's 'argument' is incorrect or wrong - but that this amounts to a moral condemnation is IC's deliberately obfuscating gloss. I think VA is illogical and irrational, but usually and largely honest and 'ethical', in the sense that he means well.

But Peter thinks the world is an accidental product of accidental forces. He thinks he's an accidental product of natural processes that were, themselves, instantiated accidentally. VA subjectively believe her/his views, so they must be as "moral" as anything Peter can possibly conceive...

Again, notice the sleight-of-hand segue from ontology to morality.

Obvious Conclusion: practically, subjectivism does not work. Even Peter, its most passionate advocate here, can't practice it, it would seem.

I find it hard to get IC's argument straight here. Moral objectivism is a philosophical theory or argument. It either does or doesn't 'work' - and I and others have shown that it doesn't 'work'. That doesn't make me a passionate advocate of moral subjectivism. That's just overblown rhetoric.

IC's version of theistic moral objectivism - one of many - demonstrably doesn't work, because it demolishes itself, since it advocates dependence on an agent's opinion. It's moral subjectivism pretending not to be. Maybe that's why IC has to deflect attention.

[Skepdick]

Why is Peter upset? Why does he rant and call VA "idiotic," and "wrong"? Why does he indict VA's manifest and manifold inconsistencies?

Manifest Answer: Peter is a tacit moral objectivist who refuses to recognize or to admit he is. He thinks some things, like what VA is saying, is [sic] objectively wrong. He thinks he/she is dishonest, illogical, unethical, irrational...and that's BAD. He gets all incensed about it, as you can tell from his rhetoric.

Notice IC's rhetorical trick. The predicate 'objectively wrong' equivocates on 'wrong'. We can use the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good'. 'bad', 'should' and 'ought to' morally and non-morally. I think VA's 'argument' is incorrect or wrong - but that this amounts to a moral condemnation is IC's deliberately obfuscating gloss

Special pleading + double standard.

morality
/məˈralɪti/
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

To insist that VA is not arguing "correctly" or "incorrectly".
To insist that VA is producing "right" or "wrong" arguments necessarily amounts to moral condemnation.

UNLESS you justify the exception from the norm.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA argues (strangely) that Christian morality is objective, but with only 0.000001 credibility. It's hard to know where to begin dismantling this kind of idiocy.

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion. (VA, of course, denies the existence of such facts, which he calls illusions.)

I have already argued in detail why your basis of 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion. As such you cannot use your argument grounded on an illusion to refute my claim re objectivity.

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

There are
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Your sense of objective is grounded on an illusion.

What is most credible not grounded on an illusion is;
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

From the above, I claim,
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

I have opened the above so can we concentrate the specific issues instead of messing around this >600-pages dumpster contaminated with shits and swarmed by flies and gnats.

You have not countered all my arguments above.

Have you even refer to your past posts?

In a way, my OP question has contributed to the conceptual mess. Compare: what could (or does) make physics objective? Answer, there are facts (features of reality) that physics describes pretty successfully - for now. And notice that which or how many people give credence to those physical facts is irrelevant. So the claim that 'intersubjective consensus' constitutes physics knowledge is false.

There are no ontological facts [features of reality -your illusions] that physics describes successfully.

Note Model Dependent Realism;

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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

In the skepticism thread, one has to suspend judgment as to your kind of 'feature of reality' which is an illusion.
I have challenged you to prove your claim a 'feature of reality' that is independent of the human conditions is tenable or feasible but you have offered none.

I have also argued, there is already a pre-realization of reality before science discover or describe it.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
You have not countered the above effectively.

What is a scientific fact of a scientific real thing, it cannot be an absolutely independent feature of reality that is discovered by scientists.
Somehow via the human based scientific FSK, the human conditions is entangled with what is real.

But, worse still, VA directly equates morality with, say, physics: what could (or does) make morality objective? VA's answer: there are facts (features of reality) that morality describes pretty successfully. But, NB, those facts depend on a morality framework and system of knowledge (fsk), just as physics facts depend on a physics fsk.

Strawman.
I have never equated morality with 'say' physics nor relate to your illusory facts [feature of reality]
I have defined what is the human-based FSK-ed objectivity above.
What is did was there are objective credible biological facts from the human-based biological-FSK that are inputted into a human-based moral FSK that enable credible objective moral facts. Thus morality is objective.

So - morality gives us knowledge in exactly the same way that physics gives us knowledge. Only - moral knowledge is a bit less credible than physics knowledge. Maybe 0.743, compared with 0.962 credible.

You are insulting your own intelligence by being that arrogant with your ignorance.
FSK-ed Objectivity is most effectively dealt within a continuum.
Your sense of objectivity is grounded on an illusion -see the above.

I believe my above explanation is too much and complex for you to grasp, thus you handwave with your kindergartenish remarks.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA argues (strangely) that Christian morality is objective, but with only 0.000001 credibility. It's hard to know where to begin dismantling this kind of idiocy.

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion. (VA, of course, denies the existence of such facts, which he calls illusions.)

I have already argued in detail why your basis of 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion. As such you cannot use your argument grounded on an illusion to refute my claim re objectivity.

And I have refuted your argument that what we call facts are illusions. So you cannot use that argument at all, let alone to defend your strange claim that there are moral facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA argues (strangely) that Christian morality is objective, but with only 0.000001 credibility. It's hard to know where to begin dismantling this kind of idiocy.

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion. (VA, of course, denies the existence of such facts, which he calls illusions.)

I have already argued in detail why your basis of 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion. As such you cannot use your argument grounded on an illusion to refute my claim re objectivity.

And I have refuted your argument that what we call facts are illusions. So you cannot use that argument at all, let alone to defend your strange claim that there are moral facts.

Where?
If you think so, it is likely to be half-cooked.
You ignored all the points I raised in my above posts.
Being so particular with the matter, I would not have left it half-hanged.
If I had conceded I would have admitted it.

Show me, where in this OP or the OPs I have raised you have refuted my argument.
If you are so insistent, I suggest you open a new thread, say, "VA Moral Arguments Refuted" with all your arguments from all over so that I can focused to counter them.

Worst, I had complained you are arguing based on your own personal opinions, beliefs and judgments without refences from the common philosophical community.

I have raised more than 250 threads in this Ethical Theory targeting your claims and I am confident I have you cornered with no where to run.

[Harbal]

I have raised more than 250 threads in this Ethical Theory targeting your claims and I am confident I have you cornered with no where to run.

I sometimes think that some of us take things here a bit too seriously.

[Peter Holmes]

I have already argued in detail why your basis of 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion. As such you cannot use your argument grounded on an illusion to refute my claim re objectivity.

And I have refuted your argument that what we call facts are illusions. So you cannot use that argument at all, let alone to defend your strange claim that there are moral facts.

Where?
If you think so, it is likely to be half-cooked.
You ignored all the points I raised in my above posts.
Being so particular with the matter, I would not have left it half-hanged.
If I had conceded I would have admitted it.

This is laughable. You either don't understand or ignore any refutation of your argument. But hey, try these two again.

1 Why ought we to oppose evil and promote goodness, (as you define them)? Suggestion: write down your reason(s) as simply and clearly as you can. For example: 'We ought not to do evil (act to the net detriment to the individual and society) because...' Now, go on.

2 You agree that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. But all your arguments for moral objectivity have non-moral premises. If you disagree, show us that I'm wrong. Go on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And I have refuted your argument that what we call facts are illusions. So you cannot use that argument at all, let alone to defend your strange claim that there are moral facts.

Where?
If you think so, it is likely to be half-cooked.
You ignored all the points I raised in my above posts.
Being so particular with the matter, I would not have left it half-hanged.
If I had conceded I would have admitted it.

This is laughable. You either don't understand or ignore any refutation of your argument. But hey, try these two again.

1 Why ought we to oppose evil and promote goodness, (as you define them)? Suggestion: write down your reason(s) as simply and clearly as you can. For example: 'We ought not to do evil (act to the net detriment to the individual and society) because...' Now, go on.

2 You agree that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. But all your arguments for moral objectivity have non-moral premises. If you disagree, show us that I'm wrong. Go on.

Refer to,
Why We "Ought" to Avoid Evil?
viewtopic.php?t=40973

[Peter Holmes]

So, here's VA's dodge.

'I have never agreed that moral principles are to be commanded as 'ought' i.e. modal verbs.
If you can recall [..I have posted in many posts and threads], I have argued there are 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' as nouns [biological facts] represented by its physical neural correlates that enable moral facts within a human-based moral FSK.

So, oughtness and ought-not-ness are things 'represented by...physical neural correlates'. But what does that actually mean? Does it mean our brains programme us to do some things and not others? If so, why (ought we) to follow that programming? And what has this got to do with morality as VA defines it: opposing evil and promoting good?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, here's VA's dodge.

'I have never agreed that moral principles are to be commanded as 'ought' i.e. modal verbs.
If you can recall [..I have posted in many posts and threads], I have argued there are 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' as nouns [biological facts] represented by its physical neural correlates that enable moral facts within a human-based moral FSK.

So, oughtness and ought-not-ness are things 'represented by...physical neural correlates'. But what does that actually mean? Does it mean our brains programme us to do some things and not others? If so, why (ought we) to follow that programming? And what has this got to do with morality as VA defines it: opposing evil and promoting good?

Dodge??

My point is to present my arguments as objective as possible based on credible references from the science and philosophical community.

You?
You are escaping with your own personal opinions, beliefs and judgments without any reference to the the science and philosophical community.
"Emperor with no clothes."
Ultracrepidarian.

[Peter Holmes]

So, here's VA's dodge.

'I have never agreed that moral principles are to be commanded as 'ought' i.e. modal verbs.
If you can recall [..I have posted in many posts and threads], I have argued there are 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' as nouns [biological facts] represented by its physical neural correlates that enable moral facts within a human-based moral FSK.

So, oughtness and ought-not-ness are things 'represented by...physical neural correlates'. But what does that actually mean? Does it mean our brains programme us to do some things and not others? If so, why (ought we) to follow that programming? And what has this got to do with morality as VA defines it: opposing evil and promoting good?

Dodge??

My point is to present my arguments as objective as possible based on credible references from the science and philosophical community.

You?
You are escaping with your own personal opinions, beliefs and judgments without any reference to the the science and philosophical community.
"Emperor with no clothes."
Ultracrepidarian.

As usual, you don't actually address my questions. Because you can't, or can't afford to. If programming with oughtness-not-to-kill-humans has nothing to do with the wrongness of humans killing humans, then there's no reason to follow that programming.

Instead, we could follow our oughtness-to-kill-humans programming, which is also a neurological fact in our brains. You offer no reason to choose one or the other. If you say one is evil and the other is good, you offer no reason to prefer good to evil. Why act to the net benefit of the individual and society? Why not act to the net detriment, etc?

Your silly inventions - oughtness and ought-not-ness - don't get your moral theory off its subjectivist hook.

[Skepdick]

As usual, you don't actually address my questions. Because you can't, or can't afford to. If programming with oughtness-not-to-kill-humans has nothing to do with the wrongness of humans killing humans, then there's no reason to follow that programming.

Instead, we could follow our oughtness-to-kill-humans programming, which is also a neurological fact in our brains. You offer no reason to choose one or the other. If you say one is evil and the other is good, you offer no reason to prefer good to evil. Why act to the net benefit of the individual and society? Why not act to the net detriment, etc?

Your silly inventions - oughtness and ought-not-ness - don't get your moral theory off its subjectivist hook.

Your ability to bend or ignore the rules of a game doesn't render the rules non-existing.

I can jump up in the air; or fly in an airplane for hours; or get into orbit to minimise the effects of gravity almost entirely - does that make gravity subjective?

[Atla]

Where?
If you think so, it is likely to be half-cooked.
You ignored all the points I raised in my above posts.
Being so particular with the matter, I would not have left it half-hanged.
If I had conceded I would have admitted it.

Show me, where in this OP or the OPs I have raised you have refuted my argument.
If you are so insistent, I suggest you open a new thread, say, "VA Moral Arguments Refuted" with all your arguments from all over so that I can focused to counter them.

Worst, I had complained you are arguing based on your own personal opinions, beliefs and judgments without refences from the common philosophical community.

I have raised more than 250 threads in this Ethical Theory targeting your claims and I am confident I have you cornered with no where to run.

no where to run, no where to turn.. except to the billions of people who didn't adopt VA's ludicrous anti-realism

[Immanuel Can]

I think VA's 'argument' is incorrect or wrong - but that this amounts to a moral condemnation is IC's deliberately obfuscating gloss.

I think you're not being forthcoming, Peter. You are not just convinced VA is factually wrong, but that it's bad that VA is factually wrong. Your ire is morally freighted, not merely the cool, detached observation of a man who is noting a factoid. You use pejoratives like "dodger" and "idiot" to fortify your allegedly calm and impartial case against VA. Are you now suggesting you meant no such implication?

Perhaps you misspoke, then. You didn't mean to suggest you had any reason at all to be upset, but your language suggested you did.

But Peter thinks the world is an accidental product of accidental forces. He thinks he's an accidental product of natural processes that were, themselves, instantiated accidentally. VA subjectively believe her/his views, so they must be as "moral" as anything Peter can possibly conceive...

Again, notice the sleight-of-hand segue from ontology to morality.

It's not a segue, Pete: and there's no sleight-of-hand. It's also not mutually exclusive. For it is quite possible for you to be both factually in disagreement with VA and morally irritated, at the same time. In fact, every moral outrage is premised on an observation of fact as well.

You observe that VA has said something you perceive as incorrect -- fine. But that you're mad about it, and saddle VA with pejoratives, certainly implies that's not the end of your condemnation. The tone of irritated superiority -- is that not what you were aiming to create? But in your world, there's no "superiority" in being factually correct or factually incorrect. There is only the bare fact of two people trying to navigate the world in terms they prefer. You may dislike VA's terms. But why should you be angry?

As for me, are you trying to suggest that "sleight-of-hand" is "bad"? How about "deliberately obfuscating"? How about "deflecting attention"? You seem to be wanting to convince people that I am morally deficient in my treatment of your words...but there's no such thing as moral deficiency, in your world...so your objection itself must be a moral one. That same tone of moral condemnation sneaks through again here.

So again, I point out that you have abandoned your own standard, and inadvertently slipped into moral objectivism.

[Harbal]

I think VA's 'argument' is incorrect or wrong - but that this amounts to a moral condemnation is IC's deliberately obfuscating gloss.

I think you're not being forthcoming, Peter. You are not just convinced VA is factually wrong, but that it's bad that VA is factually wrong. Your ire is morally freighted, not merely the cool, detached observation of a man who is noting a factoid. You use pejoratives like "dodger" and "idiot" to fortify your allegedly calm and impartial case against VA. Are you now suggesting you meant no such implication?

Perhaps you misspoke, then. You didn't mean to suggest you had any reason at all to be upset, but your language suggested you did.

What does this have to do with the argument at hand? All you are doing here is attempting to deflect Peter Holmes from his very sensible argument and into defending himself against your slurs on his character and motives. It's an underhand trick practiced all too often on this forum, and is, in my subjective opinion, a sign of poor moral character.

You observe that VA has said something you perceive as incorrect -- fine. But that you're mad about it, and saddle VA with pejoratives, certainly implies that's not the end of your condemnation.

Taking into account that VA has posted hundreds of threads with the specific intention of demolishing Peter Holmes, Peter is responding to him with considerably more restraint than I would be able to muster up under the same circumstances.

As for me, are you trying to suggest that "sleight-of-hand" is "bad"? You seem to be wanting to convince people that I am morally deficient in my treatment of your words...but there's no such thing as moral deficiency, in your world...so your objection itself must be a moral one.

Why do you find it strange that Peter Holmes has moral opinions? I have been telling you for ages that everyone has personal moral opinions. You don't need to believe in God or objective moral facts in order to have your own moral opinions. And if Peter Holmes actually is implying a moral deficiency in your tactics, I have to say I agree with him.