What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

I can accept the following P1
P1 What we call an objective fact [reality] must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
so,
P2 Morality is one aspect of reality that is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
C Therefore there are objective moral facts in reality.

The above bolded are critical to me, else the conclusion does not follow.
'Human-based' imply the facts are not standalone and unconditional by itself, i.e. thing-in-itself that exists regardless of humans.

Btw, you have to read up the detailed arguments I linked to the above to get a better explanation of the above premises.

If you want to change the above premise to your understanding, give me your choice to seek consensus.

Okay, let's keep at it. Look at P1 first:

P1 What we call an objective fact [reality] must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

1 I think 'objective fact' is redundant, because there's no such thing as a subjective fact. In other words, P1 can say 'What we call a fact...'
2 You insert in a square bracket '[reality]'. If this means that 'a fact' (or 'facts') and 'reality' are synonyms, can we leave out one or the other? Could P1 say: 'What we call reality...' This would have the advantage of tying P1 closer to P2, which also refers to reality.
3 Iow, can P1 be this: What we call reality must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk. ?

Then we can go on to P2.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I can accept the following P1
P1 What we call an objective fact [reality] must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
so,
P2 Morality is one aspect of reality that is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
C Therefore there are objective moral facts in reality.

The above bolded are critical to me, else the conclusion does not follow.
'Human-based' imply the facts are not standalone and unconditional by itself, i.e. thing-in-itself that exists regardless of humans.

Btw, you have to read up the detailed arguments I linked to the above to get a better explanation of the above premises.

If you want to change the above premise to your understanding, give me your choice to seek consensus.

Okay, let's keep at it. Look at P1 first:

P1 What we call an objective fact [reality] must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

1 I think 'objective fact' is redundant, because there's no such thing as a subjective fact. In other words, P1 can say 'What we call a fact...'
2 You insert in a square bracket '[reality]'. If this means that 'a fact' (or 'facts') and 'reality' are synonyms, can we leave out one or the other? Could P1 say: 'What we call reality...' This would have the advantage of tying P1 closer to P2, which also refers to reality.
3 Iow, can P1 be this: What we call reality must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk. ?

Then we can go on to P2.

My principle is this;
Whatever is fact, truth, reality, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
It is critical that my argument include all the above.

If you want it neat it can be;
P1a: What we call reality must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1b: What we call truth must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1c: What we call fact must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1d: What we termed objective must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1e: What we call knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

I prefer to keep the above for a start. I can delete any of the above that is not relevant to P2 and the conclusion.
The argument need not be in syllogistic form, the alternative in narrative form is also valid as long as the premises follow to the conclusion.

I don't agree with your "because there's no such thing as a subjective fact."

I have argued there are
Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human Independent Objectivity - Yours
2. FSK-ed conditioned Objectivity.

In addition, I have argued [with threads] there are two senses of reality, fact, and truth.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
i.e.
1. Human Independent facts - Yours
2. FSK-ed conditioned facts.

In the case, of 2. FSK-ed conditioned facts, there are elements of subjectivity because FSR-FSK is human-based, i.e. collective-subjects-based.

I have argued your sense of 'what is fact' is
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

So we have to resolve the above contentions before we can move to P2.

[Peter Holmes]

I can accept the following P1
P1 What we call an objective fact [reality] must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
so,
P2 Morality is one aspect of reality that is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
C Therefore there are objective moral facts in reality.

The above bolded are critical to me, else the conclusion does not follow.
'Human-based' imply the facts are not standalone and unconditional by itself, i.e. thing-in-itself that exists regardless of humans.

Btw, you have to read up the detailed arguments I linked to the above to get a better explanation of the above premises.

If you want to change the above premise to your understanding, give me your choice to seek consensus.

Okay, let's keep at it. Look at P1 first:

P1 What we call an objective fact [reality] must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

1 I think 'objective fact' is redundant, because there's no such thing as a subjective fact. In other words, P1 can say 'What we call a fact...'
2 You insert in a square bracket '[reality]'. If this means that 'a fact' (or 'facts') and 'reality' are synonyms, can we leave out one or the other? Could P1 say: 'What we call reality...' This would have the advantage of tying P1 closer to P2, which also refers to reality.
3 Iow, can P1 be this: What we call reality must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk. ?

Then we can go on to P2.

My principle is this;
Whatever is fact, truth, reality, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
It is critical that my argument include all the above.

If you want it neat it can be;
P1a: What we call reality must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1b: What we call truth must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1c: What we call fact must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1d: What we termed objective must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1e: What we call knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

I prefer to keep the above for a start. I can delete any of the above that is not relevant to P2 and the conclusion.
The argument need not be in syllogistic form, the alternative in narrative form is also valid as long as the premises follow to the conclusion.

I don't agree with your "because there's no such thing as a subjective fact."

I have argued there are
Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human Independent Objectivity - Yours
2. FSK-ed conditioned Objectivity.

In addition, I have argued [with threads] there are two senses of reality, fact, and truth.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
i.e.
1. Human Independent facts - Yours
2. FSK-ed conditioned facts.

In the case, of 2. FSK-ed conditioned facts, there are elements of subjectivity because FSR-FSK is human-based, i.e. collective-subjects-based.

I have argued your sense of 'what is fact' is
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

So we have to resolve the above contentions before we can move to P2.

1 Please provide an example of a subjective fact, because I don't know what that could be.

2 Could this be your P1?

P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth and knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

[Skepdick]

1 Please provide an example of a subjective fact, because I don't know what that could be.

You think that morality is subjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay, let's keep at it. Look at P1 first:

P1 What we call an objective fact [reality] must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

1 I think 'objective fact' is redundant, because there's no such thing as a subjective fact. In other words, P1 can say 'What we call a fact...'
2 You insert in a square bracket '[reality]'. If this means that 'a fact' (or 'facts') and 'reality' are synonyms, can we leave out one or the other? Could P1 say: 'What we call reality...' This would have the advantage of tying P1 closer to P2, which also refers to reality.
3 Iow, can P1 be this: What we call reality must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk. ?

Then we can go on to P2.

My principle is this;
Whatever is fact, truth, reality, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
It is critical that my argument include all the above.

If you want it neat it can be;
P1a: What we call reality must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1b: What we call truth must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1c: What we call fact must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1d: What we termed objective must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P1e: What we call knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

I prefer to keep the above for a start. I can delete any of the above that is not relevant to P2 and the conclusion.
The argument need not be in syllogistic form, the alternative in narrative form is also valid as long as the premises follow to the conclusion.

I don't agree with your "because there's no such thing as a subjective fact."

I have argued there are
Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human Independent Objectivity - Yours
2. FSK-ed conditioned Objectivity.

In addition, I have argued [with threads] there are two senses of reality, fact, and truth.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
i.e.
1. Human Independent facts - Yours
2. FSK-ed conditioned facts.

In the case, of 2. FSK-ed conditioned facts, there are elements of subjectivity because FSR-FSK is human-based, i.e. collective-subjects-based.

I have argued your sense of 'what is fact' is
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

So we have to resolve the above contentions before we can move to P2.

1 Please provide an example of a subjective fact, because I don't know what that could be.

2 Could this be your P1?

P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth and knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

I can accept the above as P1.

Re "Subjective Fact".
It is not in your terms i.e. of either it is objective if not, then subjective.

Note this thread I raised
Morality: Objectivity on a Continuum
viewtopic.php?t=40972

0.00001% Objective is 99.99999% Subjectivity
0.00001% Subjectivity is 99.9999% Objectivity

Thus whenever I used the term 'objectivity' or 'subjectivity' one must be fully aware of the contexts and conditions within a specific human-based FSR-FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth and knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

I can accept the above as P1.

Re "Subjective Fact".
It is not in your terms i.e. of either it is objective if not, then subjective.

Note this thread I raised
Morality: Objectivity on a Continuum
viewtopic.php?t=40972

0.00001% Objective is 99.99999% Subjectivity
0.00001% Subjectivity is 99.9999% Objectivity

Thus whenever I used the term 'objectivity' or 'subjectivity' one must be fully aware of the contexts and conditions within a specific human-based FSR-FSK.

1 Please can you provide an example of something that is 50% objective - and therefore 50% subjective - and explain how this is calculated? In other words, what criteria determine the percentage of objectivity and subjectivity?

2 I'm glad we can agree on your P1 - and I propose to challenge it later. But for now, can we complete the argument as follows?

P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth and knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

P2 Morality is part of reality - and is therefore conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk. [Note: this repeated condition is redundant, because reality is specified in P1.]

C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective. [Note: again, P1 covers this conclusion, and repetition of 'human-based fsr-fsk' is redundant.]

[Iwannaplato]

I think this might be (or become) useful in the line you and VA are pursuing now.

He has said elsewhere, speaking about science, which he considers the most accurate and highest objectivity....

But this 'objectivity' is conditioned upon the human-based scientific conditions.
Because it is human-based, it is ultimately subjective, albeit intersubjective.

So, while you two are investigating what he means by facts and objectivity, what he means by objectivity is intersubjectivity.

So really

0.00001% Objective is 99.99999% Subjectivity
0.00001% Subjectivity is 99.9999% Objectivity

means

the most objective fact is 0.00001% Subjective and 99.99999% Intersubjective.
The least objective is 0.00001% Intersubjective 99.99999% Subjective

Individual belief - subjective
Group belief - intersubjective

If you find no use for this, no problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth and knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

I can accept the above as P1.

Re "Subjective Fact".
It is not in your terms i.e. of either it is objective if not, then subjective.

Note this thread I raised
Morality: Objectivity on a Continuum
viewtopic.php?t=40972

0.00001% Objective is 99.99999% Subjectivity
0.00001% Subjectivity is 99.9999% Objectivity

Thus whenever I used the term 'objectivity' or 'subjectivity' one must be fully aware of the contexts and conditions within a specific human-based FSR-FSK.

1 Please can you provide an example of something that is 50% objective - and therefore 50% subjective - and explain how this is calculated? In other words, what criteria determine the percentage of objectivity and subjectivity?

The main principle here is the Principle of Continuum which is applicable to all variables of reality.
The focus here is a focus on the extremes rather than those with a 50/50 ratio.
As I had stated, if we rate the scientific FSR-FSK at its best as the STANDARD at say 99.999% we can then rate other FSR-FSKs against the standard to sieve out those that are metaphysical and illusory.

At present, I have not bothered with one that has a 50/50 subjectivity/objectivity ratio.

One quick example I can come up is a belief with high conviction based on a personal FSK would be a 50/50 subjectivity/objectivity ratio.
Say a scientist produced his claims with very convincing arguments on paper, e.g. Einstein beliefs in his Theory of Special Relativity. This would have a 50% objectivity based on his proofs and 50% subjectivity because that is based on his personal convictions.
A legal fact of a convicted murder/rapist based on sufficient empirical evidence [not DNA] but decided by a Jury would be 50/50 subjectivity/objectivity ratio.
On the other hand a legal fact of a convicted murder/rapist based on DNA evidence would have a higher objective rating.

With reference to the Principle of Continuum, it is not difficult to get to examples of 50/50 subjectivity/objectivity ratio, but note +/- but not with exact precision.

2 I'm glad we can agree on your P1 - and I propose to challenge it later. But for now, can we complete the argument as follows?

P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth and knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

P2 Morality is part of reality - and is therefore conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk. [Note: this repeated condition is redundant, because reality is specified in P1.]

C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective. [Note: again, P1 covers this conclusion, and repetition of 'human-based fsr-fsk' is redundant.]

Whatever is a repetition I would regard as an emphasis as I anticipate they will be useful in contrast to balded-premises. If it is redundant to you [not to me], you can ignore them in the meantime.

Btw, in your later counter, refer to the related threads I have raised where relevant.

[Peter Holmes]

Whatever is a repetition I would regard as an emphasis as I anticipate they will be useful in contrast to balded-premises. If it is redundant to you [not to me], you can ignore them in the meantime.

Btw, in your later counter, refer to the related threads I have raised where relevant.

1 I want to put your 'principle of continuum' to one side for now - though I acknowledge it needs attention.

2 I don't refer to your many previous posts because my aim now is to clarify your argument. And I think we're making progress.

3 The purpose of stripping out repetition is to strengthen an argument by clarifying its premises and conclusion. What you call 'balded premises' are precisely what we need. And it takes time to craft them.

4 Do you accept my version of your P2 and C - given that you want to emphasise by repetition? Here it is.

P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth and knowledge must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

P2 Morality is part of reality.

C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

[Iwannaplato]

C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

But, as I pointed out above, he considers objectivity to actually be intersubjectivity.
And I can imagine that you might have many less objections to considering a certain morality intersubjective.

[Skepdick]

But, as I pointed out above, he considers objectivity to actually be intersubjectivity.
And I can imagine that you might have many less objections to considering a certain morality intersubjective.

If we remove the semantic wordplay.... We can use a trivial proof by contradiction.

Let P be "Morality is objective."
Assume P is false - Morality is NOT objective.

My moral truth says X is wrong. Q
Your moral truth says X is NOT wrong: -Q

Because morality is NOT objective (P is false), both Q and -Q are true.
This is a contradiction.

Therefore the assumption must be wrong.
P is true.

[Peter Holmes]

C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

But, as I pointed out above, he considers objectivity to actually be intersubjectivity.
And I can imagine that you might have many less objections to considering a certain morality intersubjective.

Mmm. What constitutes objectivity is obviously a big issue - maybe the biggest - and the idea of a calculable continuum between objectivity and subjectivity is a-whole-nother can of worms - which itself seems to cut across the idea of intersubjectivity. Why isn't it interobjectivity? What's so primary about the subject?

Just trying to nail down the premises atm.

[Skepdick]

Mmm. What constitutes objectivity is obviously a big issue

It construes whatever we use it to construe, surely? Use is meaning (so you claim)

"Morality is objective" is a claim with a truth-value.

[Peter Holmes]

Dictionaries provide just a snapshot of usage. But here are two.

1 Objective: adjective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.

2 Fact: noun: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.

Given these, my OP question is obviously confused - and confusing. But what matters - it seems to me - is the centrality of facts with regard to objectivity. That there are facts is assumed in the definition of objectivity.

So earlier I've tried to rephrase the OP as: 'Are there moral facts?' And that obviously resolves into the question: what constitutes a fact?

I've been pointing out that there's a fundamental difference - evident in the above definition - between a fact-as-feature-of-reality (known to exist or to have occurred) and a fact as a thing that is true. The point being that features of reality have no truth-value; they just are or were the case. In this context, only factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions - are true or false - given the way we use the signs in context.

I maintain that most if not all philosophical confusion and disagreement arises from mistaking what we say - using factual assertions with truth-value - for the way things are or were. Outside language, reality is not linguistic - and features of reality aren't obliged to conform to our ways of talking about them. And I think that's one of the most profound consequences of Wittgenstein's profound insight - that meaning is use.

Needless to say, all this has a powerful bearing on VA's and other arguments for moral objectivity - for the existence of moral facts. And that's what I'm trying to get at by clarifying VA's argument.

[Skepdick]

I maintain that most if not all philosophical confusion and disagreement arises from mistaking what we say - using factual assertions with truth-value - for the way things are or were. Outside language, reality is not linguistic - and features of reality aren't obliged to conform to our ways of talking about them. And I think that's one of the most profound consequences of Wittgenstein's profound insight - that meaning is use.

And I maintain that you are a total fucking idiot.

Paris is the capital of France. This is a factual assertion with truth-value. Which feature of reality are we talking about?
Now is the year 2023. This is a factual assertion with truth-value. Which feature of reality are we talking about?

Nothing in the Oxford definition about features of reality. You are just making shit up.

fact
/fakt/
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.