What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

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.

Yes but that's an invalid/dishonest use of words imo. "objective" has a very well-established meaning, and just because VA claims that "objective" is impossible, that doesn't mean that he gets to re-use the word to mean something entirely different.

It's like IC re-using morality to only mean objective morality, same kind of sophistry.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Yes but that's an invalid/dishonest use of words imo. "objective" has a very well-established meaning, and just because VA claims that "objective" is impossible, that doesn't mean that he gets to re-use the word to mean something entirely different.

I agree in context. IOW if he wants to argue that it is subjective to believe in things in themselves, mind independent reality (though this is clearly intersubjective) and what he really means with objective is intersubjective, then it would be both consistant and better communication to say that morals are intersubjective and then argue that scientific conclusions are also intersubjective. He wants to retain the good seal of approval (objective) for his morals, but even classifies science, which he considers the most objective, as intersubjective. If he maintained that all these things are intersubjective, 1) he'd probably suddenly have better communication with PH and many others, at least about morals. 2) it would be vastly less confusing in general.

Then we can look at why we should go along with one intersubjectively held belief over other intersubjectively held beliefs. We could stop all the idiotic %ages of objectivity and just look at intersubjectivities, which is a subset of subjectivities.

I don't think that's a bad position, though it needs working out. The differences between mere intersubjectivity and some kind of rigorous one or expert one, and he does seem to think some intersubjectivities are better than others. While he does make ad populum arguments, he also focuses on processes and justification - if poorly.

I think this all sits much much better with his antirealist/idealist positions.

It would be better, I think, at that point to use a new term like interexperiential, interempirical, because subjective so strongly implies its sort of opposite objective.

The entire FSK FSR thing is really saying it is all intersubjective. I don't think that's a bad position. In fact I argued against PH's general dismissal here: viewtopic.php?p=672007#p672007

[Atla]

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.

Yes but that's an invalid/dishonest use of words imo. "objective" has a very well-established meaning, and just because VA claims that "objective" is impossible, that doesn't mean that he gets to re-use the word to mean something entirely different.

I agree in context. IOW if he wants to argue that it is subjective to believe in things in themselves, mind independent reality (though this is clearly intersubjective) and what he really means with objective is intersubjective, then it would be both consistant and better communication to say that morals are intersubjective and then argue that scientific conclusions are also intersubjective. He wants to retain the good seal of approval (objective) for his morals, but even classifies science, which he considers the most objective, as intersubjective. If he maintained that all these things are intersubjective, 1) he'd probably suddenly have better communication with PH and many others, at least about morals. 2) it would be vastly less confusing in general.

Then we can look at why we should go along with one intersubjectively held belief over other intersubjectively held beliefs. We could stop all the idiotic %ages of objectivity and just look at intersubjectivities, which is a subset of subjectivities.

I don't think that's a bad position, though it needs working out. The differences between mere intersubjectivity and some kind of rigorous one or expert one, and he does seem to think some intersubjectivities are better than others. While he does make ad populum arguments, he also focuses on processes and justification - if poorly.

I think this all sits much much better with his antirealist/idealist positions.

It would be better, I think, at that point to use a new term like interexperiential, interempirical, because subjective so strongly implies its sort of opposite objective.

The entire FSK FSR thing is really saying it is all intersubjective. I don't think that's a bad position. In fact I argued against PH's general dismissal here: viewtopic.php?p=672007#p672007

Nah it's just hopeless imo. Obviously the best intersubjective agreement is that there is an objective reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I missed out and I think it is critical to add 'description' to P1 because you always think I do not know the difference between description-of-that vs that-which-is-described.
So my P1 and argument will be;

• P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth, knowledge and their descriptions 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.

I believe the above argument is valid, given the common ground of the premises are all conditioned upon FSR-FSK.
We cannot proceed until both of us agree to the form and validness of my argument.
Agree?

You may not agree it is sound.
You can provide your counter.

I do agree with neat premises in syllogism ["All men are mortal", ...] but they are limited as each highly abstracted variable therein need to be supported by it its own sub syllogism which need sub-sub syllogism and so on.
Thus my tendency to combine them into one premises which I noted is not easy to decipher.

This is why I had opened up separate threads to explain the individual variables.

The ball is on your court, your turn to serve.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For info.

My principle is:
1. What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth, knowledge and their descriptions must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.

2. Since the FSR-FSK is human-based [a collective of subjects] it can only be intersubjective which enables and grounds the emerging objectivity therefrom.

3. As such, moral [or whatever] objectivity is ultimately intersubjective.

All FSR-FSKs are managed and sustained by a collective of humans.
All FSR-FSKs has different constitutions, structures and processes managed by a collective of humans.
A collective of humans in a FSR-FSK comprised different number of humans with different competencies, personalities, psychology, etc.
As such, the resultant objectivity from the above FSKs are subject to a continuum of objectivity based on the qualified variables.

In reality we have the human-based scientific FSK and the human-based theistic FSK, rationally, there must be a difference in objectivity between the above two FSKs in terms of 'what is real' or 'what is fact' empirically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's nothing to uncover, of course. It's laughable nonsense, as you've been saying for ages, as is the mystical 'principle of continuum'.

You are insulting your own intelligence re the Principle of Continuum which is inherent in all variables of reality.
How can you ignore the normal distribution of say human variables, e.g. heights of all human, weight, and so on, even on life itself.

The moment you are born you are driven to death,
If you live up to say 100,
you can put 100% dead at 100 years old,
then you can work backward with a continuum of % of dying throughout the ages of your life to 0.001% dying at birth.
You can do the reverse for "being alive".

Tell me why the above reality is "laughable nonsense".
It you cannot comprehend the above, that is your "laughable nonsense."

[Atla]

There's nothing to uncover, of course. It's laughable nonsense, as you've been saying for ages, as is the mystical 'principle of continuum'.

You are insulting your own intelligence re the Principle of Continuum which is inherent in all variables of reality.
How can you ignore the normal distribution of say human variables, e.g. heights of all human, weight, and so on, even on life itself.

The moment you are born you are driven to death,
If you live up to say 100,
you can put 100% dead at 100 years old,
then you can work backward with a continuum of % of dying throughout the ages of your life to 0.001% dying at birth.
You can do the reverse for "being alive".

Tell me why the above reality is "laughable nonsense".
It you cannot comprehend the above, that is your "laughable nonsense."

Objective reality is by definition an absolute, not a variable. Why don't you quit your decade long sophistry of redefining the word?

[Peter Holmes]

P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth, knowledge and their descriptions 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.

Thanks. I want to suggest a change to P1, as follows:

P1 What we call the facts of reality - and therefore objectivity, our knowledge of those facts, and our ways of describing them - 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.

I suggest this because the focus in P1 is facts and reality - so, 'the facts of reality', because facts and reality aren't different things. And it doesn't really make sense to say that what we call knowledge is conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge. The fsk is the very ground of knowledge, in your view.

What do you think?

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 What we call facts, reality, objectivity, truth, knowledge and their descriptions 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.

Thanks. I want to suggest a change to P1, as follows:

P1 What we call the facts of reality - and therefore objectivity, our knowledge of those facts, and our ways of describing them - 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.

I suggest this because the focus in P1 is facts and reality - so, 'the facts of reality', because facts and reality aren't different things. And it doesn't really make sense to say that what we call knowledge is conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge. The fsk is the very ground of knowledge, in your view.

What do you think?

You omitted 'truth' which I think is important.
I did not notice your use of "call" earlier which would be included in "our ways of describing them".

Latest version of P1;

P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

I have stressed a lot on the emergence and realization of reality and facts in my posts.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

I also added 'perception' [Hume & Kant] before knowledge verification and justification, then truths, and therefrom they are described within its underlying objectivity.
E.g. 'Water is H20' [without isomers] is objective as conditioned [qualified] via the human-based science-chemistry FSR-FSK.

Thus the above is my latest P1.
In this complex issue, I may have missed out critical elements, thus I may have to edit P1 again subject to agreement.

My definition of objectivity is;
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

[Peter Holmes]

P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

I'm sorry, but your P1 is now false - or not shown to be true. I used 'What we call the facts of reality' very deliberately, because the claim that the facts of reality (or reality itself) - never mind emergence and realisation - are conditioned upon an fsr-fsk is demonstrably false. It amounts to saying that reality depends on our ways of perceiving, knowing and describing it. And I can't believe you think that. (Kant certainly didn't.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

I'm sorry, but your P1 is now false - or not shown to be true. I used 'What we call the facts of reality' very deliberately, because the claim that the facts of reality (or reality itself) - never mind emergence and realisation - are conditioned upon an fsr-fsk is demonstrably false. It amounts to saying that reality depends on our ways of perceiving, knowing and describing it. And I can't believe you think that. (Kant certainly didn't.)

To me my P1 is sound and not false and I have already argued for it in various threads.

Looks like this is a bottle-neck we need to resolve before proceeding further.

I included this argument and explained the details why I am making the claim as such.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

As I had argued all along, you cannot understand [not necessary agree] with the above because you are caught in a dogmatic and fundamentalists ideology of a human independent objective reality.
I have also argued your philosophy on this is grounded on an illusion;

PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

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

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

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

The onus in on you to prove your claim of an independent what is fact is not an illusion but very real.

So far, your claim 'what is fact is objective' [a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs] is merely based on a human-based linguistic FSK.

If you are relying on a human-based linguistic FSK, it is as defined 'objective' but ultimately it is based on intersubjectivity, thus subjective. Your claim of what is objective CANNOT be absolutely independent of the human conditions, subjects.

As Hume and Kant has advocated, you need to suspend judgment [Pyrrhonian Skepticism] in claiming anything as ultimately objective that is independent of experience and the human conditions. You are not a God with an independent God-eye-View.

God's eye view is a name for a point of view where the speaker or writer assumes he or she has knowledge only God would have. It appears several ways:

In religion, ..
In writing,..
In science, when a scientist ignores the way a subject-object problem affects statistics or an observer effect affects experiment.
In medicine ...
In ethics .. [? insisting moral relativism prevails]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_eye_view

As I have accused you, your philosophy is based on your personal opinions, beliefs and judgment, i.e. you have failed to provide any references to your argument from the philosophical community.
You may be ignorant and lost, but at most your philosophy is linked to the half-cooked Analytic School of Philosophy, Anglo-American School, the ordinary language school and the like.

It amounts to saying that reality depends on our ways of perceiving, knowing and describing it. And I can't believe you think that. (Kant certainly didn't.)

I am confident you have not understood Kant thoroughly.
I have argued many times in MANY threads and posts, the term 'depends' is very misleading.
According to Kant and Constructivists, somehow humans are a party to what is realized as reality.

According to Hume, humans cannot assert objective reality is independent or dependent on humans; humans have to suspend judgment on that matter in contrast to your very confident claim there is an independent objective reality. According to Hume, this confidence of yours is driven by psychology [desperate] not epistemology.
Suggest you read Hume's Treatise and Enquiry to get an idea.

Note this;
Hume: [the objective independent] External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

[Peter Holmes]

P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

I'm sorry, but your P1 is now false - or not shown to be true. I used 'What we call the facts of reality' very deliberately, because the claim that the facts of reality (or reality itself) - never mind emergence and realisation - are conditioned upon an fsr-fsk is demonstrably false. It amounts to saying that reality depends on our ways of perceiving, knowing and describing it. And I can't believe you think that. (Kant certainly didn't.)

To me my P1 is sound and not false and I have already argued for it in various threads.

Looks like this is a bottle-neck we need to resolve before proceeding further.

The onus in on you to prove your claim of an independent what is fact is not an illusion but very real.

Not so. The onus is on you to prove that features of reality - facts - didn't, wouldn't and won't exist unless there were and are humans to perceive, know and describe them - contrary to ALL the empirical evidence from the natural sciences - which you say have the highest degree of credibility of all our kinds of knowledge.

We have to perceive, know and describe features of reality - facts - in human ways. That is all that your 'fsr-fsk' condition means. But there's no reason to believe that there's no reality for us to perceive, know and describe. That's a ridiculously anthropocentric and idealist conclusion.

This is indeed a bottleneck - at your P1. Your P2 and conclusion are useless as well, but that's another matter.

[Peter Holmes]

VA.

To construct a model of reality - using an 'fsr-fsk' - is not to construct reality. If it were, then of what is the a model?

If all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place?

Please answer these questions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm sorry, but your P1 is now false - or not shown to be true. I used 'What we call the facts of reality' very deliberately, because the claim that the facts of reality (or reality itself) - never mind emergence and realisation - are conditioned upon an fsr-fsk is demonstrably false. It amounts to saying that reality depends on our ways of perceiving, knowing and describing it. And I can't believe you think that. (Kant certainly didn't.)

To me my P1 is sound and not false and I have already argued for it in various threads.

Looks like this is a bottle-neck we need to resolve before proceeding further.

The onus in on you to prove your claim of an independent what is fact is not an illusion but very real.

Not so. The onus is on you to prove that features of reality - facts - didn't, wouldn't and won't exist unless there were and are humans to perceive, know and describe them - contrary to ALL the empirical evidence from the natural sciences - which you say have the highest degree of credibility of all our kinds of knowledge.

"contrary to ALL the empirical evidence from the natural sciences"??
What I claimed is what the scientific FSR-FSK verified and justified as real as realized and experienced by humans and nothing existing as objective beyond science.

You are ignorant, the human-based scientific FSK merely assumed reality is orderly and there are things out there as a convenient to guide science forward.
There is no way, science can confirm there is something absolute objective beyond its human-based FSK.

For simplicity, prove there is a real apple out there as confirmed by the human-based science-biology FSK.
Note, if you insist there is an independent apple out, note the inherent 'reality-Gap' which no humans can crossed to confirmed the external apple is really real.

Note the various threads which I challenged you to prove your independent objective is really real and not based on an illusion

PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

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

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

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

Hume: [the objective independent] External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

We have to perceive, know and describe features of reality - facts - in human ways. That is all that your 'fsr-fsk' condition means. But there's no reason to believe that there's no reality for us to perceive, know and describe. That's a ridiculously anthropocentric and idealist conclusion.

This is indeed a bottleneck - at your P1. Your P2 and conclusion are useless as well, but that's another matter.

Strawman, you have failed to understand my main point.

You forgot my claims, i.e.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
This is a serious claim of mine which I had explained many times but it is a 500 pound gorilla to you. You have to improve your cognitive [philosophical] powers.

The bottleneck is due to your ignorance and philosophical narrow mindedness as I have mentioned and your failure to respond to all the challenges I have raised.

P2 is not an issue when P1 is true.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA.

To construct a model of reality - using an 'fsr-fsk' - is not to construct reality. If it were, then of what is the a model?

If all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place?

Please answer these questions.

As expected this is beyond you.
We have gone through this a 'million' times. Fortunately for me, such repetitions are good refresher and memory reinforcement of my knowledge.

This "construction" is not like constructing a microscope [or some model] to discover that is there based on what is observed within the microscope.
For any model constructed at present, they are topped up to the already pre-existing models inherent in humanity improved upon those from 4 billions years ago.

see
What is Constructivism? Common Denominators
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40068
7. Constructivist approaches focus on self-referential and organizationally closed systems
Such systems strive for control over their inputs rather than their outputs.
8. Constructivist approaches favor a process-oriented approach rather than a substance-based perspective

This "construction" involved the continual programming the first cell organism LUCA "constructing" reality [supposedly {not absolutely] upon a soup of particles] and passing what is positive and optimal to the successive species without any gap to modern humans.
Clue to LUCA: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39932

The mechanism involve self-referential system where effects are continual feedback to one internal systems within a specific FSK to adjust so to optimize survival.
This results in the prior emergence and realization of reality before it is perceived, known, and described via the latest human-based FSK.

I believe examples will give you a better of how the human [& other organisms] self-referential improvement systems work. However, I am short of time and they come easily to my finger tips. I'll work on it.

You have to admit you are ignorant of the above.
From your limited knowledge and desperation you will claim I am talking nonsense, but you have to admit your knowledge-base is almost empty relative to modern times.
As such you have to update your knowledge base to understand the above.

You are in way, attacking the messenger for introducing painful cognitive dissonance in your psyche due to your ignorance.