What could make morality objective?

[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.

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.

Offs. You do nothing but rehearse a realist description of how living organisms evolved in response to their environment. You are stating facts - things that actually occurred. And nothing in this description justifies the stupid antirealist claim that organisms created and create the reality in which they evolved.

I know everything you so vainly display as specialist knowledge. And your argument from these facts to moral objectivity remains invalid. Non-moral premises cant entail moral conclusions. How many times?

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Do you think the following argument is valid and sound?

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.

P2 Theism - belief in the existence of gods - is part of reality.

C Therefore, there are theistic facts - facts about the existence of gods - and theism is objective.

Or substitute astrology or alchemy for theism. Sticking morality in P2 makes no difference. This is a stupid argument.

[Atla]

And nothing in this description justifies the stupid antirealist claim that organisms created and create the reality in which they evolved.

But VA absolutely needs this childish nonsense to be true, because he thinks that he can use it against Islam.

He's sticking to his childish nonsense, no matter what. Nothing can deter him. No valid counterargument can penetrate his bubble. Which is also roughly the attitude of the Islamic fundamentalists. VA would make a great..

[Harbal]

Not at all. Objective reality is bound to be true, whether one believes in it or not.

But you don't have objective reality, you merely claim to have it,

Are you trying to say that's objectively true? Or are you just saying that's how you subjectively feel as if it is?

I'm not trying to say anything; I actually am saying that your claims of objective moral truths are nothing of the sort. You may believe you are speaking objective moral truths -although I am not convinced you really do believe that- but you are just suffering under a delusion.

I am not suffering from that particular delusion.

Are you wanting to tell me that my subjective beliefs are objectively bad?

No, I am wanting to strangle you out of sheer frustration.

Please save that rubbish for someone who enjoys speaking in those terms.

It's called "philosophy." Ontology and epistemology are basic philosophical categories. But you didn't know that?

They may be philosophical categories to most people, but they are smoke and mirrors in your hands.

I can promote whatever I like, on whatever grounds I like.

Not really. Without common ground, you can't get traction to make anybody have a reason to agree.

Flip it around: if I said, "Harbal, I want you to believe me about X, but I not only have no evidence, grounds or proof to offer you, but I freely admit that no such thing is even possible," would you believe me? Do you think you should?

I probably wouldn't believe you, but I don't believe most of what you say is objective truth, so I don't see what difference it makes.

If say I think something is morally wrong, and go on to explain why, from my subjective perspective, it is wrong, someone may or may not agree with me, and that is something I must accept. They could just as easily disagree with me were I claiming to be speaking objective truth.

And all you can say is, "God doesn't like it". And they can say, "what has your God got to do with me?"

And I can say, "If you wait awhile, you're bound to find out."

At which point they might well roll their eyes.

Sorry, IC, but that is just plain bonkers.

It's subjectivism. If it's bonkers, it's not anybody's fault but the subjectivists'.

You said something ludicrous, and that is your responsibility.

Your truth isn't objective to me, so what's the difference?

I'm not trying to "motivate" you. I'm merely trying to be informative. What you are motivated to do is up to you. Morality does not aim at motivation, but at information; because many of our motives are actually quite immoral or amoral, and morality aims at giving us reasons to do something better than our personal motivations can incline us to do.

You are not trying to motivate me into behaving in a certain way, but merely trying to give me a reason to behave in a certain way?

We may feel subjectively that we want to kill our neighbour. Morality aims at informing us that, regardless of our motivations, it's objectively the wrong thing to do.

I'm sure many of us do feel we want to kill our neighbour, and yet we don't, so it seems that most of us can restrain ourselves without God wagging his finger at us.

I find it disingenuous and underhand. It is very frustrating trying to debate with someone who refuses to be honest.

That's objectivism. You wish me, clearly, to understand that being "disingenuous" and "underhanded," and "refusing to be honest," are (objectively) bad things.

We are both here with the purpose of establishing the correctness of our argument, and a lack of honesty makes a nonsense of that, so it is bad in relation to my objectives, if not yours.

You wish me to think I have (objectively) done those things, and that I ought not to do such things, and plausibly, that I should feel moral shame for allegedly having done them. Is that not exactly what you wish me to believe?

Well when we post our responses, we usually do it in the hope of reaching a wider audience than just the person we are responding to, so it is not just your opinion of my complaint that I am interested in influencing. I suspect, and hope, that rather a lot of people are of the subjective opinion that dishonesty is wrong.

But then, you're an objectivist who simply doesn't know he is.

I'm sure I behave like an "objectivist" when it comes to some of my opinions, but how can I actually be one when I don't believe in God? And I'm not just talking about the God that you believe in; I don't believe in anyone else's version of God, either.

[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.

Offs. You do nothing but rehearse a realist description of how living organisms evolved in response to their environment. You are stating facts - things that actually occurred. And nothing in this description justifies the stupid antirealist claim that organisms created and create the reality in which they evolved.

WHO THE HELL gave "YOU" philosophical realist the sole authority to define what is reality??
Your linguistic God?
You think you are smarter than Hume, Kant and the other anti-philosophical_realists??

Btw, you cannot simply claim the 'realist' label absolutely, yours is metaphysical realism aka philosophical realism.
I adopt empirical realism [Kantian].

In science, there are two camps scientific realism [philosophical] and scientific anti-p-realism].

You cannot be that slip shot to ignore the above contexts.

You made no attempts to understand the anti-philosophical_realist argument [philosophical constructivism], not necessary agree with, before you start waving and condemning my argument. This is intellectual irresponsibility and philosophical immaturity.
Can you make an attempt to understand "Constructivism" [not to agree] and put your understanding in your own words.
This is the bottleneck, if clear will show the truths of what is really real.

The point is the anti-philosophical_realist is a mature reflection upon the contradictions arising from the philosophical_realist ideology and fundamentalist.

I know everything you so vainly display as specialist knowledge. And your argument from these facts to moral objectivity remains invalid. Non-moral premises cant entail moral conclusions. How many times?

Again you have made no attempts to understand [not necessary agree with] my argument but rather hastily waved it off based on your incompetent narrow minded philosophical thinking.

Where did I link non-moral premises with moral conclusions directly?
Where?
I gave examples many time how scientific premises [scientific FSK] enable legal conclusions with the legal FSK.
It is so basic [you are so ignorant] that premises from one FSK can enable facts in other FSKs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. Do you think the following argument is valid and sound?

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.

P2 Theism - belief in the existence of gods - is part of reality.

C Therefore, there are theistic facts - facts about the existence of gods - and theism is objective.

Or substitute astrology or alchemy for theism. Sticking morality in P2 makes no difference. This is a stupid argument.

You are ignorant of your own ignorance.
You argued against the above based on you 'what is fact' which is grounded on an illusion, thus has no credibility at all.

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 Apr 23, 2023 8:06 am

You had been a coward the address the above.

...................................
I agree with the above argument which is valid and sound.

I have been arguing for that a '1000' times on a Continuum basis, e.g.
Christianity's Morality is Objective
viewtopic.php?t=40947

But there are degrees of objectivity in relation to each specific FSK.
Yes, the theistic FSK is objective, but in contrast to science at say 100/100 objectivity, the theistic FSK is 0.001/100 degrees of objectivity because it is grounded on an illusion, just like your p-realism is grounded on an illusion.

The same goes for astrology or alchemy, satanism, santa_ism, and your p-realism [independent external world] is grounded on an illusion.

Btw, the critical advantage of adopting the Continuum approach is the assurance of Completeness Control so that the 'illusionists' do not eel away.
The Continuum approach is like putting the whole issue within an enclosed net e.g. in fishing where there is no possibility of escape for the enclosed fishes.
Thus when we put Science as the standard at 100% and theological FSK at 0.001%, there is no place for it to run within that totality continuum, i.e. putting theism in its place as within objectivity but illusory.

[Atla]

The point is the anti-philosophical_realist is a mature reflection upon the contradictions arising from the philosophical_realist ideology and fundamentalist.

That's new, what contradictions? You're still stuck on naive realism only?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Offs. You do nothing but rehearse a realist description of how living organisms evolved in response to their environment. You are stating facts - things that actually occurred.
And nothing in this description justifies the stupid antirealist claim that organisms created and create the reality in which they evolved.

I know everything you so vainly display as specialist knowledge.

Know Thyself.

Seriously, I suggest you strip off your fundamentalistic-dogmatic armor and take the effort to understand [suspending judgment temporary] the principles involved in my anti-philosophical_realism re Constructivism [philosophical - not engineering].
That will definitely open up for you a new vista of what reality really is.

This understanding [if you get it] is likely to be temporary, as Kant predicted for realists like you;

• Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
  After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

I am stating facts but not your 'what is fact' which grounded on an illusion [as implied in Kant's B397 above].
My what is fact is the FSK conditioned facts in alignment with this WIKI intro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

[Peter Holmes]

VA's argument.

P1 The facts of reality are conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P2 Morality is part of reality.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

The premises are so confused and ill-defined that soundness is out of the question.

But even if they were clear, the argument is invalid. The premises don't entail the conclusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA's argument.

P1 The facts of reality are conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk.
P2 Morality is part of reality.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

The premises are so confused and ill-defined that soundness is out of the question.

But even if they were clear, the argument is invalid. The premises don't entail the conclusion.

You drank a lot an hour ago?
You are being deceptive with the above.

Ill-defined??
We went to a few posts to detail [for you to understand, not agree with] my PI and you agreed we have reached a specific bottleneck.

My P1 is finalized as;

• 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.

which you clearly understood but did not accept based on your 'what is fact' which is grounded on an illusion.

This is indeed a bottleneck - at your P1.
viewtopic.php?p=672858#p672858

Instead of waving off my P1 because it does not suit your fundamentalist dogmatic ideology, you should seek more details to understand [not agree] it at a more complex and sophisticated level.

[Peter Holmes]

VA's argument.

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.

P2 Morality is part of reality.

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

This argument remains invalid, despite VA's convoluted version of P1. And as for soundness?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA's argument.

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.

P2 Morality is part of reality.

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

This argument remains invalid, despite VA's convoluted version of P1. And as for soundness?

Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.
To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, I've suggested some versions of VA's P1, trying to show why - knocked into shape - it's obviously false or not shown to be true - so the argument is unsound, or not shown to be sound. Here they are.

P1 There are no facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and our ways of describing them.

P1 Facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and the ways we describe them are illusions.

P1 Facts of reality exist only 'within' a 'framework and system of knowledge'.

(Needless to say, VA's proposed entailment to 'There are moral facts' is invalid in any case.)

[Sculptor]

Elsewhere, I've suggested some versions of VA's P1, trying to show why - knocked into shape - it's obviously false or not shown to be true - so the argument is unsound, or not shown to be sound. Here they are.

P1 There are no facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and our ways of describing them.

P1 Facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and the ways we describe them are illusions.

P1 Facts of reality exist only 'within' a 'framework and system of knowledge'.

(Needless to say, VA's proposed entailment to 'There are moral facts' is invalid in any case.)

This is all just dancing.
It does not matter how and what we perceive and how it relates to reality.
If it is a human perception then it is a human conception and all we do is within that fromework.
The problem with morals being objective, is that there is only criteria that are opinions, there is not final assessment of absolute truth about whether or not pain, suffering, punishement, sanctions etc, are justifyable, since all criteria are at best arbitrary.
Morals are about judgements, not facts. There are facts. X kills Y. But it is only an opinion as to whether killing is morally bad.
Morals are not that simple. It is not rocket science, it is not science of any kind.

If agreement were enough to establish objecive truth, then how many dissenters would be needed or ignored for to establish or reject an objective claim?

[Skepdick]

This is all just dancing.
It does not matter how and what we perceive and how it relates to reality.
If it is a human perception then it is a human conception and all we do is within that fromework.
The problem with morals being objective, is that there is only criteria that are opinions, there is not final assessment of absolute truth about whether or not pain, suffering, punishement, sanctions etc, are justifyable, since all criteria are at best arbitrary.
Morals are about judgements, not facts. There are facts. X kills Y. But it is only an opinion as to whether killing is morally bad.
Morals are not that simple. It is not rocket science, it is not science of any kind.

If agreement were enough to establish objecive truth, then how many dissenters would be needed or ignored for to establish or reject an objective claim?

You can't even point out what it is you are talking about when you talk about morality.

If you aren't even talking about a real-world phenomenon then what sort of "objectivity" are you hoping for?

And if morality isn't a phenomenon then what is it?