Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

To be objective is to stick to facts - and since there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, morality isn't and can't be objective.

But this doesn't entail deontological moral relativism or nihilism. Those are flip side straw men levelled by disappointed moral objectivists. 'No moral facts = no morality.'

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be objective is to stick to facts - and since there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, morality isn't and can't be objective.

But this doesn't entail deontological moral relativism or nihilism. Those are flip side straw men levelled by disappointed moral objectivists. 'No moral facts = no morality.'

I have countered the above a 'million' times. Surely you can count?

'No moral facts = no morality.'
Why repeat this truism ad nauseam.
Justify your "what is fact" is real for a start.

Your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion which you are ignorant of.
As such you above has no credibility unless you can prove your 'what is fact' is really real and factual, i.e. the below;

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

PH: Your Fact of the Matter is a Delusion
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

You are running away from the above truths.

[Peter Holmes]

To be objective is to stick to facts - and since there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, morality isn't and can't be objective.

But this doesn't entail deontological moral relativism or nihilism. Those are flip side straw men levelled by disappointed moral objectivists. 'No moral facts = no morality.'

I have countered the above a 'million' times. Surely you can count?

'No moral facts = no morality.'
Why repeat this truism ad nauseam.
Justify your "what is fact" is real for a start.

Your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion which you are ignorant of.
As such you above has no credibility unless you can prove your 'what is fact' is really real and factual, i.e. the below;

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

PH: Your Fact of the Matter is a Delusion
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

You are running away from the above truths.

1 Prove that what we call facts of reality are not real. Prove that what we call trees aren't real - that they don't exist - that they're illusions.

If what we call facts of reality are not real, then putative moral facts of reality are also not real. This account of moral objectivity is a crash and burn.

[Atla]

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

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

I see VA has left many stones unturned here. Here are some of my title suggestions for some entirely new threads:

Why PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
PH, your Philosophical Realism is Illusory
PH's Philosophical Realism: Illusory
This is why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
Philosophical Realism, Illusory
Philosophical Realism is Illusory
The Philosophical Realism of PH is Illusory

and so on. We'll need at least 20 of these, maybe more.

[Peter Holmes]

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

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

I see VA has left many stones unturned here. Here are some of my title suggestions for some entirely new threads:

Why PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
PH, your Philosophical Realism is Illusory
PH's Philosophical Realism: Illusory
This is why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
Philosophical Realism, Illusory
Philosophical Realism is Illusory
The Philosophical Realism of PH is Illusory

and so on. We'll need at least 20 of these, maybe more.

I'd like him to prove that he himself isn't real, doesn't exist, is an illusion. And then, why are we illusions bothering to talk to each other?

[Atla]

that he himself isn't real, doesn't exist, is an illusion.

sometimes I wish he wasn't real, but I'm afraid we aren't that fortunate

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be objective is to stick to facts - and since there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, morality isn't and can't be objective.

But this doesn't entail deontological moral relativism or nihilism. Those are flip side straw men levelled by disappointed moral objectivists. 'No moral facts = no morality.'

I have countered the above a 'million' times. Surely you can count?

'No moral facts = no morality.'
Why repeat this truism ad nauseam.
Justify your "what is fact" is real for a start.

Your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion which you are ignorant of.
As such you above has no credibility unless you can prove your 'what is fact' is really real and factual, i.e. the below;

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

PH: Your Fact of the Matter is a Delusion
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

You are running away from the above truths.

1 Prove that what we call facts of reality are not real. Prove that what we call trees aren't real - that they don't exist - that they're illusions.

If what we call facts of reality are not real, then putative moral facts of reality are also not real. This account of moral objectivity is a crash and burn.

Note my principle:

Whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

Tree are real and objective as conditioned the following human-based FSK,
1. The common sense FSK, but this not reliable
2. The linguistic FSK,
3. Dendrology FSK: The scientific study of trees is called dendrology
4. The science-biology FSK.

What are real trees are subject to the above FSK with varying degrees of objectivity increasing from 1 [low] to 4 [high] above.

Because the FSK are human-based, they are CANNOT be absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind-independent].

What you are claiming as an objective real fact, i.e. a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs which is independent of the human conditions [mind independent] of opinions, beliefs and judgment.
The extreme of your claim is, the moon pre-existed human and will continue to exists even if there are no humans.

1. What I claimed as real and objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
2. What you claimed as real and objective is independent of any human-based FSR-FSK.
3. Since what is claim in 1 is real and objective, your claim to the contrary therefore, is not real nor objective but rather it is an illusion.

P1. Whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK. [simplified]
P2. Morality [FSK-ed] is inherent in reality [FSK-ed].
C.. Therefore, there are objective moral facts [FSK-ed] and morality is objective [FSK-ed].

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

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

I see VA has left many stones unturned here. Here are some of my title suggestions for some entirely new threads:

Why PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
PH, your Philosophical Realism is Illusory
PH's Philosophical Realism: Illusory
This is why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
Philosophical Realism, Illusory
Philosophical Realism is Illusory
The Philosophical Realism of PH is Illusory

and so on. We'll need at least 20 of these, maybe more.

I'd like him to prove that he himself isn't real, doesn't exist, is an illusion. And then, why are we illusions bothering to talk to each other?

Strawman.

I have never claimed my empirical self is not real.

I claimed your "what is real" based on independence of human conditions cannot be real [FSK-ed].
Since your "real" cannot be really real, therefore, what you supposed as real is actually an illusion.
It is like you are claiming 'a mirage' is really real [assuming due to your ignorance of visual illusions].

[Peter Holmes]

VA's argument.

P1. Whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK. [simplified]
P2. Morality [FSK-ed] is inherent in reality [FSK-ed].
C.. Therefore, there are objective moral facts [FSK-ed] and morality is objective [FSK-ed].

To the extent that these premises are coherent, P1 is false, or not shown to be true, P2 begs the question, and C doesn't follow, so the argument would be invalid, even if the premises were true.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA's argument.

P1. Whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK. [simplified]
P2. Morality [FSK-ed] is inherent in reality [FSK-ed].
C.. Therefore, there are objective moral facts [FSK-ed] and morality is objective [FSK-ed].

To the extent that these premises are coherent, P1 is false, or not shown to be true, P2 begs the question, and C doesn't follow, so the argument would be invalid, even if the premises were true.

Why C does not follow?

Morality is FSK-ed [1-2]
Facts are FSK-ed [1]
Objectivity is FSK-ed [1]
Therefore, there are objective [FSK-ed] moral facts [FSK-ed] and morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].


Re P2, you yourself [a moral relativist not a moral nihilist] agree Morality exists within humanity even though humans disagree among themselves re moral issues.


Show me why C does not follow?

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Here's your argument.

P1. Whatever is real, fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK. [simplified]
P2. Morality [FSK-ed] is inherent in reality [FSK-ed].
C.. Therefore, there are objective moral facts [FSK-ed] and morality is objective [FSK-ed].

Your trick is to avoid your actual P2, which is: There is a morality FSK.

And that's false, or at least question-begging. You claim there is knowledge of moral facts, in the way that there is knowledge of physics facts, etc. Not so.

[Skepdick]

Your trick is to avoid your actual P2, which is: There is a morality FSK.

Yes. It's called Logic.

True is Good/Right/Correct
False is Bad/Wrong/Incorrect.

[Peter Holmes]

To say that truth is morally right or good, and that falsehood is morally wrong or bad, is to express an opinion, which is subjective. And this has nothing to do with logic, which deals with the consistency of assertions.

[Immanuel Can]

To say that truth is morally right or good, and that falsehood is morally wrong or bad, is to express an opinion, which is subjective. And this has nothing to do with logic, which deals with the consistency of assertions.

"Opinions" are true or false. The "opinion" that you can leap off a tower, flap your arms and fly is both subjective and false. The "opinion" that gravity will pull you down and you will die is both subjective and true. And the objective fact is that gravity works, regardless of your "opinion" about whether it will or not...which remains subjective.

So the fact of somebody having an "opinion" does not make the matter about which the opinion is held subjective.

Got it?

[Harbal]

To say that truth is morally right or good, and that falsehood is morally wrong or bad, is to express an opinion, which is subjective. And this has nothing to do with logic, which deals with the consistency of assertions.

"Opinions" are true or false.

Blue is a better colour than orange, shrimps taste horrible, short hair looks better than long hair, Tuesday afternoon is the worst time of the week.

Could you tell me which of those opinions are true, and which are false?