What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

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?

DO you ever read and stop to think? Or do you just react to one or two sentences?

[Skepdick]

DO you ever read and stop to think? Or do you just react to one or two sentences?

Do you need me to play as a sounding board while you answer your own questions?

This universe is arbitrary.
It's one of infinitely many possible universes.

Does that preclude objectivity?

Only if you are an idiot. Like you.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

What's your evidence that leads you to that conclusion? Or are you only stating what you prefer to believe, regardless of any evidence?

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.

Would you be evil if you did?

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.

You should probably get a philosophical dictionary. You'll find it clarified there.

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...

Nor should you, obviously: but then, "promoting" a view for which there is no evidence is not really possible; one cannot "promote" something without something by which to "promote" it.

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.

That will seem to serve their purposes for now. But it won't serve their purposes long.

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?

I'm having a philosophical conversation aiming at informing you of the moral status of particular actions and situations. I'm not capable of motivating you; that you will have to do yourself. But what I can do is provide you with true information, so you can decide what you're going to allow to motivate you.

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.

But the question is, "Why should we?"

Look at what Hamas just did. Would you call that "restraining ourselves?" And do we imagine that we are a different kind of human being than the Palestinian terrorists? Do we suppose that we have such a pure human nature ourselves that, if we were raised in Gaza, we would simply remain incapable of that kind of wickedness?

Or do we suspect that maybe, given enough inducements, we might ourselves be no better than Hamas? And if that's the case, while we have every reason to condemn such rank evil...we also have to admit that we find that sort of rank evil also latently potential within ourselves.

I guess the answer depends on how much self-knowledge, and how much sincere humility, and how little racism, we have.

Who was wanting to strangle me, again?

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.

Your objective, you must assume, are objectively good ones, then. If your objectives were morally neutral, then that explanation wouldn't work; and if your objectives mere morally weak or bad, then your argument would counter itself.

So you assume your "establishing of correctness" is an objectively good thing to aim at, and premise an allegation against me based on that assumption. You're again being an objectivist.

And that being the fact, you can see I was not "dishonest" at all.

Do you consider it a sin to "bear false witness"?

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.

Why would you wish a thing upon people if you think it's bad or neutral? But you don't. You think you're an influence upon them to the morally good, and I might then be an influence upon them to the morally bad: and again, you're an objectivist.

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?

Human beings are often inconsistent and irrational. That's one of the evidences of the fallenness of their moral state, actually.

You want to condemn (as objectively wrong) my views, and to indict my conduct as "dishonest" -- which makes no sense at all, unless being "dishonest" is objectively immoral. You say it's only wrong-for-your-objectives, but then you've only moved the marker back one step, and assumed that your motives themselves, which you use to excuse your use of the word "wrong," are objectively moral.

It's not possible for anybody to live as a moral subjectivist. And as you talk, you continue to demonstrate that fact. It seems that even you cannot avoid the moral polarities of good and evil, right and wrong, honest and dishonest...and so on.

[Harbal]

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.

What's your evidence that leads you to that conclusion? Or are you only stating what you prefer to believe, regardless of any evidence?

You are making a claim that I find rationally impossible, so I am obviously not going to accept it as true without very compelling evidence from you to support it.

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

Would you be evil if you did?

On the contrary: I suspect I would be considered a hero.

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

You should probably get a philosophical dictionary. You'll find it clarified there.

That must forever remain subject to speculation.

"promoting" a view for which there is no evidence is not really possible; one cannot "promote" something without something by which to "promote" it.

In order to promote your latest book or movie, all you need is a book or a movie. Likewise, to promote an opinion only requires the possession of an opinion to promote.

At which point they might well roll their eyes.

That will seem to serve their purposes for now. But it won't serve their purposes long.

If their purpose is to resist being infected with superstitious beliefs, lifetime immunity is probably as long as can be reasonably hoped for.

I'm having a philosophical conversation aiming at informing you of the moral status of particular actions and situations. I'm not capable of motivating you; that you will have to do yourself.

And that is what I do do myself, which is what I have been telling you all along. I motivate myself.

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.

But the question is, "Why should we?"

I don't know why we should, I just know that most of us do, and that, I think, is what matters.

Look at what Hamas just did. Would you call that "restraining ourselves?" And do we imagine that we are a different kind of human being than the Palestinian terrorists? Do we suppose that we have such a pure human nature ourselves that, if we were raised in Gaza, we would simply remain incapable of that kind of wickedness?

Or do we suspect that maybe, given enough inducements, we might ourselves be no better than Hamas? And if that's the case, while we have every reason to condemn such rank evil...we also have to admit that we find that sort of rank evil also latently potential within ourselves.

I guess the answer depends on how much self-knowledge, and how much sincere humility, and how little racism, we have.

I think the fact that there is a vast variation in what different people -and groups of people- consider morally acceptable supports my case much more than yours.

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.

Your objective, you must assume, are objectively good ones, then.

If the outcome of a situation is the one I hoped for, then I will look upon that as being good for me. Would it be an objective fact that it is good for me? I don't know, what do you think?

So you assume your "establishing of correctness" is an objectively good thing to aim at, and premise an allegation against me based on that assumption. You're again being an objectivist.

It would be an objective truth to say that the "establishing of correctness" is what I desire, so if that makes my pursuit of it an objectively good aim, and consequently makes me an "objectivist", I think I could live with that.

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.

Why would you wish a thing upon people if you think it's bad or neutral? But you don't. You think you're an influence upon them to the morally good, and I might then be an influence upon them to the morally bad: and again, you're an objectivist.

I thought there was more to being an "objectivist" that simply having a preference for a particular outcome.

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?

Human beings are often inconsistent and irrational.

Tell me about it.

You want to condemn (as objectively wrong) my views, and to indict my conduct as "dishonest" -- which makes no sense at all, unless being "dishonest" is objectively immoral. You say it's only wrong-for-your-objectives, but then you've only moved the marker back one step, and assumed that your motives themselves, which you use to excuse your use of the word "wrong," are objectively moral.

It's not possible for anybody to live as a moral subjectivist. And as you talk, you continue to demonstrate that fact. It seems that even you cannot avoid the moral polarities of good and evil, right and wrong, honest and dishonest...and so on.

I don't know that it is impossible for anybody to live as a moral subjectivist, but I certainly think it would be very difficult to do it completely and constantly. Our moral opinions, especially our strongly held ones, do feel like objective truths to us, and I have never denied that, but we are arguing about whether there actually are such things as objective moral values, and I still maintain that such things are logically impossible.

[iambiguous]

Look at what Hamas just did. Would you call that "restraining ourselves?" And do we imagine that we are a different kind of human being than the Palestinian terrorists? Do we suppose that we have such a pure human nature ourselves that, if we were raised in Gaza, we would simply remain incapable of that kind of wickedness?

The sheer irony of it all!

Hamas worships and adores the same God the Christians and the Jews do. The same objective morality, just a different denominational spin.

"Three of the world's major religions -- the monotheist traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- were all born in the Middle East and are all inextricably linked to one another. Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition, and Islam developed from both Christianity and Judaism."

"Abraham is traditionally considered to be the first Jew and to have made a covenant with God. Because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all recognize Abraham as their first prophet, they are also called the Abrahamic religions." PBS

Down through the ages, did the Christians and the Jews restrain themselves in regard to the Muslims?

And, yes, if we were raised in Gaza we would likely be Muslims viewing Jews and Christians as the wicked ones.

As I noted on another thread...

I was watching the news a couple of nights ago and it was noted that Hamas had in fact kidnapped Israeli babies. Nothing about them being beheaded but someone being interviewed voiced the fear that the babies might be handed over to Palestinian families to raise.

Shades of The Other Son: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... y#p2476698

In other words, think about it...

A baby who would have been raised in Israel may now be raised in the Gaza Strip. A baby who would probably be raised as a Jew may now be raised as a Muslim.

The part revolving around dasein. The part the religious fanatics refuse to even consider lest it result in their own fracturing and fragmenting value judgments.

To many Christians, the Jews and the Muslims are "wicked". Or even if not wicked at all their souls are damned if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior. And the Jews and the Muslims rendition of that in turn.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not trying to say anything; I actually am saying that your claims of objective moral truths are nothing of the sort.

What's your evidence that leads you to that conclusion? Or are you only stating what you prefer to believe, regardless of any evidence?

You are making a claim that I find rationally impossible, so I am obviously not going to accept it as true without very compelling evidence from you to support it.

Well, you don't find it "rationally impossible." That would require some sort of evidence, or some sort of rational argument. And for sure, you've offered no reasons or evidence for anybody to believe that morality (assuming such exists at all) is "subjective."

So it's certainly rationally possible that morality is objective. There's no rational reason it couldn't be...unless you have something I've never seen on that. And it's not at all more plausible to jump to the conclusion that it's subjective -- especially when, downstream rationally of that position, you'd have to conclude that morality does not exist at all. For that is exactly what "subjective morality" amounts to: that all morality is a mere figment of a personal imagination. It's subjective unicorns. And that's just redundant.

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

Would you be evil if you did?

On the contrary: I suspect I would be considered a hero.

In which case, you'd be an objectivist again.

"promoting" a view for which there is no evidence is not really possible; one cannot "promote" something without something by which to "promote" it.

In order to promote your latest book or movie, all you need is a book or a movie.

No, that's not all you need; you also need a method of promotion. And that means you need to offer the people to whom you are "promoting" a thing a reason to accept it.

Which...you haven't.

At which point they might well roll their eyes.

That will seem to serve their purposes for now. But it won't serve their purposes long.

If their purpose is to resist being infected with superstitious beliefs, lifetime immunity is probably as long as can be reasonably hoped for.

That's assuming a lifetime is all that is to be hoped for.

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.

But the question is, "Why should we?"

I don't know why we should, I just know that most of us do, and that, I think, is what matters.

Look at what Hamas just did. Would you call that "restraining ourselves?" And do we imagine that we are a different kind of human being than the Palestinian terrorists? Do we suppose that we have such a pure human nature ourselves that, if we were raised in Gaza, we would simply remain incapable of that kind of wickedness?

Or do we suspect that maybe, given enough inducements, we might ourselves be no better than Hamas? And if that's the case, while we have every reason to condemn such rank evil...we also have to admit that we find that sort of rank evil also latently potential within ourselves.

I guess the answer depends on how much self-knowledge, and how much sincere humility, and how little racism, we have.

I think the fact that there is a vast variation in what different people -and groups of people- consider morally acceptable supports my case much more than yours.

Not at all, actually. That's a non-sequitur. Once again, you're capitulating to the fallacy called "bandwagon fallacy," namely that if enough people believe a thing, it must be more likely to be true. But that can be demonstrated false very easily.

And you should certainly hope that it's false. For if it is true, then I have to point out that the vast majority of human beings, both in history and now (over 92% of the world's population) believe in some kind of God or gods. So if bandwagon fallacy were supportive of your view, it would be far more supportive of mine.

Happy with that?

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.

Your objective, you must assume, are objectively good ones, then.

If the outcome of a situation is the one I hoped for, then I will look upon that as being good for me. Would it be an objective fact that it is good for me? I don't know, what do you think?

If it's not objectively good for you, then you ought not to do it.

A drug addict may believe heroin is "good for him." It won't make it so. It's objectively poison.

So you assume your "establishing of correctness" is an objectively good thing to aim at, and premise an allegation against me based on that assumption. You're again being an objectivist.

It would be an objective truth to say that the "establishing of correctness" is what I desire, so if that makes my pursuit of it an objectively good aim...

No, it wouldn't. The fact of pursuing a thing, and of choosing means conducive to getting it, does not tell us anything about the objective status of the thing pursued.

In fact, it could mean that your desire is no better than the desire of the addict for heroin. The fact of wanting a thing doesn't make it objectively good. We often want things that are (objectively) very bad indeed.

Like what Hamas wants so badly, right now.

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.

Why would you wish a thing upon people if you think it's bad or neutral? But you don't. You think you're an influence upon them to the morally good, and I might then be an influence upon them to the morally bad: and again, you're an objectivist.

I thought there was more to being an "objectivist" that simply having a preference for a particular outcome.

It's not about merely the objectivism; it's about the morality. If "being honest" or "not deceiving" is not an objectively good thing, then your adjuring of people to choose it is totally arbitrary. One is not better or worse for ignoring it completely.

But if that's the case, it's very hard to see how you hoped to shame me by choosing those accusations. Why should my purely subjective morality be duty bound to allign with yours, or to please you? But if those accusations were that I was doing something objectively wrong, then your accusation would make sense.

But then, your accusation would also be manifestly false.

So what do you want your (allegedly subjective) accusation to be: empty, or plain false? I'll take either one.

I don't know that it is impossible for anybody to live as a moral subjectivist,but I certainly think it would be very difficult to do it completely and constantly. Our moral opinions, especially our strongly held ones, do feel like objective truths to us, and I have never denied that,

That's a big admission, on your part. Thank you for your honesty.

But it's quite true: most people do resort to moral objectivism, at least intermittently, in their lives. And perhaps this should alert us to a problem with subective morality. Really, it's the third such problem. To reiterate, we've already seen that...

1. Nobody lives as a consistent moral subjectivist...which is strange, if moral subjectivism were true. Why should 100% of the people in the world be unable to live out a belief that was true?

and

2. Moral subjectivism is merely an unforthcoming version of moral skepticism or moral nihilism. Ultimately, it means nobody has to take any morality seriously at all.

But now there's a third problem, and it's that...

3. Moral subjectivism is all too tempting. It's exactly what every wretch, ne'er-do-well, sneak or guilty person would most want to believe. It's definitely most alligned with what Freud called "wish fulfillment fantasy," or the desire to believe something because it serves one's own turn, rather than because it's true.

...but we are arguing about whether there actually are such things as objective moral values, and I still maintain that such things are logically impossible.

I'm sorry...I just don't see that you have any warrant for such a conclusion. If you had shown some "logical" reason why we must not believe morality is objective, I might find that even a little tempting to think. But you haven't...and you insist you don't need to.

But if "logical possibility" is something that must be shown before a belief is taken, then I think you haven't met your own burden of proof. You haven't done anything to show that a neutral party has good reasons to believe in moral subjectivism. So I can't concede you that suggestion.

[Immanuel Can]

Hamas worships and adores the same God the Christians and the Jews do. The same objective morality, just a different denominational spin.

Are you attempting to troll, or are you actually so totally ill-informed, so entirely devoid of knowledge, that you actually believe that's true?

Never mind. I'm pretty sure I know the answer already.

[Age]

Hamas worships and adores the same God the Christians and the Jews do. The same objective morality, just a different denominational spin.

Are you attempting to troll, or are you actually so totally ill-informed, so entirely devoid of knowledge, that you actually believe that's true?

Never mind. I'm pretty sure I know the answer already.

So, what is the ACTUAL Truth in regards to what 'you', human beings, worship and adore if 'It' is NOT the SAME God?

AND, how MANY DIFFERENT 'objective moralities' there are "Immanuel can"?

'you', "immanuel can" are 'TRYING TO' IMPLY that it is 'you' who is ACTUALLY TOTALLY INFORMED, and ENTIRELY FULL of KNOWLEDGE, which 'you' even LAUGHINGLY BELIEVE is true YET what 'you' have SAID and WRITTEN in this forum SHOWS and PROVES the EXACT OPPOSITE, and 'your' COMPLETE INABILITY to SHOW and PROVE otherwise HERE-NOW backs up and supports my CLAIM here.

[iambiguous]

The sheer irony of it all!

Hamas worships and adores the same God the Christians and the Jews do. The same objective morality, just a different denominational spin.

"Three of the world's major religions -- the monotheist traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- were all born in the Middle East and are all inextricably linked to one another. Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition, and Islam developed from both Christianity and Judaism."

"Abraham is traditionally considered to be the first Jew and to have made a covenant with God. Because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all recognize Abraham as their first prophet, they are also called the Abrahamic religions." PBS

Down through the ages, did the Christians and the Jews restrain themselves in regard to the Muslims?

And, yes, if we were raised in Gaza we would likely be Muslims viewing Jews and Christians as the wicked ones.

As I noted on another thread...

I was watching the news a couple of nights ago and it was noted that Hamas had in fact kidnapped Israeli babies. Nothing about them being beheaded but someone being interviewed voiced the fear that the babies might be handed over to Palestinian families to raise.

Shades of The Other Son: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... y#p2476698

In other words, think about it...

A baby who would have been raised in Israel may now be raised in the Gaza Strip. A baby who would probably be raised as a Jew may now be raised as a Muslim.

The part revolving around dasein. The part the religious fanatics refuse to even consider lest it result in their own fracturing and fragmenting value judgments.

To many Christians, the Jews and the Muslims are "wicked". Or even if not wicked at all their souls are damned if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior. And the Jews and the Muslims rendition of that in turn.

Are you attempting to troll, or are you actually so totally ill-informed, so entirely devoid of knowledge, that you actually believe that's true?

Never mind. I'm pretty sure I know the answer already.

Come on, you are the one insisting that accepting Jesus Christ as your own personal savior is the only One True Path to moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.

I just note things in regard to that [above and elsewhere] that you wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of actually responding to.

[Immanuel Can]

I just note things in regard to that [above and elsewhere] that you wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of actually responding to.

There's no point in refuting something so absurdly far from the truth. It's better ignored...

As are you.

[iambiguous]

I just note things in regard to that [above and elsewhere] that you wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of actually responding to.

There's no point in refuting something so absurdly far from the truth. It's better ignored...

As are you.

Absolutely shameless, Mr. Wiggle!

Pick one:

1]
2]
3]

[iambiguous]

Once again, you're capitulating to the fallacy called "bandwagon fallacy," namely that if enough people believe a thing, it must be more likely to be true. But that can be demonstrated false very easily.

bandwagon: "used in reference to an activity, cause, etc. that is currently fashionable or popular and attracting increasing support."

Of course, that's the beauty of linking morality to God. The biggest religious bandwagon here on planet Earth is Christianity. Though some here will insist it's not a bandwagon at all. Christianity - or, rather True Christianity -- is the one and the only righteous path to morality. Only all of the other denominations have bandwagons. And, come Judgment Day, they are all headed straight for Hell.

And you should certainly hope that it's false. For if it is true, then I have to point out that the vast majority of human beings, both in history and now (over 92% of the world's population) believe in some kind of God or gods. So if bandwagon fallacy were supportive of your view, it would be far more supportive of mine.

Almost all human beings live in communities where "rules of behavior" -- morality -- are applicable. And to the best of my knowledge 100% of all human beings will die.

So, of course Gods and religions will be invented in order to subsume that in moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.

Not many bandwagons around anchored to moral nihilism and oblivion.

Why? Because if you can think yourself into believing in a God, the God, my God, you go to the grave divinely comforted and consoled.

And then after Judgment Day, up in Heaven, God explains to each new member of the flock how morality and these things...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...are reconciled.

[Peter Holmes]

Another go at VA's argument.

P1 Any things - and only the things - that we believe and say are facts of reality are facts of reality.
P2 Morality is part of reality.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.



This is to mistake what we believe and say about the way things are - for the way things are.

It's to be lost in a dense philosophical fog.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Another go at VA's argument.

P1 Any things - and only the things - that we believe and say are facts of reality are facts of reality.
P2 Morality is part of reality.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.



This is to mistake what we believe and say about the way things are - for the way things are.

It's to be lost in a dense philosophical fog.

Strawmaning the 'millionth' time.

As I had presented my P1 is as follows;

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.

So my argument is this;
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 [FSK-ed] is part of reality [FSK-ed].
C Therefore, there are moral facts [FSK-ed], and morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].

My P1 [cumbersome but necessary in this case] is valid and I understand you do not agree my P1 is unsound.
This is the bottleneck we should deliberate on rather than you resorting to strawmanning all the time.

[Peter Holmes]

Another go at VA's argument.

P1 Any things - and only the things - that we believe and say are facts of reality are facts of reality.
P2 Morality is part of reality.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.



This is to mistake what we believe and say about the way things are - for the way things are.

It's to be lost in a dense philosophical fog.

Strawmaning the 'millionth' time.

As I had presented my P1 is as follows;

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.

So my argument is this;
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 [FSK-ed] is part of reality [FSK-ed].
C Therefore, there are moral facts [FSK-ed], and morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].

My P1 [cumbersome but necessary in this case] is valid and I understand you do not agree my P1 is unsound.
This is the bottleneck we should deliberate on rather than you resorting to strawmanning all the time.

1 To clarify. Factual premises are (classically) true or false, or not shown to be true or false. Validity and soundness refer to arguments. So your P1 is not valid or invalid, sound or unsound. It's just true or false, or not shown to be true or false.

2 Your P1 is false, or not shown to be true. So your argument is unsound - and that's the end. There's no point going on to your P2 or conclusion. It doesn't matter if your argument is valid - if the conclusion follows from the premises.

3 But as it happens, your P2 is irrelevant. The fact that people have moral opinions ('morality is part of reality') is trivially true and inconsequential in this argument. So what? If your P2 were 'we say there are moral facts' - it would be false, because not all of us do say that - and anyway it would beg the question, because you're trying to show that there are moral facts.

This is why I'm trying to clean up your P1. The convoluted clutter that you think so important - about emergence, realisation and fsks - doesn't do what you think it does. Hence - here's your argument:

P1 The things we believe and say are facts of reality are facts of reality.
P2 We believe and say there are moral facts of reality.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

That's how useless it really is.