VA vs. PH - Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

That makes it relative to the FSK at best, but subjective to you personally.
QED not objective.

P1 is wrong because that which is truly objective must stand alone regardless of your opinion (FSK)

There is more to it than your above.

Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

P1 is wrong because that which is truly objective must stand alone regardless of your opinion (FSK)

We have gone through this many times.

... And you keep on igoring it.

The test for a scientific fact is simple.
Demonstrate it, and it is universally replicable anywhere on earth, (or beyond it).

So tell me one moral truth, that is purely objective.

First you need to establish which sense of objectivity are you adopting, note this;

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism

As with the above, there are two senses of scientific objectivity, i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism

It appears from your views above re pure objectivity, your sense of objectivity is based on
realism, i.e. 1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View which is regardless of one's opinions, beliefs or judgments.

I have proven the your view '1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View' is driven by philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167s

So, your sense of objectivity is illusory and has no credibility to counter me at all in this case.

Given the above, what is most realistic is the "2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism" sense of objectivity.

Thus my argument;

• P1 What is reality, fact, must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK which enables objectivity.
  
  P2 Morality is part of reality [FSK-ed].
  
  C Therefore, there are moral facts [FSK-ed], and morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].

One of the glaring moral fact or truth is
the "moral oughtness not to kill humans" which is an objective moral fact from the moral-FSK [see above argument].
The above is based on inputs of FSK-ed scientific biological facts into the moral FSK.

[FlashDangerpants]

You may want to be excluded from the realism/antirealism but your philosophical views above suck you into that whirlpool.
See:


You just cannot run away from the realism vs antirealism dichotomy.

Our world can be described in terms of what we do know (realism) or of some speculative extra dimension of existence/non-existence about which we cannnot "truly" know (antirealism), but of which it is questionable whether we can speak. I don't care which description you choose to use, they both describe the same thing once you strip away the bullshit anyway. In either case, it has no bearing on ethics, and it never did.

There is a world. We live in it. We perceive objects that are not ourselves and objects that ourselves within this world we live in. When we speak of objectivity it is within this world that we do so.

As I had argued,
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View
2. The FSK-ed view

In the real world where the human beings live, there can be two senses of objectivity. But in your world you are saying there is only one sense and that is this FSK-ed thing.

Has it not been your whole argument all along that real objectivity is a chimera so everyone has to learn to live with your calorie free alternative?

Your,
"There is a world. We live in it. We perceive objects that are not ourselves and objects that ourselves within this world we live in. When we speak of objectivity it is within this world that we do so."
is definitely the first sense of objectivity, i.e. Human independent or Mind-Independent View which is realism as defined.
and that you cannot accept the alternative views to 'realism' automatically put into into a realism vs antirealism state.

Realism and antirealism [many types, mine=Kantian] cannot be stripped down to the same thing.

A. Realism as your above "we perceive objects that are not ourselves" I supposed that refer to independence from humans in the absolute and not relative* sense.

B. ANTI-Realism basically is just being opposing [anti-] to the claims of realism.
Antirealists insist we cannot accept claim A above and thus must suspend judgment on this view. Note Hume and Kant. To Hume, it is "just SHUT-UP with claim A!"

That antirealists [many types] make certain claims that somehow the human conditions entangled with reality and objectivity is secondary which require specific considerations.

So, if you are not B, then you must be A.
I cannot see anything in between A and B in this case, if so, how?

Btw, re independent external objects;
how do you resolve this problem;

• The Veil of Perception. Indirect realism invokes the veil of perception. All we actually perceive is the veil that covers the world, a veil that consists of our sense data. What, then, justifies our belief that there is a world beyond that veil?
  https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/

Absolutely none of that is important to anything. The terms under which the world exists and whether or not there is some impossible to imagine or describe extra dimension to it are all just background. Look around you, touch some grass, that's what reality is.

Describe it's realtions to super-ultra-true-reality anyway you like, all that you and the other side are arguing about is whether that super-ultra-true-reality is real or not and I don't have any reason to care which way that conversation goes.

In this reality, we have external objects that retain properties, and those properties are called objective, and when somebody denies that an object holds such a property they are in error because objectively their claim is untrue. That's what real objectivity is, and it is so because of the sort of test you must do to confirm a claim.

Your ersatz replica is inadequate for both ends of the task. Nobody who denies one your "FSK-ed objective" "facts" is "mistaken", they just didn't agree with it.

[Sculptor]

There is more to it than your above.

Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145


We have gone through this many times.

... And you keep on igoring it.

The test for a scientific fact is simple.
Demonstrate it, and it is universally replicable anywhere on earth, (or beyond it).

So tell me one moral truth, that is purely objective.

First you need to establish which sense of objectivity are you adopting, note this;

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism

As with the above, there are two senses of scientific objectivity, i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism

It appears from your views above re pure objectivity, your sense of objectivity is based on
realism, i.e. 1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View which is regardless of one's opinions, beliefs or judgments.

I have proven the your view '1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View' is driven by philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167s

So, your sense of objectivity is illusory and has no credibility to counter me at all in this case.

Given the above, what is most realistic is the "2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism" sense of objectivity.

Thus my argument;

• P1 What is reality, fact, must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK which enables objectivity.
  
  P2 Morality is part of reality [FSK-ed].
  
  C Therefore, there are moral facts [FSK-ed], and morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].

One of the glaring moral fact or truth is
the "moral oughtness not to kill humans" which is an objective moral fact from the moral-FSK [see above argument].
The above is based on inputs of FSK-ed scientific biological facts into the moral FSK.

"moral oughtness not to kill humans"
Is not a rule. Not a fact.
It's not even a sentence.
Try again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

... And you keep on igoring it.

The test for a scientific fact is simple.
Demonstrate it, and it is universally replicable anywhere on earth, (or beyond it).

So tell me one moral truth, that is purely objective.

First you need to establish which sense of objectivity are you adopting, note this;

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism

As with the above, there are two senses of scientific objectivity, i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism

It appears from your views above re pure objectivity, your sense of objectivity is based on
realism, i.e. 1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View which is regardless of one's opinions, beliefs or judgments.

I have proven the your view '1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View' is driven by philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167s

So, your sense of objectivity is illusory and has no credibility to counter me at all in this case.

Given the above, what is most realistic is the "2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism" sense of objectivity.

Thus my argument;

• P1 What is reality, fact, must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK which enables objectivity.
  
  P2 Morality is part of reality [FSK-ed].
  
  C Therefore, there are moral facts [FSK-ed], and morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].

One of the glaring moral fact or truth is
the "moral oughtness not to kill humans" which is an objective moral fact from the moral-FSK [see above argument].
The above is based on inputs of FSK-ed scientific biological facts into the moral FSK.

"moral oughtness not to kill humans"
Is not a rule. Not a fact.
It's not even a sentence.
Try again.

Look at this possibility and analogy.

All humans ought [modal verb] to breathe, at least till the inevitable. As Hume insisted there is "No Ought From Is" which I agree.
But there is something invariant within the above.
What is invariant and factual with the oughtness-to breathe [a noun] is that it is a biological fact conditioned within the science-biology FSK.
This instinct and compulsion to breathe is factual because it is driven by some physical set comprising the DNA, neuronal connectivity, neural algorithms, the brain and relevant parts from the body.
This is undeniable.

Humans can still choose not to breathe, i.e. commit suicide via asphyxiation.
This is only because there is some damage to the above physical factual oughtness-to breathe system.
But there is no denial the factual oughtness-to breathe system is present in ALL humans from birth.

The above analogy is applicable to the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans which is a biological-fact and it is imputed into a human-based moral FSK which then become as objective moral fact.

Why the majority cannot understand the above comparison and analogy is because the features of moral facts within the moral FSK [system] are more subtle in contrast to oughtness-to breathe system or the biological-taste-system.

[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.

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.

P1 in that state isn't even a premise. It's a rambling preamble with a non-sequitur about "enabling objectivity" tacked on at the end. But crucially, the argument can never be valid unless that is "entailing" or "creating". Mere enabling is insufficient to the logical task.

I don't see much reason to bother fixing P1 though if that's what you are relying on for a P2.

I acknowledge your point re the insufficiency of "enabling".
However, I note "entails" and "creates" are sufficient, but not strong enough.
I have consulted ChatGpt [with reservations] on this with reference to the scientific FSK which is the same as the General FSK;

To give more logical force, are there better words beside "entails" and "create".

ChatGPT
Certainly, if you want to emphasize logical force or a strong connection between the scientific framework/system and scientific objectivity, here are some alternatives to "entails" and "creates":

"The Scientific Framework and System necessitate scientific objectivity."
This suggests that scientific objectivity is a necessary consequence of the scientific framework and system.

"The Scientific Framework and System mandate scientific objectivity."
This implies a strong directive or requirement, indicating that scientific objectivity is mandated by the scientific framework and system.

"The Scientific Framework and System dictate scientific objectivity."
This conveys a sense of authority, suggesting that scientific objectivity is determined by the scientific framework and system.

"The Scientific Framework and System command scientific objectivity."
This phrase implies a strong, authoritative influence, indicating that scientific objectivity is under the command or influence of the scientific framework and system.

"The Scientific Framework and System necessitate the presence of scientific objectivity."
This emphasizes that scientific objectivity is a necessity when the scientific framework and system are in place.

"The Scientific Framework and System are inextricably linked to scientific objectivity."
This expresses a strong, inseparable connection between the scientific framework/system and scientific objectivity.

Choose the term that best captures the level of force or necessity you want to convey in your statement.

I could use any of the above, in the meantime I have settled for
"dictate"

The point is a specific human-based FSK e.g. the scientific Framework and System conditioned its scientific conclusion, i.e. divorce from any individual scientist[s], so that the resultants of the institutional FSK are objective, albeit grounded on intersubjectivity.
Intersubjectivity because the FSK's resultant do not exists without the implied or explicit consensus of the members [subjects] within the specific FSK.

[Sculptor]

First you need to establish which sense of objectivity are you adopting, note this;

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism

As with the above, there are two senses of scientific objectivity, i.e.
1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View - realism
2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism

It appears from your views above re pure objectivity, your sense of objectivity is based on
realism, i.e. 1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View which is regardless of one's opinions, beliefs or judgments.

I have proven the your view '1. Human independent or Mind-Independent View' is driven by philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167s

So, your sense of objectivity is illusory and has no credibility to counter me at all in this case.

Given the above, what is most realistic is the "2. The FSK-ed view - antirealism" sense of objectivity.

Thus my argument;

• P1 What is reality, fact, must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK which enables objectivity.
  
  P2 Morality is part of reality [FSK-ed].
  
  C Therefore, there are moral facts [FSK-ed], and morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].

One of the glaring moral fact or truth is
the "moral oughtness not to kill humans" which is an objective moral fact from the moral-FSK [see above argument].
The above is based on inputs of FSK-ed scientific biological facts into the moral FSK.

"moral oughtness not to kill humans"
Is not a rule. Not a fact.
It's not even a sentence.
Try again.

Look at this possibility and analogy.

All humans ought [modal verb] to breathe, at least till the inevitable. As Hume insisted there is "No Ought From Is" which I agree.
But there is something invariant within the above.
What is invariant and factual with the oughtness-to breathe [a noun] is that it is a biological fact conditioned within the science-biology FSK.

No.
It is a biological fact that humans need to breath to live.
As the cessation of breathing in a living human normally means an end to life.
That is not to say they ought to.
Because to say they ought is an opinion saying they should live.

This instinct and compulsion to breathe is factual because it is driven by some physical set comprising the DNA, neuronal connectivity, neural algorithms, the brain and relevant parts from the body.
This is undeniable.

This is not about morals.
The very existence of humans on planet earth is morally questionable.

Humans can still choose not to breathe, i.e. commit suicide via asphyxiation.
This is only because there is some damage to the above physical factual oughtness-to breathe system.
But there is no denial the factual oughtness-to breathe system is present in ALL humans from birth.

Slipping in the word "ought" is not relevant here.
Breathing is instinctive. There is not moral ought to breathing.

The above analogy is applicable to the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans which is a biological-fact and it is imputed into a human-based moral FSK which then become as objective moral fact.

Rubbish.
Even if you had a case for breathing on moral grounds, you cannot sneak in "thou shalt not kill".
Killing is a key part of nutrition.

Why the majority cannot understand the above comparison and analogy is because the features of moral facts within the moral FSK [system] are more subtle in contrast to oughtness-to breathe system or the biological-taste-system.

I'm a meat eater, so find your morals unacceptable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Look at this possibility and analogy.

All humans ought [modal verb] to breathe, at least till the inevitable. As Hume insisted there is "No Ought From Is" which I agree.
But there is something invariant within the above.
What is invariant and factual with the oughtness-to breathe [a noun] is that it is a biological fact conditioned within the science-biology FSK.

No.
It is a biological fact that humans need to breath to live.
As the cessation of breathing in a living human normally means an end to life.
That is not to say they ought to.
Because to say they ought is an opinion saying they should live.

You missed my critical points.

I agree to the above but the above is not my emphasis re biological fact of the need to breathe.
My focus is on the invariant physical elements that drive the need to breathe.
See below.

This instinct and compulsion to breathe is factual because it is driven by some physical set comprising the DNA, neuronal connectivity, neural algorithms, the brain and relevant parts from the body.
This is undeniable.

This is not about morals.
The very existence of humans on planet earth is morally questionable.

I did not say the above is about morals but refer to it as an ANALOGY to explain the equivalent of moral facts.

Humans can still choose not to breathe, i.e. commit suicide via asphyxiation.
This is only because there is some damage to the above physical factual oughtness-to breathe system.
But there is no denial the factual oughtness-to breathe system is present in ALL humans from birth.

Slipping in the word "ought" is not relevant here.
Breathing is instinctive. There is not moral ought to breathing.

You totally missed my point again.
I did not equate the oughtness-to-breathe within morality in the above.

My point is,
just as the oughtness to breathe is supported by physical biological facts,
the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is also supported by its related biological-facts which when inputed into a moral FSK dictates objective moral facts.
See below.

The above analogy is applicable to the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans which is a biological-fact and it is imputed into a human-based moral FSK which then become as objective moral fact.

Rubbish.
Even if you had a case for breathing on moral grounds, you cannot sneak in "thou shalt not kill".
Killing is a key part of nutrition.

In this case, I have not equated breathing with moral grounds.
It is just that both the oughtness-to-breathe and oughtness-not-to-kill-humans has their respective physical features of neurons in the brain and body.

re morality I am referring to oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, surely killing of humans has nothing to do with nutrition, unless one is into cannibalism which itself is evil thus immoral.
Re nutrition, it is related to the just an oughtness-kill for food and self-defense to facilitate one's survival.

Why the majority cannot understand the above comparison and analogy is because the features of moral facts within the moral FSK [system] are more subtle in contrast to oughtness-to breathe system or the biological-taste-system.

I'm a meat eater, so find your morals unacceptable.

Note the above, the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans has nothing to do with humans eating meat.

You are totally off key and pitchy with my points, suggest you read my points more carefully.

Here is another example;
All humans has a wide variation of subjectivity in their tastes and preferences for food and drinks. These variations in taste are purely subjective thus cannot be objective in general.
I presumed you are familiar with, ALL humans has a drive for food that are sweet, but there are a millions of different preferences for their consumption of sweet things. These are subjective opinions.
However the majority are ignorant, all humans are "programmed" with a generic instinct to seek whatever that is edible and has 'glucose' [C6H12O6].
You cannot deny this instinct for glucose in all humans are supported by the same physical DNA, neurons and organs. You also cannot deny these are justifiable objective biological facts.

So, underlying the difference range of tastes and preference there are underlying invariant features, i.e. the generic tongue, taste buds, taste nerves and other mechanisms that facilitated a sense of taste.
Because these generic features are universal in all humans and can be verified and justified by the science-biology FSK, there is no denial that they are objective biological facts.

Just as the above example of the instincts of tastes and preference with its invariant facts,
there are also moral instincts with its underlying elements which are biological and related to morality, generating a wide variations of moral opinions, beliefs and judgments.
If there are no invariant moral features within the human body and brain how and where did the variations of moral opinions arose from.

One clue of the invariant features is the existence of mirror neurons which in part contribute to a sense of morality in all humans.
You deny this?
In time, neuroscientists will be able to find other physical features that drive and motivate the inherent moral sense in all humans that results in a variation of moral opinions.

[Sculptor]

Look at this possibility and analogy.

All humans ought [modal verb] to breathe, at least till the inevitable. As Hume insisted there is "No Ought From Is" which I agree.
But there is something invariant within the above.
What is invariant and factual with the oughtness-to breathe [a noun] is that it is a biological fact conditioned within the science-biology FSK.

No.
It is a biological fact that humans need to breath to live.
As the cessation of breathing in a living human normally means an end to life.
That is not to say they ought to.
Because to say they ought is an opinion saying they should live.

You missed my critical points.

I agree to the above but the above is not my emphasis re biological fact of the need to breathe.
My focus is on the invariant physical elements that drive the need to breathe.
See below.

This instinct and compulsion to breathe is factual because it is driven by some physical set comprising the DNA, neuronal connectivity, neural algorithms, the brain and relevant parts from the body.
This is undeniable.

This is not about morals.
The very existence of humans on planet earth is morally questionable.

I did not say the above is about morals but refer to it as an ANALOGY to explain the equivalent of moral facts.

Humans can still choose not to breathe, i.e. commit suicide via asphyxiation.
This is only because there is some damage to the above physical factual oughtness-to breathe system.
But there is no denial the factual oughtness-to breathe system is present in ALL humans from birth.

Slipping in the word "ought" is not relevant here.
Breathing is instinctive. There is not moral ought to breathing.

You totally missed my point again.
I did not equate the oughtness-to-breathe within morality in the above.

My point is,
just as the oughtness to breathe is supported by physical biological facts,
the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is also supported by its related biological-facts which when inputed into a moral FSK dictates objective moral facts.
See below.

The above analogy is applicable to the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans which is a biological-fact and it is imputed into a human-based moral FSK which then become as objective moral fact.

Rubbish.
Even if you had a case for breathing on moral grounds, you cannot sneak in "thou shalt not kill".
Killing is a key part of nutrition.

In this case, I have not equated breathing with moral grounds.
It is just that both the oughtness-to-breathe and oughtness-not-to-kill-humans has their respective physical features of neurons in the brain and body.

re morality I am referring to oughtness-not-to-kill-humans, surely killing of humans has nothing to do with nutrition, unless one is into cannibalism which itself is evil thus immoral.
Re nutrition, it is related to the just an oughtness-kill for food and self-defense to facilitate one's survival.

Why the majority cannot understand the above comparison and analogy is because the features of moral facts within the moral FSK [system] are more subtle in contrast to oughtness-to breathe system or the biological-taste-system.

I'm a meat eater, so find your morals unacceptable.

Note the above, the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans has nothing to do with humans eating meat.

But you have not justified that distinction.
But take it on face value.
The statement is not objective.
The right to kill humans exists, morally in all moral systems across the world.

You are totally off key and pitchy with my points, suggest you read my points more carefully.

Stop gaslighting and ignoring my response.
You are fooling no one.

Here is another example;
All humans has a wide variation of subjectivity in their tastes and preferences for food and drink. These variations in taste are purely subjective thus cannot be objective in general.

But underlying the difference range of tastes and preference there are underlying invariant features, i.e. the generic tongue, taste buds, taste nerves and other mechanisms that facilitated a sense of taste.
Because these generic features are universal in all humans and can be verified and justified by the science-biology FSK, there is no denial that they are objective biological facts.

One again you are confusing morality and biology.

Just as the above example of tastes and preference with its invariant facts,
I accept there is a wide variations in moral opinions, beliefs and judgments.
But underlying these variations, surely there are invariant physical features that enable these varied moral opinions to manifest.
If there are no invariant moral features within the human body and brain how and where did the variations of moral opinions arose from.

One clue of the invariant features is the existence of mirror neurons which in part contribute to a sense of morality in all humans.
You deny this?
In time, neuroscientists will be able to find other physical features that drive and motivate the inherent moral sense in all humans that results in a variation of moral opinions.

You have nothing as usual

[FlashDangerpants]

I acknowledge your point re the insufficiency of "enabling".
However, I note "entails" and "creates" are sufficient, but not strong enough.

And you are ok with the intractible moral relativism that this argument of yours establishes?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I acknowledge your point re the insufficiency of "enabling".
However, I note "entails" and "creates" are sufficient, but not strong enough.

And you are ok with the intractible moral relativism that this argument of yours establishes?

My change is to reinforce that my moral FSK dictates [commands] moral objectivity, so it has nothing to do with moral relativism.
I have argued,
Moral Relativism Implied Moral Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=40993

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you have not justified that distinction.
But take it on face value.
The statement is not objective.
The right to kill humans exists, morally in all moral systems across the world.

What??
Can't you see the critical aspects of criminal laws is
no killing of humans [murder, genocides] with exceptions.
In all cases of moral consideration, no killing of humans is permissible and if there is any, they are only permitted in exceptional cases of self-defense.
In the case of morality-proper, the principle is 'no killings of humans-period!"

Show me cases where all humans has the absolute moral right to kill humans.

You are totally off key and pitchy with my points, suggest you read my points more carefully.

Stop gaslighting and ignoring my response.
You are fooling no one.

Ignoring which point?

Here is another example;
All humans has a wide variation of subjectivity in their tastes and preferences for food and drink. These variations in taste are purely subjective thus cannot be objective in general.

But underlying the difference range of tastes and preference there are underlying invariant features, i.e. the generic tongue, taste buds, taste nerves and other mechanisms that facilitated a sense of taste.
Because these generic features are universal in all humans and can be verified and justified by the science-biology FSK, there is no denial that they are objective biological facts.

One again you are confusing morality and biology.

Where?
I have used them as analogy.

Just as the above example of tastes and preference with its invariant facts,
I accept there is a wide variations in moral opinions, beliefs and judgments.
But underlying these variations, surely there are invariant physical features that enable these varied moral opinions to manifest.
If there are no invariant moral features within the human body and brain how and where did the variations of moral opinions arose from.

One clue of the invariant features is the existence of mirror neurons which in part contribute to a sense of morality in all humans.
You deny this?
In time, neuroscientists will be able to find other physical features that drive and motivate the inherent moral sense in all humans that results in a variation of moral opinions.

You have nothing as usual

Handwaving as usual.
You should give more thorough arguments to support your case.

[FlashDangerpants]

I acknowledge your point re the insufficiency of "enabling".
However, I note "entails" and "creates" are sufficient, but not strong enough.

And you are ok with the intractible moral relativism that this argument of yours establishes?

My change is to reinforce that my moral FSK dictates [commands] moral objectivity, so it has nothing to do with moral relativism.
I have argued,
Moral Relativism Implied Moral Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=40993

But you also wrote this....

Within my P1,
Since morality is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus morality that is conditioned upon a FSK, has moral fact and they are objective.

The rest of your views are bias to your dogmatic and fundamentalistic ideology of mind-independent linguistic facts which are grounded on a illusion.
Thus you don't have the credibility to insist your 'what is fact' is the ONLY 'what is fact' and other claims of 'what is fact' are automatically fictitious.

Since Table Manners is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus Table Manners that is conditioned upon a FSK, has Table Manners fact and they are objective.

Now replace table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce"

What you suggested are FSKs at the fringes relative the scientific FSK as the standard.
Table manners are different between groups of people.
As long as there is a large agreement of people agreeing to certain table manners, we have as human-based table-manner-X FSK.
What is objective [FSK-ed] in this case must be qualified only to table-manner-X FSK.

The resulting relativism is obvious.

You have thrown away your last chance of denying objectivity to mad shit with that change to "dictates".

[Veritas Aequitas]

And you are ok with the intractible moral relativism that this argument of yours establishes?

My change is to reinforce that my moral FSK dictates [commands] moral objectivity, so it has nothing to do with moral relativism.
I have argued,
Moral Relativism Implied Moral Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=40993

But you also wrote this....

Since Table Manners is a part of reality, it has to be conditioned within a FSK to be realistic.
A FSK enables objectivity - in various degrees.
A FSK enables FSK-ed facts.
Thus Table Manners that is conditioned upon a FSK, has Table Manners fact and they are objective.

Now replace table manners with "songs about fucking", or "Per-Peri hot sauce"

What you suggested are FSKs at the fringes relative the scientific FSK as the standard.
Table manners are different between groups of people.
As long as there is a large agreement of people agreeing to certain table manners, we have as human-based table-manner-X FSK.
What is objective [FSK-ed] in this case must be qualified only to table-manner-X FSK.

The resulting relativism is obvious.

You have thrown away your last chance of denying objectivity to mad shit with that change to "dictates".

You misinterpreted my point.
As long as whatever is FSK-ed objectivity is dictated and implied without exception.
I was comparing the degrees of objectivity of various FSKs relative to the scientific FSK as the standard.
What is relative in this case of the degrees of objectivity because the scientific FSK is used as a convenient standard [not absolute btw] not morality per se.
Morality per se is always conditioned upon a human-based FSK which dictates objectivity.

[FlashDangerpants]

My change is to reinforce that my moral FSK dictates [commands] moral objectivity, so it has nothing to do with moral relativism.
I have argued,
Moral Relativism Implied Moral Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=40993

But you also wrote this....

What you suggested are FSKs at the fringes relative the scientific FSK as the standard.
Table manners are different between groups of people.
As long as there is a large agreement of people agreeing to certain table manners, we have as human-based table-manner-X FSK.
What is objective [FSK-ed] in this case must be qualified only to table-manner-X FSK.

The resulting relativism is obvious.

You have thrown away your last chance of denying objectivity to mad shit with that change to "dictates".

You misinterpreted my point.
As long as whatever is FSK-ed objectivity is dictated and implied without exception.
I was comparing the degrees of objectivity of various FSKs relative to the scientific FSK as the standard.
What is relative in this case of the degrees of objectivity because the scientific FSK is used as a convenient standard [not absolute btw] not morality per se.
Morality per se is always conditioned upon a human-based FSK which dictates objectivity.

1. You have rejected what makes science a "credible FSK" according to everyone else: that it takes its data, and limits is discourse to the observable world around us (all that stuff that normies consider objective). You have cut yourself off from that line of reason which says that there is something fundamentally different in type or scope between the activity of science and that of astrology.

2. You have instead asserted that what makes science a "credible FSK" is really just the number of people who consider it appealing.

3. You have created the table-manner-X FSK monster above. And you have asserted that any time there might be an emergent FSK thing, there must be, your word of choice for that is "dictated".

You must be able to see where this inevitably goes.

[Sculptor]

But you have not justified that distinction.
But take it on face value.
The statement is not objective.
The right to kill humans exists, morally in all moral systems across the world.

What??
Can't you see the critical aspects of criminal laws is
no killing of humans [murder, genocides] with exceptions.
In all cases of moral consideration, no killing of humans is permissible and if there is any, they are only permitted in exceptional cases of self-defense.
In the case of morality-proper, the principle is 'no killings of humans-period!"

Show me cases where all humans has the absolute moral right to kill humans.

Name one country that has not gone to war.

You are totally off key and pitchy with my points, suggest you read my points more carefully.

Stop gaslighting and ignoring my response.
You are fooling no one.

Ignoring which point?

Here is another example;
All humans has a wide variation of subjectivity in their tastes and preferences for food and drink. These variations in taste are purely subjective thus cannot be objective in general.

But underlying the difference range of tastes and preference there are underlying invariant features, i.e. the generic tongue, taste buds, taste nerves and other mechanisms that facilitated a sense of taste.
Because these generic features are universal in all humans and can be verified and justified by the science-biology FSK, there is no denial that they are objective biological facts.

One again you are confusing morality and biology.

Where?
I have used them as analogy.

Just as the above example of tastes and preference with its invariant facts,
I accept there is a wide variations in moral opinions, beliefs and judgments.
But underlying these variations, surely there are invariant physical features that enable these varied moral opinions to manifest.
If there are no invariant moral features within the human body and brain how and where did the variations of moral opinions arose from.

One clue of the invariant features is the existence of mirror neurons which in part contribute to a sense of morality in all humans.
You deny this?
In time, neuroscientists will be able to find other physical features that drive and motivate the inherent moral sense in all humans that results in a variation of moral opinions.

You have nothing as usual

Handwaving as usual.
You should give more thorough arguments to support your case.