What could make morality objective?

[iambiguous]

Gravity is a concept. But it doesn't exist only as a thought..

Gravity is a concept. But it doesn't exist only as a thought.
Morality is a concept. But it doesn't exist only as a thought.
Religion is a concept. But it doesn't exist only as a thought.
God is a concept*. But it doesn't exist only as a thought.

Of course, gravity is embedded in the either/or world. It is applicable to everyone either as a scientific concept or in regard to the lives that we all live from day to day.

If you run gravity by these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...how many of them will argue that "for all practical purposes" given the lives they live from day to day, gravity is just a "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective opinion?

The other three though...?


* "by which we measure our pain"

[Skepdick]

Instead, what any number of God and No God objectivists here will insist is that none of this matters. Morally, politically and spiritually, it's their way or else.

My way or else is not objective morality. That's subjective morality.

Objective moralists say "The right way, or else."

[Immanuel Can]

Instead, what any number of God and No God objectivists here will insist is that none of this matters. Morally, politically and spiritually, it's their way or else.

My way or else is not objective morality. That's subjective morality.

Objective moralists say "The right way, or else."

Nicely put.

The musak on the escalator to Hell is Sinatra's "I Did It My Way."

[iambiguous]

Absolutely shameless!

Let's try it again...

Come on, IC how is this...

What I "get" is that no matter what others construe "ethical theory" to be here up in the philosophical clouds, they had better be asking themselves "what would Jesus do?" if they wish to embody a truly righteous morality. In order to, among other things, avoid eternal damnation in Hell.

...not utterly relevant in regard to objective morality? You're here preaching the True Christian Gospel. And while you go back and forth with others here "theoretically" putting Christian morality into perspective philosophically, how will that play out on Judgment Day? Is God more inclined to embrace analytic philosophy or continental philosophy?

With you, however, True Christianity is not just a "theory" propounded in the Bible, is it? It is in fact -- "in your head" -- the one and the only path to moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.

And all of the theoretical moral constructs embraced by these guys...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...either stay up in the philosophical clouds as well or they are examined given the lives that we actually live.

You can hire a few architects to create blueprints for a house you want built. And they can try to explain to you "technically" why their design is the most rational, the most aesthetically pleasing, the most structurally sound. So, sure, go ahead, pack your bags and move into the blueprint that appeals to you most.

That's why I invited VA and others to take their "theoretical" assessments here over to this -- viewforum.php?f=7 -- forum and, given a particular set of circumstances involving conflicting goods, we can explore in depth the "for all practical purposes" implications of these theoretical constructs.

They either will or they won't. And, given free will, they can choose to do so autonomously.

Again...

Oddly enough, in my view, you yourself seem to forget that this is in fact the bottom line for you in regard to morality. You go on and on exchanging theoretical assessments of morality up in the philosophical clouds, when all the while you know that others will be damned for all of eternity if they don't toe your own True Christian line. That is the bottom line, isn't it?

Or are you starting to shift away from those YouTube videos back to an existential "leap of faith"? Or back to "because the Bible says so"?

Instead, he allows himself to be reduced down to this sort of substanceless post...

Note to all of the serious moral philosophers here...

Why would they want to talk to you? You don't like "theoretical" stuff, and the very simplest concepts stump you.

...again!

Why does he keep "talking? to me? Embarrassing himself over and over by pretending that the points I raise above are just what, trivial pursuits?

Need I remind him yet again what is at stake here in regard to Christianity's and only Christianity's moral Commandments: immortality and salvation.



Okay, okay: if I do say so myself.

[iambiguous]

Insisting that there's a difference between True and False is just moral smuggling.

In a subjective moral universe there's no such thing as True/False dichotomy.

There's just your version of the truth and my version of the truth.

Theoretically?

No. Functionally and practically.

How is it that you don't understand the social function of truth and falsehood ?!?

We'll need a context of course.

Here's one:

Hamas invaded Israeli on October 7, 2023? Is that true or false?

is is socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit this message "Hamas invaded Israeli on October 7, 2023" ?
Is it socially good or bad to amplify and restansmit the message "Hamas did not invade Israel on 7th October 2023"?

Socially -- existentially -- good or bad for whom? Good if you're a member of Hamas. Bad if you're an Israeli citizen.

Same thing when Israel invades the Gaza Strip. Only the other way around.

The point though is that the actual facts of the war itself -- as a war -- are applicable to everyone over there who is suffering terribly as a result of it. Again, sans the things I noted above and below.

Objectively, Hamas was morally justified in invading Israel. Is that true or false?

Is it socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit the message "Hamas was morally justified in invading Israel' ?
Is it socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit the message "Hamas was not morally justified in invading Israel' ?

Again: good or bad for whom?

How can any philosopher not grasp the crucial distinction here? Facts are facts. And not just theoretically. At least sans dream worlds and sim worlds and blue pills and solipsism.

How can any philosopher not grasp the social and moral function of communication?!?!?

Perhaps I should give him or her the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a "condition". And thus beyond his or her control?

You're a philosopher. An ethicist. So, using the tools of philosophy, go ahead, give it a shot: was Hamas justified morally in invading Israel? Given, say, the arguments made by this guy: https://youtu.be/zE8GCX1w3ys?si=PGoPcLr30ycYfj70

Do you think moralising and choosing side on the issue is morally and socially constructive here?

The very question you are asking implies you don't understand what morality is!

Well, one of us certainly doesn't.


Note to IC:

It is actually worth my time communicating with you as opposed to this guy or gal.

[iambiguous]

Instead, what any number of God and No God objectivists here will insist is that none of this matters. Morally, politically and spiritually, it's their way or else.

My way or else is not objective morality. That's subjective morality.

Objective moralists say "The right way, or else."

So, which one of these objective moralists...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...are you?

Though I suspect that you may well be in a world all your own here.

[iambiguous]

Instead, what any number of God and No God objectivists here will insist is that none of this matters. Morally, politically and spiritually, it's their way or else.

My way or else is not objective morality. That's subjective morality.

Objective moralists say "The right way, or else."

Nicely put.

The musak on the escalator to Hell is Sinatra's "I Did It My Way."

Oh well, scratch this...

Note to IC:

It is actually worth my time communicating with you as opposed to this guy or gal.

[Skepdick]

So, which one of these objective moralists...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...are you?

I don't understand your question.

I am not a religion; or a spiritual tradition; or a political ideology.

You have some profound misunderstanding of identity.

[Skepdick]

Theoretically?

No. Functionally and practically.

How is it that you don't understand the social function of truth and falsehood ?!?

We'll need a context of course.

Here's one:

Hamas invaded Israeli on October 7, 2023? Is that true or false?

is is socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit this message "Hamas invaded Israeli on October 7, 2023" ?
Is it socially good or bad to amplify and restansmit the message "Hamas did not invade Israel on 7th October 2023"?

Socially -- existentially -- good or bad for whom? Good if you're a member of Hamas. Bad if you're an Israeli citizen.

Same thing when Israel invades the Gaza Strip. Only the other way around.

The point though is that the actual facts of the war itself -- as a war -- are applicable to everyone over there who is suffering terribly as a result of it. Again, sans the things I noted above and below.

Objectively, Hamas was morally justified in invading Israel. Is that true or false?

Is it socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit the message "Hamas was morally justified in invading Israel' ?
Is it socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit the message "Hamas was not morally justified in invading Israel' ?

Again: good or bad for whom?

How can any philosopher not grasp the crucial distinction here? Facts are facts. And not just theoretically. At least sans dream worlds and sim worlds and blue pills and solipsism.

How can any philosopher not grasp the social and moral function of communication?!?!?

Perhaps I should give him or her the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a "condition". And thus beyond his or her control?

You're a philosopher. An ethicist. So, using the tools of philosophy, go ahead, give it a shot: was Hamas justified morally in invading Israel? Given, say, the arguments made by this guy: https://youtu.be/zE8GCX1w3ys?si=PGoPcLr30ycYfj70

Do you think moralising and choosing side on the issue is morally and socially constructive here?

The very question you are asking implies you don't understand what morality is!

Well, one of us certainly doesn't.


Note to IC:

It is actually worth my time communicating with you as opposed to this guy or gal.

Relativism is so dull...

You are regurgitating the exact same nonsense I was saying when I was pretending to be a relativist.

I can come up with all this teenage conttrarian nonsense all by myself. You need to be more entertaining.

[iambiguous]

You have some profound misunderstanding of identity.

Well, one of us certainly does.

[iambiguous]

No. Functionally and practically.

How is it that you don't understand the social function of truth and falsehood ?!?

We'll need a context of course.

Here's one:

Hamas invaded Israeli on October 7, 2023? Is that true or false?

is is socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit this message "Hamas invaded Israeli on October 7, 2023" ?
Is it socially good or bad to amplify and restansmit the message "Hamas did not invade Israel on 7th October 2023"?

Socially -- existentially -- good or bad for whom? Good if you're a member of Hamas. Bad if you're an Israeli citizen.

Same thing when Israel invades the Gaza Strip. Only the other way around.

The point though is that the actual facts of the war itself -- as a war -- are applicable to everyone over there who is suffering terribly as a result of it. Again, sans the things I noted above and below.

Objectively, Hamas was morally justified in invading Israel. Is that true or false?

Is it socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit the message "Hamas was morally justified in invading Israel' ?
Is it socially good or bad to amplify and retransmit the message "Hamas was not morally justified in invading Israel' ?

Again: good or bad for whom?

How can any philosopher not grasp the crucial distinction here? Facts are facts. And not just theoretically. At least sans dream worlds and sim worlds and blue pills and solipsism.

How can any philosopher not grasp the social and moral function of communication?!?!?

Perhaps I should give him or her the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a "condition". And thus beyond his or her control?

You're a philosopher. An ethicist. So, using the tools of philosophy, go ahead, give it a shot: was Hamas justified morally in invading Israel? Given, say, the arguments made by this guy: https://youtu.be/zE8GCX1w3ys?si=PGoPcLr30ycYfj70

Do you think moralising and choosing side on the issue is morally and socially constructive here?

The very question you are asking implies you don't understand what morality is!

Well, one of us certainly doesn't.


Note to IC:

It is actually worth my time communicating with you as opposed to this guy or gal.

Relativism is so dull...

You are regurgitating the exact same nonsense I was saying when I was pretending to be a relativist.

I can come up with all this teenage conttrarian nonsense all by myself. You need to be more entertaining.

A "condition" it is then.

Note to Ecmandu:

Do you concur?

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA asserts an analogy or connection between 'oughtness-to-breathe' and 'oughtness-not-kill-humans'.

VA calls both of these 'oughtnesses' physical facts - 'conditioned upon a human-based 'framework and system of knowledge (fsk)'. But VA also calls the second 'oughtness' a moral fact - 'conditioned upon a human-based morality fsk'.

So - how to clean up this conceptual mess? Here are some suggestions.

1 Talk about 'oughtness' in physical processes is incoherent - as some of us have pointed out countless times. VA claims that this coinage of the noun 'oughtness' has nothing to do with the use of modal 'ought' - in both moral or non-moral contexts.

But then, what constitutes this supposed physical oughtness is unexplained. For example, the idea that there's an 'oughtness' for a dropped object to accelerate earthwards - that it 'ought to' do so - is ridiculous.

2 VA's 'fsk theory' is deeply confused. That we have to perceive, know and describe the facts of reality - in other words, reality itself - in human ways is true. And that we have developed different ways to describe reality - for example in physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and so on - is also true.

But the extension that VA runs with - that the facts of reality somehow exist only 'within' - or 'conditioned upon' - one of these kinds of description - is, again, ridiculous. A framework and system of knowledge doesn't create or produce the facts of reality that it describes.

3 VA's aim is to justify the claim that 'within' or 'conditioned upon' (whatever that means) a morality fsk, there are moral facts in the way there are physics facts 'within' or 'conditioned upon' a physics fsk. And this is to get the actual situation exactly back to front.

There are no moral facts, any more than there are astrology or alchemy facts - because a description doesn't create or produce facts. And the very expression 'morality framework and system of knowledge' begs the question, by assuming there are moral facts that can be known.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA asserts an analogy or connection between 'oughtness-to-breathe' and 'oughtness-not-kill-humans'.

VA calls both of these 'oughtnesses' physical facts - 'conditioned upon a human-based 'framework and system of knowledge (fsk)'. But VA also calls the second 'oughtness' a moral fact - 'conditioned upon a human-based morality fsk'.

So - how to clean up this conceptual mess? Here are some suggestions.

1 Talk about 'oughtness' in physical processes is incoherent - as some of us have pointed out countless times. VA claims that this coinage of the noun 'oughtness' has nothing to do with the use of modal 'ought' - in both moral or non-moral contexts.

But then, what constitutes this supposed physical oughtness is unexplained. For example, the idea that there's an 'oughtness' for a dropped object to accelerate earthwards - that it 'ought to' do so - is ridiculous.

Strawman as usual.

Morality is confined to humans only not physical objects.
Thus with human beings and their brain as evolved via evolution there is an 'oughtness' to act to facilitate survival.
This 'oughtness' is the inherent potential, propensity, drive and compulsion to act by humans only, not with reference to non-human objects.

Biologically within the science-biology FSK there is the 'oughtness-to-breathe' as programmed within human via evolution which is undeniable.
Do you deny this?

It is very common for scientific-facts from the scientific FSK to be converted to another FSK-ed fact [science or not science].
For example FSK-ed facts of Physics when inputted into the Chemistry becomes FSK-ed facts of Chemistry and so on.
Many of the scientific FSK-ed facts are inputted into other FSKs, e.g. technological FSK to generate technological facts.
So there can be FSK-ed moral facts from scientific FSK-ed facts. e.g. from the science-biological FSK fact of the oughtness-not-kill-humans to the moral FSK-ed fact the oughtness-not-kill-humans

See below.



As I had argued, the ground of your philosophical views are grounded on an illusion, thus do not have any credibility to critique my views.

Note my recent thread;
Evolution; So Scientific Realism Undermines Itself
viewtopic.php?t=41012
If you believe in evolution while at the same time believe in Scientific Realism [as you do] you are cooked till burnt.

2 VA's 'fsk theory' is deeply confused. That we have to perceive, know and describe the facts of reality - in other words, reality itself - in human ways is true. And that we have developed different ways to describe reality - for example in physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and so on - is also true.

But the extension that VA runs with - that the facts of reality somehow exist only 'within' - or 'conditioned upon' - one of these kinds of description - is, again, ridiculous. A framework and system of knowledge doesn't create or produce the facts of reality that it describes.

Strawman again.
You above is kindi stuff.

You need to counter this claim of mine;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

3 VA's aim is to justify the claim that 'within' or 'conditioned upon' (whatever that means) a morality fsk, there are moral facts in the way there are physics facts 'within' or 'conditioned upon' a physics fsk. And this is to get the actual situation exactly back to front.

As above, you need to counter this claim of mine;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

There are no moral facts, any more than there are astrology or alchemy facts - because a description doesn't create or produce facts. And the very expression 'morality framework and system of knowledge' begs the question, by assuming there are moral facts that can be known.

I have already argued the "millionth" time, your basis of 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion. You have been running away from my arguments below.
You are running away from them because you don't have the philosophical competence to do so. [as you have not been making any proper references from the philosophical community to support your views].

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

You did mumble in relation to science.
But your science is based on scientific realism which undermines itself;
Again,
Evolution; So Scientific Realism Undermines Itself
viewtopic.php?t=41012

[Veritas Aequitas]

.......

PH, every time I challenged you to prove your 'what is fact' is really real, you responded that that reality can be referred to what scientists supposed 'what is real' in relation to their scientific conclusions.

I have problem tracing to your posts on the above.

Can you confirm the following of "what is really real" in relation to your "what is fact", i.e. a feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs which scientists [naturalists in particular] are directing their attention at, represent your view;

Scientific Realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be.
Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?"
The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories.
Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make reliable claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables.
Analytic philosophers generally have a commitment to scientific realism, in the sense of regarding the scientific method as a reliable guide to the nature of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ic_realism

Can you confirm the above represent your 'what is fact' as really real?
If not, give further explanation of your position.

The above scientific Realism is a sub of Philosophical Realism;

Philosophical Realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

If you don't agree with "mind-independence" then substitute it with 'independent of human conditions".

[Peter Holmes]

.......

PH, every time I challenged you to prove your 'what is fact' is really real, you responded that that reality can be referred to what scientists supposed 'what is real' in relation to their scientific conclusions.

I have problem tracing to your posts on the above.

Can you confirm the following of "what is really real" in relation to your "what is fact", i.e. a feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs which scientists [naturalists in particular] are directing their attention at, represent your view;

Scientific Realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be.
Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?"
The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories.
Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make reliable claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables.
Analytic philosophers generally have a commitment to scientific realism, in the sense of regarding the scientific method as a reliable guide to the nature of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ic_realism

Can you confirm the above represent your 'what is fact' as really real?
If not, give further explanation of your position.

The above scientific Realism is a sub of Philosophical Realism;

Philosophical Realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

If you don't agree with "mind-independence" then substitute it with 'independent of human conditions".

Atm, I can't be bothered to explain my position to you yet again. Just as you can't be bothered to address my and others' falsification of your claims and refutation of your argument. You just repeat your claims and argument.