Share-Prices are Objective, so is Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above is related to Morality because many claim Morality cannot be objective.
I am arguing Morality is Objective in the same sense Share-Prices are Objective.

'Objective' is a very loose term but most of the moral fact deniers [PH & gang] are stuck with a dogmatic view of 'what is objective' within the Philosophical Realism perspective;
There are Two Senses of Objective: i.e.

• 1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
  2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense

FSK = Framework and System of Knowledge [human-based, a collective-of-subjects]

Moral Realists mocked my "2" as merely subjective inventions in "my" head; that is because they are ignorant with very shallow and narrow philosophical thinking displayed in the discussion below;

FSK seems to be your amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in your own head, therefore subjective.

Ideas that exist only in your head are by definition subjective.

That is a truism and strawman.
Obviously ideas in my [one subject] mind are subjective.
But a human-based FSK which I discussed here is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects, i.e. many minds [heads].

Who, exactly?

Who??
How is that you don't know?

It is undeniable that all share-prices quoted in the various Stock Exchanges, e.g. the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and others, are objective.
Does anyone deny this claim?

Objective Share Prices from a Stock Exchange is conditioned by a human-based Stock-Exchange-FSK which is grounded upon the consensus of a collective-of-subjects.

You asked 'who' are comprised within this collective-of-subjects that sustained the objectivity of the listed share-prices from these human-based FSK.

If you have studied Economics, you would have understood, what determined 'price' basically is a convergence of supply vs demand conditioned upon all relevant subjective sentiments and other psychological factors within an economics-FSK.

There are no objective share-prices if there are no humans establishing stock exchanges and people's demand and supply interacting within a human-based Economic FSK.

Therefore there is objectivity in the sense of a human-based FSK which is grounded on intersubjectivity, thus my original claim re [2] above;

Based on my explanation above, e.g. objective share-prices are objective in the human-based FSK sense, i.e. if no humans then no objective share-prices quoted in stock-exchanges.

The above FSK sense of objectivity is applicable to other objective things such as general currencies, crypto-currencies and the likes.

As such there is objectivity in the human-based FSK sense.

I have claimed that the claim of objectivity in the philosophical-realist sense is delusional because it is grounded on an illusion.
Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
viewtopic.php?t=40272
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

My point:
There is objectivity in the human-based FSK sense, i.e. it emerged not out of one person's head but rather from a collective interaction of many subjects' heads, thus,
objective is really inter-subjects or intersubjectivity.
I am using this same principle to argue Morality is Objective in the FSK sense, i.e. it is conditioned within a human-based morality-proper FSK.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
1.Share-Prices & its Values are Objective, so is Morality.

Here is the argument on how Share Prices and their market-value are both objective, plus the related advantages to acknowledge the 'objectivity';

From Bard [with reservations];

Proposal: Qualified Objectivity of Market Value (FSK-Based)
Your proposal to qualify the objectivity of market value as "FSK-based" is a thoughtful approach that addresses the inherent subjectivity within the system while acknowledging the role of the FSK in establishing a degree of objectivity.

Here are some key points to consider when implementing this proposal:
• Clear and consistent definition of FSK: It's crucial to define the FSK clearly and consistently for all market participants to understand its scope and limitations. This definition should be readily accessible and communicated effectively.
• Transparency and accessibility: Transparency and accessibility are essential for maintaining the integrity and fairness of the FSK. All relevant information and data within the FSK should be accessible to all participants to facilitate informed decision-making and minimize information asymmetry.
• Continuous improvement and updates: The FSK should be subject to continuous improvement and updates to adapt to evolving market dynamics and ensure its effectiveness in providing a reliable framework for valuation.
• Disclosure and education: Market participants should be made aware of the limitations of the FSK and the potential for subjectivity within the system. Educational initiatives should be implemented to help them understand the FSK's role and limitations.

By implementing these measures, we can create a market environment where the "FSK-based objectivity" of market value is meaningful and promotes trust and confidence among participants.

Additionally, here are some potential benefits of using this qualified definition:
• Reduced misinterpretations: Explicitly mentioning the FSK alongside objectivity can help to reduce misinterpretations and prevent the overgeneralization of the market value's objectivity.
• Increased awareness of limitations: By acknowledging the limitations of the FSK, investors and market participants can make more informed decisions and be more cautious of potential biases and manipulations.
• Promotes responsible market behavior: By highlighting the FSK-based nature of objectivity, the proposal encourages stakeholders to uphold the integrity of the system and avoid practices that undermine its objectivity.

Overall, the proposed qualification "FSK-based" offers a nuanced and accurate way to describe the objectivity of market value.
By addressing the inherent subjectivity within the system while acknowledging the role of the FSK, this approach can contribute to a more transparent and efficient market environment.

2. An interesting point to note is,
the FSK-ed objective share prices are changing every second [or some time period] within the stock-exchange FSK.
The final share price of the day is determined by the rules of the specific Stock Exchange i.e. LSE, NYSE and others.
As such there are millions of real FSK-ed objective share-prices.
But what is constant is the presence of human subjects, i.e. if no human-subjects, then no FSK-ed objectivity.
In another sense, if there is no subjectivity there is no FSK-ed objectivity.
So, in this sense, objectivity is grounded on subjectivity [human subjects].

As such, there cannot be mind-independent objectivity as claimed by p-realists, i.e. an objective reality that is absolutely independent of a collective-of-human-subjects.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is there some reason why a moral anti-realist would care about objectivity if it is so limited in scope as that?

This is "objectivity" of a sort that cannot support any assertion that those who hold other values are mistaken. It's relativist from one end to the other. It's garbage objectivity.




Worthless.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your bizarre effort to beg an AI chatbot to help you out in some other thread makes no difference to your actual problem here. You have spent years trying to analyze objectivity based only on what you can construct it from, and have never bothered to think about what you want it to do for you. The bullshit faux objectivity that you are settling for here is insufficient for you to ever determine that a position taken contrary to your own is falsifiable.

You are a failure and your works are all shit.

[attofishpi]

It is undeniable that all share-prices quoted in the various Stock Exchanges, e.g. the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and others, are objective.
Does anyone deny this claim?

They are based on subjective data.

For example, whether to buy stocks of a large farming corp. ..depends on whether the weather is favourable to that stock price (by analysts), after all the weather can be nasty on yields.

I often think about words, homophones (apparently it's not a gay thing) - like at what time the weather will permit me to decide whether to walk the wombat.

[Sculptor]

Is there some reason why a moral anti-realist would care about objectivity if it is so limited in scope as that?

This is "objectivity" of a sort that cannot support any assertion that those who hold other values are mistaken. It's relativist from one end to the other. It's garbage objectivity.




Worthless.

Objectivity that only one person accepts is by definition subjectivity.
There are objective statements to be made, but in cases of morality there are always undelying assumptions that are aspirational. So it matters not a jot how you dress up and cover up. At heart, morality is about personal values and how you react emotionally to moral situations.

What In Vino Veritas fails to answer is:

If you want to make a claim for moral objectivity, then you would have to state your aim.
What is the purpose, or aim of morals?
Since such a purpose would of necessity guide the formation of your rules.
Can you say with certainty that those aims are universal or objectively true, or are they nothing more than aspiriation that are not shared by others.
If so are those "others" to be placed outside your moral scheme and rendered anathema?

[Sculptor]

A share price is but a number.
It is either true or a lie. It has no moral content.

Get a life.



If you want to make a claim for moral objectivity, then you would have to state your aims.
What is the purpose, or aim of morals?
Since such a purpose would of necessity guide the formation of your rules.
Can you say with certainty that those aims are universal or objectively true, or are they nothing more than aspiriation that are not shared by all others.
If so are those "others" to be placed outside your moral scheme and rendered anathema?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is undeniable that all share-prices quoted in the various Stock Exchanges, e.g. the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and others, are objective.
Does anyone deny this claim?

They are based on subjective data.

For example, whether to buy stocks of a large farming corp. ..depends on whether the weather is favourable to that stock price (by analysts), after all the weather can be nasty on yields.

I often think about words, homophones (apparently it's not a gay thing) - like at what time the weather will permit me to decide whether to walk the wombat.

Yes, they are based on subjective judgments, beliefs and opinions.

But do you agree, share-prices listed are objective, i.e. independent of an individual's judgments, beliefs and opinions?

[FlashDangerpants]

Real confusion between price and value happening in this thread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A share price is but a number.
It is either true or a lie. It has no moral content.

Get a life.

That is a deflection.
Everything that is digitized is a number.

I asked, are share-prices listed in say the London Stock Exchange, objective or not?

If you want to make a claim for moral objectivity, then you would have to state your aims.
What is the purpose, or aim of morals?
Since such a purpose would of necessity guide the formation of your rules.
Can you say with certainty that those aims are universal or objectively true, or are they nothing more than aspiriation that are not shared by all others.
If so are those "others" to be placed outside your moral scheme and rendered anathema?

Point is share-prices are considered to be objective but qualified to the authority, conditions, constitution, rules and processes of the relevant human-based Stock-Exchange FSR-FSK.
Share-prices are FSK-based objective and without any physical backing but merely based on the intersubjective consensus of a collective of human subjects.

My point is,
as with share-prices, there are FSK-based objective morality that is with and without any physical backing but merely based on the intersubjective consensus of a collective of human subjects.
Thus, as long as the moral elements are conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK, they are objective, therefore morality is objective in that sense.

A share-price is objective as contributed by only a few buyers at a certain price but yet the final price is considered objective as qualified to the stock-exchange FSK.

In the case of morality, say,
the moral element "the oughtness not to kill humans" this is inherent in all humans [>8 billions] - thus universal - and agreed by the majority [>7 billions] explicitly or implicitly.
If this shared agreement is considered with a human-based morality-proper FSK, then it is FSK-based objective.

My point,
if share-prices with consensus by other a few buyers and sellers are objective within a human FSK, a moral element [e.g. the oughtness not to kill humans] (agree by billions of humans) is also objective within the principle of a FSK. So Morality in this sense is objective [FSK-based]

Note I am not simply stated 'morality is objective' but rather morality is FSK-based objective.

In your case, you are claiming "X is objective" [absolutely mind-independent] because 'me and my mother said so' without justifications and qualifications.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Share-Prices & its Values are Objective, so is Morality.

Here is the argument on how Share Prices and their market-value are both objective, plus the related advantages to acknowledge the 'objectivity';

From Bard [with reservations];

Proposal: Qualified Objectivity of Market Value (FSK-Based)
Your proposal to qualify the objectivity of market value as "FSK-based" is a thoughtful approach that addresses the inherent subjectivity within the system while acknowledging the role of the FSK in establishing a degree of objectivity.

Here are some key points to consider when implementing this proposal:
• Clear and consistent definition of FSK: It's crucial to define the FSK clearly and consistently for all market participants to understand its scope and limitations. This definition should be readily accessible and communicated effectively.
• Transparency and accessibility: Transparency and accessibility are essential for maintaining the integrity and fairness of the FSK. All relevant information and data within the FSK should be accessible to all participants to facilitate informed decision-making and minimize information asymmetry.
• Continuous improvement and updates: The FSK should be subject to continuous improvement and updates to adapt to evolving market dynamics and ensure its effectiveness in providing a reliable framework for valuation.
• Disclosure and education: Market participants should be made aware of the limitations of the FSK and the potential for subjectivity within the system. Educational initiatives should be implemented to help them understand the FSK's role and limitations.

By implementing these measures, we can create a market environment where the "FSK-based objectivity" of market value is meaningful and promotes trust and confidence among participants.

Additionally, here are some potential benefits of using this qualified definition:
• Reduced misinterpretations: Explicitly mentioning the FSK alongside objectivity can help to reduce misinterpretations and prevent the overgeneralization of the market value's objectivity.
• Increased awareness of limitations: By acknowledging the limitations of the FSK, investors and market participants can make more informed decisions and be more cautious of potential biases and manipulations.
• Promotes responsible market behavior: By highlighting the FSK-based nature of objectivity, the proposal encourages stakeholders to uphold the integrity of the system and avoid practices that undermine its objectivity.

Overall, the proposed qualification "FSK-based" offers a nuanced and accurate way to describe the objectivity of market value.
By addressing the inherent subjectivity within the system while acknowledging the role of the FSK, this approach can contribute to a more transparent and efficient market environment.

[Iwannaplato]

From Bard [with reservations];

From Chatgpt

Category Error:
Share prices and morality belong to different categories. Share prices are financial indicators, and their objectivity is subject to economic and market conditions. Morality, on the other hand, involves ethical principles and human behavior. Attempting to draw a direct analogy between these disparate domains oversimplifies their complexities and is confused.

Nature of Objectivity:
Share prices are influenced by both objective factors (financial data, market performance) and subjective factors (investor sentiment, speculation). While there is an attempt to quantify and analyze these factors, share prices are not objective. Morality, on the other hand, involves inherently subjective elements, and whether it can be considered entirely objective is a complex philosophical question.

Cultural Variability:
Morality is often influenced by cultural, societal, and individual perspectives. Different cultures may have different moral values and norms. This cultural relativity contrasts with the attempt to present share prices as universally objective. The analogy overlooks the cultural and contextual aspects inherent in moral judgments.

Quantifiability:
Share prices can be quantified and measured in numerical terms, making them more amenable to objective analysis. Morality, however, often involves qualitative judgments that are not easily quantifiable. Attempting to equate the objectivity of share prices with morality overlooks the inherent challenges in objectively measuring ethical considerations.

Philosophical Complexity:
The nature of morality is a deeply philosophical and debated topic. Different ethical theories propose various foundations for morality, and whether morality can be considered entirely objective is a matter of philosophical perspective. The analogy oversimplifies the philosophical complexities of moral reasoning.

In summary, the analogy oversimplifies the differences between the domains of finance and ethics, mischaracterizes the nature of objectivity in both share prices and morality, and neglects the cultural and philosophical nuances inherent in moral judgments. It's crucial to approach discussions about share prices and morality with an awareness of their distinct characteristics and complexities.

I mean, yeah, let's just let the AI fight it out while we eat, have sex and sleep.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From Bard [with reservations];

From Chatgpt

Category Error:
Share prices and morality belong to different categories. Share prices are financial indicators, and their objectivity is subject to economic and market conditions. Morality, on the other hand, involves ethical principles and human behavior. Attempting to draw a direct analogy between these disparate domains oversimplifies their complexities and is confused.

Nature of Objectivity:
Share prices are influenced by both objective factors (financial data, market performance) and subjective factors (investor sentiment, speculation). While there is an attempt to quantify and analyze these factors, share prices are not objective. Morality, on the other hand, involves inherently subjective elements, and whether it can be considered entirely objective is a complex philosophical question.

Cultural Variability:
Morality is often influenced by cultural, societal, and individual perspectives. Different cultures may have different moral values and norms. This cultural relativity contrasts with the attempt to present share prices as universally objective. The analogy overlooks the cultural and contextual aspects inherent in moral judgments.

Quantifiability:
Share prices can be quantified and measured in numerical terms, making them more amenable to objective analysis. Morality, however, often involves qualitative judgments that are not easily quantifiable. Attempting to equate the objectivity of share prices with morality overlooks the inherent challenges in objectively measuring ethical considerations.

Philosophical Complexity:
The nature of morality is a deeply philosophical and debated topic. Different ethical theories propose various foundations for morality, and whether morality can be considered entirely objective is a matter of philosophical perspective. The analogy oversimplifies the philosophical complexities of moral reasoning.

In summary, the analogy oversimplifies the differences between the domains of finance and ethics, mischaracterizes the nature of objectivity in both share prices and morality, and neglects the cultural and philosophical nuances inherent in moral judgments. It's crucial to approach discussions about share prices and morality with an awareness of their distinct characteristics and complexities.

I mean, yeah, let's just let the AI fight it out while we eat, have sex and sleep.

The above is a strawman from you [not ChatGpt] because you presented a bias view to ChatGpt.

I did not compare share-prices with morality directly.
That is just like insisting Physics and Biology are the same thing.
The point is Physics and Biology has a common denominator in term of the scientific FSK [a generic scientific method and other conditions] and a human-based FSK in general that is universal to all fields of knowledge and the realization of its respective realities.

What I am comparing in using share prices is that
share prices are not depended on physical objects but rather on subjective individuals opinions, beliefs and judgements which are a pooled within of a collective-of-subjects modelled on a generic human-based FSR-FSK; on this basis they are objective as qualified.

Moral elements [the major aspects of it] within morality-proper are not depended on physical objects but rather on subjective individuals opinions, beliefs and judgements which are a pooled within of a collective-of-subjects modelled on a generic human-based FSR-FSK; on this basis they are objective as qualified.

Did you read properly?
ChatGpt stated
"the nature of objectivity in both share prices and morality"
implying ChatGpt agree there is 'objectivity' in both share-prices and morality which is my point.

If I were to present to ChatGpt my views and contents, in this case, it will definitely give the same answer as Bard.
From my experience Bard and ChatGpt agree on the main principles but do give slightly different answers at the fringes - no issue for me since I understand the context.

Actually Bard did not give me the final answer immediately, but only after I have provided the appropriate context.

[Sculptor]

A share price is but a number.
It is either true or a lie. It has no moral content.

Get a life.

That is a deflection.
Everything that is digitized is a number.

I asked, are share-prices listed in say the London Stock Exchange, objective or not?

That is not at issue.
IN your idiocy you said the share price in London is objective therefor morality is objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A share price is but a number.
It is either true or a lie. It has no moral content.

Get a life.

That is a deflection.
Everything that is digitized is a number.

I asked, are share-prices listed in say the London Stock Exchange, objective or not?

That is not at issue.
IN your idiocy you said the share price in London is objective therefor morality is objective.

Read my post above yours [to IWP] before commenting.