Stock Exchange Morality

[Sculptor]

Current Crude Oil shares.

WTI Crude 68.1 -0.69%
Brent Crude 72.73 -0.70%

Current price per barrel, and change from yesterday.


The prices of a share is based on two things and calculated from one.

When a person wishes to sell they post a price. And when another wishes to buy they post a price. When those two numbers agree the sale is made. and the published share price is the average of all the sales made in the preceding moments.
This price can fluctuate according to the changes in value.
Those values are based on the subjective viewpoints of the buyers and the sellers.
This rarely reflects the actual value of the assets represented. And often the assets can exceed the share price. When this happens dealers buy up the cheap shares and sell off the assets, leading to mass unemployment despite the business contributing to the economy.
The converse can happen, in that the share price can exceed the value of the assets represented. Eventually this bubble can burst leaving behind carnage too..

What is funny about In Vino Veritas's latest ploy is that this is the model he wishes to apply to morality.

What an absolute tool!!
LOL

What would this so called objective number mean for say Killing children?

Current Child Corporal Punishment opinions.

Islamic abuse 50.1% +0.39%
Christian abuse 83.5 % -0.90%

%age of people who think its a bad thing, and change from yesterday.

Even if this were a useful way to think or morality. How would you gather the figures and what would that mean for legislation and moral norms?

[Veritas Aequitas]

...........
Even if this were a useful way to think or morality. How would you gather the figures and what would that mean for legislation and moral norms?

Your above is a strawman.
Here is what I wrote:

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.

I am not applying the economics principles of supply vs demand etc. to morality.
Economics is independent from morality but what I had argued is they are grounded on a generic model of a human based FSK.
Point is share-prices not depended on the so-called matter-of-fact are FSK-based objective.
Therefore moral elements not depended on the so-called matter-of-fact are FSK-based objective, within a human based morality-proper FSK.

The general rule is as long as a claim* is FSK-based [collective of subjects' head/mind], it is objective which can be of varying degree of which the scientific FSK is the most objective.
* not necessary a matter of fact, but even applicable to judgments based on sentiments like share-prices.

Therefore moral elements [nothing to do share prices, supply vs demand, economics], i.e. the "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" are based on intuitions, beliefs and judgments, can be objective when it is conditioned within a FSK, i.e. a morality-proper FSK.
Therefore morality is objective [varying degrees] in the FSK-sense just as any claim [share-prices, scientific facts,] is objective in the FSK-sense.

Get it?
Your OP is a strawman.

[Iwannaplato]

...........
Even if this were a useful way to think or morality. How would you gather the figures and what would that mean for legislation and moral norms?

Your above is a strawman.
Here is what I wrote:

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.

With physics and biology, you have a methodology to decide which of two hypotheses about the nature of, say, an enzyme, is correct.
So when you have two opposing moralities, what is the methodology to determine which is correct,
that doesn't itself have a morality - priorities and goals and values - built into it.
How do convince teams in Cairo, Tokyo and Detroit to use the same methodology to evaluate the moral hypotheses the same way they might well around the exact chemical formula of a newly found enzyme?

[Veritas Aequitas]

...........
Even if this were a useful way to think or morality. How would you gather the figures and what would that mean for legislation and moral norms?

Your above is a strawman.
Here is what I wrote:

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.

With physics and biology, you have a methodology to decide which of two hypotheses about the nature of, say, an enzyme, is correct.
So when you have two opposing moralities, what is the methodology to determine which is correct,
that doesn't itself have a morality - priorities and goals and values - built into it.
How do convince teams in Cairo, Tokyo and Detroit to use the same methodology to evaluate the moral hypotheses the same way they might well around the exact chemical formula of a newly found enzyme?

It is problem to get a universal agreement for a moral element, say:
"It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"
Sure there will be perverts, but out of 8+ billion, how many do you think will disagree with the above moral maxim?
Hamas will agree it is permissible to kill babies in a self-declared war and terror attack, but how many are their proportion to the 8+ billion at present.

With the above in mind, we can set up a human-based moral FSK to take into account the above.
Because all FSKs are objective, thus the moral maxim;
"It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"
is objective.

It is FSK-based objective, but to what degree is that objectivity, say in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard?

Here is we go into the exercise of rating the objectivity of the FSK as presented in another thread.

But the point so far is, this moral element is objective.

So when you have two opposing moralities, what is the methodology to determine which is correct,

Say there two opposing maxims [supposedly moral]:
1. "It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"
2. "It is permissible to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"

Both are conditioned within their respective FSK.
At a glance based on acceptance, it is obvious 1 is more objective than 2.
It is undeniable both are FSK-based objective with one less objective than the other.

Further, we can contrast them with the standard, i.e. the scientific FSK.
Elsewhere I had proposed a moral element can be verified and justified within a scientific FSK.
If it is scientific verified and justified then its objectivity will be increased higher and nearer to the scientific FSK objectivity.

How do convince teams in Cairo, Tokyo and Detroit to use the same methodology to evaluate the moral hypotheses the same way they might well around the exact chemical formula of a newly found enzyme?

Regardless of locations, all humans has the same basic essential human nature.
Take for example, the moral element,
"Slavery is not permissible"
is condemned [politically] as immoral in ALL sovereign nations in the world.
This political point can be reconciled in terms of morality.

[Sculptor]

...........
Even if this were a useful way to think or morality. How would you gather the figures and what would that mean for legislation and moral norms?

Your above is a strawman.
Here is what I wrote:

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.

With physics and biology, you have a methodology to decide which of two hypotheses about the nature of, say, an enzyme, is correct.
So when you have two opposing moralities, what is the methodology to determine which is correct,
that doesn't itself have a morality - priorities and goals and values - built into it.
How do convince teams in Cairo, Tokyo and Detroit to use the same methodology to evaluate the moral hypotheses the same way they might well around the exact chemical formula of a newly found enzyme?

Good questions, which have been asked in various forms, and he, has, in various ways ignored and avoided.

[Sculptor]

"It is permissible to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"

Can you say that for sure. And can you say why?

I'm interested in the codicil; "for pleasure". How could you prove the crime was done for pleasure, and would it not be a crime without that codicil? Since feelings are subjective, how does this figure into an Objective Morality?

And, Codicil or not, what is the basis for you declaring this a moral crime?
How can you tell?

[FlashDangerpants]

It is problem to get a universal agreement for a moral element

No, that's never been the actual problem. It's cause for concern that you still don't get that.

There's a mechanism in chemistry by virtue of which it is either true or untrue that five amino acids possess a charge at neutral pH. There is no equivalent mechanism that makes it true or untrue that the previous information makes Dow Chemical a good stock. That second thing is subject to subjective intentions and desires.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"It is permissible to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"

Can you say that for sure. And can you say why?

I'm interested in the codicil; "for pleasure". How could you prove the crime was done for pleasure, and would it not be a crime without that codicil? Since feelings are subjective, how does this figure into an Objective Morality?

And, Codicil or not, what is the basis for you declaring this a moral crime?
How can you tell?

I wrote;
Say there two opposing maxims [supposedly moral]:
1. "It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"
2. "It is permissible to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"

"For pleasure" can be psychologically tested and verified.
It is likely to be verified by neuroscience, i.e. when the identified pleasure centers in the brain fire.

The basic moral element is the "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" thus applicable to human babies as well.
It is not a moral crime, i.e. morality [objective principles] is independent from politics [crime].

The "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" is evident from via induction.
The majority as gathered from common and public knowledge will agree that to kill another human is evil [immoral].
This is reflected indirectly from politics [with exception] that all murders are punished severely.

My principle is:
What is objective is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of subjects] is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
Therefore, whatever is conditioned upon a human based FSK is is objective.
This FSK-based objectivity comes in varying degrees.

When the moral element "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" is conditioned within a human based FSK, i.e. a morality-proper FSK, it is considered to be objective in the FSK-sense.
Note the necessary qualification, i.e. objective in the FSK-sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is problem to get a universal agreement for a moral element

No, that's never been the actual problem. It's cause for concern that you still don't get that.

There's a mechanism in chemistry by virtue of which it is either true or untrue that five amino acids possess a charge at neutral pH. There is no equivalent mechanism that makes it true or untrue that the previous information makes Dow Chemical a good stock. That second thing is subject to subjective intentions and desires.

The most critical element whether something is true or false within Chemistry is the human-based science-chemistry FSK.
No one can simply claim 'water is H20' because he, his mother or father, God said so.
In the claim 'water is H20' and other chemical facts, it is implicit the claim [normally not mentioned] is inherently qualified to the human-based science-chemistry FSK.

It not about whether Dow Chemical is a good or bad stock.
Rather, the contention is that there is a share price associated of Dow Chemical stocks at a particular time.
This share-price at a particular time is objective, i.e. FSK-based objective as conditioned upon the human-based economic-NYSE-FSK just as the 'water is h20' is conditioned upon the human-based science-chemistry FSK.

"subjective intentions and desires" are not critical in denying objectivity within human-based FSK.
The science-chemistry FSK can also be tainted with subjectivity from scientist's bias, assumption in science, funding etc.
However, the amount of subjectivity may determine the degrees of objectivity in inverse proportions, it cannot deny objectivity within a human-based FSK [collective-of-subjects].

[Iwannaplato]

It is problem to get a universal agreement for a moral element

No, that's never been the actual problem. It's cause for concern that you still don't get that.

There's a mechanism in chemistry by virtue of which it is either true or untrue that five amino acids possess a charge at neutral pH. There is no equivalent mechanism that makes it true or untrue that the previous information makes Dow Chemical a good stock. That second thing is subject to subjective intentions and desires.

And even the stocks, which are hardly objective can be analyzed on some objective grounds. A company loses 2 billion on a project for example.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is problem to get a universal agreement for a moral element

No, that's never been the actual problem. It's cause for concern that you still don't get that.

There's a mechanism in chemistry by virtue of which it is either true or untrue that five amino acids possess a charge at neutral pH. There is no equivalent mechanism that makes it true or untrue that the previous information makes Dow Chemical a good stock. That second thing is subject to subjective intentions and desires.

The most critical element whether something is true or false within Chemistry is the human-based science-chemistry FSK.

Sane human beings would say that the presence and arrangement of electrons and protons and stuff like that have quite an important role in chemistry.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is problem to get a universal agreement for a moral element

No, that's never been the actual problem. It's cause for concern that you still don't get that.

There's a mechanism in chemistry by virtue of which it is either true or untrue that five amino acids possess a charge at neutral pH. There is no equivalent mechanism that makes it true or untrue that the previous information makes Dow Chemical a good stock. That second thing is subject to subjective intentions and desires.

And even the stocks, which are hardly objective can be analyzed on some objective grounds. A company loses 2 billion on a project for example.

Indeed so. There's a clear boundary between such facts and values and VA has wasted so many years trying to pretend he doesn't notice it that I fear his brain may have boiled away and it may be the case that he no longer can see it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is problem to get a universal agreement for a moral element

No, that's never been the actual problem. It's cause for concern that you still don't get that.

There's a mechanism in chemistry by virtue of which it is either true or untrue that five amino acids possess a charge at neutral pH. There is no equivalent mechanism that makes it true or untrue that the previous information makes Dow Chemical a good stock. That second thing is subject to subjective intentions and desires.

And even the stocks, which are hardly objective can be analyzed on some objective grounds. A company loses 2 billion on a project for example.

You are confused.
A project that caused a loss has no direct relevance to this issue re objectivity in this case.

Recently Bud light lost $27 billion in market value [quoted at a particular time] from using a trans to advertise their beer.

• By that month, Bud Light's parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev lost $27 billion in market value. Link

The question is how objective is the fact that Bud light lost $27 billion in market value.

The objectivity of the above fact will depend on the following;
1. The total market value capitalization at date X
2. The total market value capitalization at a later date Y.
3. Total market value capitalization X-Y = $27 billion.
4. Total market value capitalization to Total Shares x Share unit price at a date listed in the human based NYSE-FSK.
5. Whatever is conditioned upon a FSK is objective, i.e. FSK-based objective.
6. The Share-price of Bud-light is conditioned upon the Economic NYSE-FSK is objective.

Therefore the objectivity of the fact that Bud light lost $27 billion in market value is conditioned upon the human-based NYSE-FSK.
Without the the human-based NYSE-FSK, the above statement could not be an objective economics facts.

The project is secondary.
The main objective fact is Bud light lost $27 billion in market value.

Get it?

[Iwannaplato]

You are confused.
A project that caused a loss has no direct relevance to this issue re objectivity in this case.

I'm not confused. Part of the topic of the thread is the objectivity of stocks. I pointed out that there are actual events and physical changes that can but do not necessarily lead to a stock going down, for example. That's actually agreeing with part of your assertions in the OP. I don't agree with the whole thesis, but oddly my supporting one part of your premises is deemed confused.

Recently Bud light lost $27 billion in market value [quoted at a particular time] from using a trans to advertise their beer.

• By that month, Bud Light's parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev lost $27 billion in market value. Link

The question is how objective is the fact that Bud light lost $27 billion in market value.

If I had argued that all changes in stock prices reflected changes in the economics of the company, your counterexample would make sense. But I NEVER ARGUED THAT, in my response to another person posting. I am pretty sure he understood what I meant, so perhaps you haven't read well and are confused and have a logic problem.

If I say some X are Y, that doesn't entail that all X are Y.

Do you understand this?

And I would react so snarkily but you went as usual ad hom and condescending when in fact it was you who drew conclusions I did not and attributed a postion to me that I never asserted nor is it entailed by what I said.

Get it?

Do you get it? is the issue.

I mean seriously, do you think anyone here is unaware that stock prices can be affected by almost anything? I referred to stocks as hardly objective. Can you read? If a company lost a billion dollars and that affected stock price that would probably be objective. But I said they are HARDLY OBJECTIVE. Can you read?

I mean, seriously, climb in the whole (yes, with the 'w') of your solipsism.

[Sculptor]

"It is permissible to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"

Can you say that for sure. And can you say why?

I'm interested in the codicil; "for pleasure". How could you prove the crime was done for pleasure, and would it not be a crime without that codicil? Since feelings are subjective, how does this figure into an Objective Morality?

And, Codicil or not, what is the basis for you declaring this a moral crime?
How can you tell?

I wrote;
Say there two opposing maxims [supposedly moral]:
1. "It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"
2. "It is permissible to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"

"For pleasure" can be psychologically tested and verified.

NO it cannot. There is no practicable way to determine this in normal situations.

.

The "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" is evident from via induction.
The majority as gathered from common and public knowledge will agree that to kill another human is evil [immoral].
This is reflected indirectly from politics [with exception] that all murders are punished severely.

Go ahead and show the induction.!
Why is it immoral to kill?
Just because murder is punished is not a reason. "murder" is defined as illegal killing. That is a circular argument since there are many other forms of killing that are not illegal, and some involve pleasure.

My principle is:
What is objective is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of subjects] is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
Therefore, whatever is conditioned upon a human based FSK is is objective.
This FSK-based objectivity comes in varying degrees.

You have not begum to answer my questions, you are just self referring again

When the moral element "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" is conditioned within a human based FSK, i.e. a morality-proper FSK, it is considered to be objective in the FSK-sense.
Note the necessary qualification, i.e. objective in the FSK-sense.

If a hangman enjoys his work, is that a crime? More importantly is that immoral. and WHY.

You still have not begun to address my questions.
This is your big chance..
You have chosen the most extreme example of human behaviour in order to nail your colours to the mast, so you should be able in this instance, at least to say why you think :
"killing Babies for pleasure".
is objectively morally bad..

All you have said so far is that "public knowledge" is evidence that it is.
So you seem to be saying that as long as most people such as the Israeli population agree that killing 4000 children is morally justified, then that makes it okay?