What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You keep making the same mistake. You correctly assert the provisional nature of scientific conclusions about reality. And you correctly conclude that this means we can never be certain about those conclusions.

Strawman.
That is not my claim.
I asserted the provisional nature of scientific conclusion about a reality that is not absolutely independent of the human condition, and that is based on a reality that emerged and is realized in correlation with the human conditions.

But then you conclude that there can be no reality beyond our provisional conclusions. And that doesn't follow. Philosophical is not the claim of absolute certainty that you insist it must be. This is your straw man - which you must have, to sustain your silly anti-realism.

As I had stated, there is no reality that is absolutely independent of the human condition but there is only a reality that is relatively independent of the human condition.
You are unable to grasp this nuance.

Btw, do not assume I am the only one who is claiming the above; there is a whole community of anti-realists with more advanced thinking than your primitive evolutionary default thinking.
There is also a community of moral realists and their credible argument that morality is objective.

At present, you are simply assuming the claim based on faith [no rational proofs] because the majority agree with you. That is a fallacy.
In addition you are merely relying on the traditional arguments [lost their bites] against moral realism.

My approach is more rational and realistic because it is confined to whatever the empirical can support within a human based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

I've been doing little but explain the silliness of your argument to you for ages. There's no point.

Where?
You have not provided any convincing proof, so far you are simply assuming the claim is true based on faith [no rational proofs] because the majority agree with you.

Btw, your original target is moral objective from theists of which there is negligible credibility and objective, but nevertheless has some usefulness, e.g. those of Christianity, not Islam.

But you have not provided any convincing counter to my FSERC based moral objectivity.

[Peter Holmes]

The Mirror Metaphor

Philosophical (metaphysical or ontological) realism has been criticised for its supposed assumption that our descriptions do or can show reality as it really is, as though such descriptions capture reality exactly, as in a mirror.

And correspondence theories of truth (which refer to linguistic factual assertions) perform the same function: a factual assertion is true (is a 'truth-bearer') because it 'correctly' describes a feature of reality (a 'truth-maker').

Point is, the mirror metaphor and correspondence theories are obviously both wrong. Descriptions are always contextual and conventional. But that doesn't mean there can be no reality that descriptions fail to mirror, or correspond to - which is what philosophical anti-realists maintain. That conclusion is a non sequitur.

In other words, philosophical anti-realism depends on straw-manning philosophical realism, by falsely claiming that philosophical realism depends on mirroring or correspondence assumptions. And it doesn't.

To find a way out, I've proposed a methodological taxonomy. There are three separate things: features of reality that are or were the case; things we believe and know about them; and things we say about them, which classically may be true or false, given the way we use the signs in context.

VA's version of anti-realism amounts to denying that there are features of reality that are or were the case, but only things we believe, know and say about them. And I think this is a fundamental mistake - for one reason, because of its absurd anthropocentrism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Mirror Metaphor

Philosophical (metaphysical or ontological) realism has been criticised for its supposed assumption that our descriptions do or can show reality as it really is, as though such descriptions capture reality exactly, as in a mirror.

And correspondence theories of truth (which refer to linguistic factual assertions) perform the same function: a factual assertion is true (is a 'truth-bearer') because it 'correctly' describes a feature of reality (a 'truth-maker').

Point is, the mirror metaphor and correspondence theories are obviously both wrong. Descriptions are always contextual and conventional. But that doesn't mean there can be no reality that descriptions fail to mirror, or correspond to - which is what philosophical anti-realists maintain. That conclusion is a non sequitur.

In other words, philosophical anti-realism depends on straw-manning philosophical realism, by falsely claiming that philosophical realism depends on mirroring or correspondence assumptions. And it doesn't.

The definition of philosophical realism is:

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) 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

In addition, the thing exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.



There are various forms of philosophical realism [the essence is human or mind independence].
I have already mentioned many time, I understand you do not agree with the picture or common linguistic form of the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

But your belief is essentially philosophical realism i.e. the thing literally exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exist regardless of whether there are human or not.

That is what Kant identify and labelled the noumena.
As such there is an existential GAP between the absolutely independent thing and the human subject.
To be realistic there must be some sort of bridge between the absolutely independent things [the perceived] and the human perceiver.

If you don't agree with the correspondence via picture theory and common linguistic representation, then how do you bridge the gap that will enable to know what that independent thing is.
At the end, you have to resort to some kind of cognitive process and description.

When pressed, you mentioned science.
But as I had argued, science does not do that to bridge what is out there with the human condition.
Science is at best a human-based conjecture-polishing-machine.
Even if you insist upon science, science is a human-based machine and thus deductively its resultants are conditioned upon the human conditioned.

There is no way, you can confirmed there is something out there that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The most you can do is to assume and yelp, there is something independent out there.

It is because of the above constraint that you have to surrender your philosophical realist's claim there is an absolutely independent thing out there.
This is what the pyrrhonian skeptic did, i.e. suspend judgment there is something absolutely independent out there.

[Peter Holmes]

The Mirror Metaphor

Philosophical (metaphysical or ontological) realism has been criticised for its supposed assumption that our descriptions do or can show reality as it really is, as though such descriptions capture reality exactly, as in a mirror.

And correspondence theories of truth (which refer to linguistic factual assertions) perform the same function: a factual assertion is true (is a 'truth-bearer') because it 'correctly' describes a feature of reality (a 'truth-maker').

Point is, the mirror metaphor and correspondence theories are obviously both wrong. Descriptions are always contextual and conventional. But that doesn't mean there can be no reality that descriptions fail to mirror, or correspond to - which is what philosophical anti-realists maintain. That conclusion is a non sequitur.

In other words, philosophical anti-realism depends on straw-manning philosophical realism, by falsely claiming that philosophical realism depends on mirroring or correspondence assumptions. And it doesn't.

The definition of philosophical realism is:

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) 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

In addition, the thing exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.



There are various forms of philosophical realism [the essence is human or mind independence].
I have already mentioned many time, I understand you do not agree with the picture or common linguistic form of the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

But your belief is essentially philosophical realism i.e. the thing literally exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exist regardless of whether there are human or not.

That is what Kant identify and labelled the noumena.
As such there is an existential GAP between the absolutely independent thing and the human subject.
To be realistic there must be some sort of bridge between the absolutely independent things [the perceived] and the human perceiver.

If you don't agree with the correspondence via picture theory and common linguistic representation, then how do you bridge the gap that will enable to know what that independent thing is.
At the end, you have to resort to some kind of cognitive process and description.

When pressed, you mentioned science.
But as I had argued, science does not do that to bridge what is out there with the human condition.
Science is at best a human-based conjecture-polishing-machine.
Even if you insist upon science, science is a human-based machine and thus deductively its resultants are conditioned upon the human conditioned.

There is no way, you can confirmed there is something out there that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The most you can do is to assume and yelp, there is something independent out there.

It is because of the above constraint that you have to surrender your philosophical realist's claim there is an absolutely independent thing out there.
This is what the pyrrhonian skeptic did, i.e. suspend judgment there is something absolutely independent out there.

1 You don't address my argument about mirroring and correspondence.
2 Prove that nothing exists absolutely independent from humans. Just saying it is useless.
3 Prove that, before life forms evolved, the universe didn't exist absolutely independent from life forms. Just saying that it can't have done is useless.

[Peter Holmes]

Calling VA.

You say reality can't be absolutely independent from rabbits. So please complete the following sentence.

The part or aspect of reality that is relatively independent from rabbits is...

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 You don't address my argument about mirroring and correspondence.

I have done that above.

2 Prove that nothing exists absolutely independent from humans. Just saying it is useless.

The onus is on you to prove something can exists absolutely independent from humans.

I have proven whatever that exists as real is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC, e.g. atoms exist is contingent upon the human-based science chemistry FS Emergence & Realization of Reality C.
Therefore it is impossible for anything to exists as real without any relations to the human conditions.

3 Prove that, before life forms evolved, the universe didn't exist absolutely independent from life forms. Just saying that it can't have done is useless.

Again, the onus is on you to prove something can exists absolutely independent from humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Calling VA.

You say reality can't be absolutely independent from rabbits. So please complete the following sentence.

The part or aspect of reality that is relatively independent from rabbits is...

I stated that reality [rabbit related reality] is from the perspective of the rabbit's consciousness whatever that is.
Whatever reality that is emerged and is realized is contingent to the rabbit states of existence and consciousness.

The grass that the rabbit perceived is relatively independent from the rabbit, it cannot be absolutely independent of the rabbit. If the rabbits are extinct, there is no rabbits-related-reality.

Because humans are not rabbits, humans cannot realize a rabbit-related-reality.

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Please complete the following sentence.

The part or aspect of reality that is relatively independent from life forms is...

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. Please complete the following sentence.
The part or aspect of reality that is relatively independent from life forms is...

There is no part nor aspect of reality in this case.
It is just that whatever is reality is relatively independent of the life forms condition and cannot be absolutely independent of it.
Btw, non-human life forms are not in a position [don't have the self-awareness] to make the delusional claim that reality and things are absolutely independent of their inherent conditions.

It is only humans philosophical realists who are delusional to claim reality and things are absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
The are driven by the evolutionary default and existential crisis to make such a delusional claim.

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Please complete the following sentence.
The part or aspect of reality that is relatively independent from life forms is...

There is no part nor aspect of reality in this case.

So here's your premise: No part or aspect of reality is relatively independent from life forms.

And this belies your claim that your anti-realist theory\ is 'nuanced'. You can delete the word 'relatively', because it adds nothing. So your premise is this:

No part or aspect of reality is independent from life forms. And the corollary is this:

All parts or aspects of reality are dependent on life forms. And to simplify:

Reality depends on life forms. From which it follows that:

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe.

[Peter Holmes]

Of course, if there were no life forms, there would be no perception, knowledge or descriptions of reality by life forms. But we're not talking perception, knowledge and descriptions of reality. We're talking about reality itself - the universe. And your conclusion is: no life forms = no reality - no universe.

And if you don't agree with that conclusion, it comes directly from your premise. So you disagree with your premise. Which is because it's silly.

[Age]

VA. Please complete the following sentence.
The part or aspect of reality that is relatively independent from life forms is...

There is no part nor aspect of reality in this case.

So here's your premise: No part or aspect of reality is relatively independent from life forms.

And this belies your claim that your anti-realist theory\ is 'nuanced'. You can delete the word 'relatively', because it adds nothing. So your premise is this:

No part or aspect of reality is independent from life forms. And the corollary is this:

All parts or aspects of reality are dependent on life forms. And to simplify:

Reality depends on life forms. From which it follows that:

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe.

But, since there is a Universe, Reality, and life forms, and that these are eternal, then there was, nor will be, no 'time' ever with no life forms.

[Peter Holmes]

There is no part nor aspect of reality in this case.

So here's your premise: No part or aspect of reality is relatively independent from life forms.

And this belies your claim that your anti-realist theory\ is 'nuanced'. You can delete the word 'relatively', because it adds nothing. So your premise is this:

No part or aspect of reality is independent from life forms. And the corollary is this:

All parts or aspects of reality are dependent on life forms. And to simplify:

Reality depends on life forms. From which it follows that:

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe.

But, since there is a Universe, Reality, and life forms, and that these are eternal, then there was, nor will be, no 'time' ever with no life forms.

There's no evidence that life forms are eternal. All the evidence contradicts that claim.

[Age]

So here's your premise: No part or aspect of reality is relatively independent from life forms.

And this belies your claim that your anti-realist theory\ is 'nuanced'. You can delete the word 'relatively', because it adds nothing. So your premise is this:

No part or aspect of reality is independent from life forms. And the corollary is this:

All parts or aspects of reality are dependent on life forms. And to simplify:

Reality depends on life forms. From which it follows that:

If there were no life forms, there would be no reality - no universe.

But, since there is a Universe, Reality, and life forms, and that these are eternal, then there was, nor will be, no 'time' ever with no life forms.

There's no evidence that life forms are eternal.

Okay. If this is what you want to keep 'believing' is true, then there is absolutely nothing else to say here.

After all what else could anyone else say here, now?

All the evidence contradicts that claim.

What are you calling 'evidence' here, exactly?

And,

Where do you get 'evidence' from, exactly?

[Peter Holmes]

But, since there is a Universe, Reality, and life forms, and that these are eternal, then there was, nor will be, no 'time' ever with no life forms.

There's no evidence that life forms are eternal.

Okay. If this is what you want to keep 'believing' is true, then there is absolutely nothing else to say here.

After all what else could anyone else say here, now?

Agreed. End of.