What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What do analytic philosophers analyse?

It's not rabbits, iow, reality. Natural and social scientists do that.

And it can't be concepts, because they're empty fictions with no explanatory value whatsoever.

So what's left for analytic philosophers to analyse?

And what conclusions do such analyses produce?

Here's from AI[wR]

Analytic philosophy primarily analyzes language and concepts.

While the term "analysis" is broad and can encompass many things, the core focus of analytic philosophy is to break down complex ideas into simpler components to understand their meaning, structure, and logical relationships.
This is often done through careful examination of language, as words and sentences are the primary tools we use to express and communicate thoughts.

Here are some specific areas of focus:

Language analysis: This involves studying the structure of language, the meaning of words, and how language relates to thought and reality. Philosophers in this area often examine issues like reference, truth, and meaning.

Concept analysis: This involves breaking down complex concepts into simpler components to understand their nature and relationships. For example, philosophers might analyze the concept of knowledge, morality, or causation.

Logical analysis: Analytic philosophers use formal logic to analyze arguments and reasoning. This involves identifying the premises and conclusions of arguments, determining their validity, and uncovering logical fallacies.

Philosophical problems: Analytic philosophers apply their methods of analysis to traditional philosophical questions such as the nature of consciousness, free will, and the existence of God.

It's important to note that while language and concepts are central to analytic philosophy, it's not limited to these areas. Analytic philosophers also investigate a wide range of topics, including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of science.

You seem to be ignorant of what Analytic Philosophy is??

I believe your belief of 'what is fact' is from the Analytic tradition.
You disagree?

I have charged your belief of 'what is fact' is not credible at all because you are are merely relying on your first person opinion, beliefs and judgment, thus very subjective.
You have failed to provide supporting reference and some sort of authority for your belief of 'what is fact'.
Yet, you are so arrogant in insisting Morality is not Objective based on your flimsy unsupported principle of what is fact.

Seriously I have trying to establish what are your supporting references for your "what is fact"; perhaps a relook of your "cobwebbed" library of books you have read may give you a clue.

Phew. What did we do before AI sorted it all out? But have a think about the following.

1 Language analysis. This is what grammarians do, and it includes semantics. So what's left for analytic philosophers is 'how language relates to thought and reality', including analysis of 'reference', 'truth' and 'meaning'. But, apart from being words that we use in different ways in different contexts, what exactly are thought, reference, truth and meaning? Are they things that can be analysed? And if so, how?

2 Concept analysis. Concepts are empty fictions invented to pad out the myth of the mind - which is, of course, a concept. Calling something a concept explains nothing whatsoever. So what can 'breaking down complex concepts into simpler components' involve? It always boils down to explaining the use of signs such as words. Please produce one example of a conceptual analysis that does something else.

3 Logical analysis. A logic deals with language, not the reality outside language. (Other discourses deal with that reality, such as the natural sciences.) A logic deals with what can be said consistently, without contradiction, which is 'speaking against itself'. And the logical form of an assertion - natural or symbolic - is just another linguistic assertion. Logical analysis is a language game about language, and nothing else.

4 Philosophical problems. Given the above, the claim that 'Analytic philosophers apply their methods of analysis to...the nature of consciousness, free will, and the existence of God', is laughable. 'Well, what are consciousness, free will, reality, knowledge, moral rightness and wrongness, and so on'? And the unacknowledged assumption that these are things of some kind that are not to do with language is a joke.

5 I think that conceptual analysis was and remains a wrong turn to language. But the fact that philosophy's so-called problems are and always were mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention - born of an ancient misunderstanding about the nature and function of language - is undeniable. So the 'turn to language' in philosophy was critical and decisive.

VA, you find sucking on your AI and other comforters acceptable. And you're not alone in rejecting the possibility of thinking outside the box, how ever empty it's shown to be.

The above is all your own noise from your first person's perspective.
It would be more credible if you can provide credible philosophers who support your above views.

Here's from AI [wR]:

2 Concept analysis. Concepts are empty fictions invented to pad out the myth of the mind - which is, of course, a concept.
Calling something a concept explains nothing whatsoever.
So what can 'breaking down complex concepts into simpler components' involve?
It always boils down to explaining the use of signs such as words.
Please produce one example of a conceptual analysis that does something else.

Here's from AI [wR];

The statement is a provocative critique of conceptual analysis. It presents a rather extreme view that concepts are essentially meaningless constructs.

Let's break down the key points and evaluate their validity:

1. "Concepts are empty fictions invented to pad out the myth of the mind":
Overly dismissive: This statement dismisses the entire notion of concepts, which are fundamental to human thought and communication.
Ignorance of cognitive science: While the concept of 'mind' is complex and debated, to outright dismiss it as a myth is to ignore a vast body of scientific research.

2. "Calling something a concept explains nothing whatsoever":
Oversimplification: This is a hasty generalization. While simply labeling something a concept might not provide a full explanation, it is a starting point for analysis.
Neglects the role of concepts: Concepts are the building blocks of our understanding of the world. They allow us to categorize, reason, and communicate effectively.

3. "So what can 'breaking down complex concepts into simpler components' involve?
It always boils down to explaining the use of signs such as words":
Partial truth: It's true that language is often crucial to conceptual analysis, as words are the primary vehicles for expressing concepts.
Overlooks other methods: However, conceptual analysis can also involve examining the underlying structures of thought, exploring the relations between concepts, and identifying necessary and sufficient conditions.

4. "Please produce one example of a conceptual analysis that does something else":
Challenge accepted: While many examples could be provided, a classic one is Plato's analysis of the concept of 'justice' in The Republic. Plato moves beyond mere linguistic analysis to explore the nature of justice as a virtue and its implications for society.
Conclusion:

The given statement, while provocative, is ultimately a simplistic and inaccurate representation of conceptual analysis. It overstates its case by dismissing concepts as mere fictions and reducing conceptual analysis to mere linguistic analysis. While language is important, conceptual analysis is a richer and more complex endeavor.

Point is one of the main purpose of philosophy is to contribute to the well being and flourishing of the invidual[s] and therefrom to humanity.
The use of 'concept' in philosophy is a very effective communication tool for the above purpose.
It is very philosophically immature to reject the use of concepts within philosophy.

VA, you find sucking on your AI and other comforters acceptable.

It is very unintelligent not to exploit the benefits from AI while being mindful of its limitations.
I have other projects to attend to and AI saves me a lot of time whilst expanding my knowledge base.

[Peter Holmes]

Try your Friend with the following questions.

1 What and where are supposed abstract things, such as concepts, and in what way do they exist?

2 How or why is the analysis of a supposed concept, such as justice, different from an explanation of the various ways we use a word, such as 'justice', its cognates and related words, such as 'injustice'?

3 Show where, in 'The Republic', Plato analyses the supposed abstract thing supposedly named by the word 'justice'.

4 How can a supposed abstract thing be a tool for communication?

I won't bother, because your Friend just mindlessly regurgitates the very unacknowledged assumptions that I question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Try your Friend with the following questions.

1 What and where are supposed abstract things, such as concepts, and in what way do they exist?

2 How or why is the analysis of a supposed concept, such as justice, different from an explanation of the various ways we use a word, such as 'justice', its cognates and related words, such as 'injustice'?

3 Show where, in 'The Republic', Plato analyses the supposed abstract thing supposedly named by the word 'justice'.

4 How can a supposed abstract thing be a tool for communication?

I won't bother, because your Friend just mindlessly regurgitates the very unacknowledged assumptions that I question.

Here's AI[wr] response:

Question 1: What and where are supposed abstract things, such as concepts, and in what way do they exist?
Response:
This question delves into the metaphysical nature of concepts, a complex and debated issue in philosophy. There's no universally agreed-upon answer. Here are some possible perspectives:

Idealism: Concepts might exist in a realm of ideas or forms, independent of the physical world.
Platonism: Similar to Idealism, Platonic forms (including concepts) exist in a higher realm.
Conceptualism: Concepts are mental constructs or abstractions derived from experience.
Nominalism: Concepts are merely names or labels we assign to groups of things.
It's important to note that these are just some possibilities, and the question of the nature and existence of concepts remains open.

Question 2: How or why is the analysis of a supposed concept, such as justice, different from an explanation of the various ways we use a word, such as 'justice', its cognates and related words, such as 'injustice'?
Response:
While language is crucial to conceptual analysis, they are not identical.

Conceptual analysis aims to understand the underlying structure and meaning of the concept itself. It seeks to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be considered just.
Linguistic analysis focuses on how the word 'justice' is used in different contexts, its grammatical structure, and its relationship to other words.
While both are valuable, they address different aspects of the concept.

Question 3: Show where, in 'The Republic', Plato analyses the supposed abstract thing supposedly named by the word 'justice'.
Response:
Plato’s exploration of justice in The Republic is complex and multifaceted. However, Book IV is central to his conceptual analysis of justice. Here, he proposes a theory of the soul, dividing it into three parts (reason, spirit, and appetite), and correlating these parts to the structure of the ideal state. Justice, according to Plato, is the harmonious balance of these parts within the individual and the state. While he doesn't explicitly use the term "conceptual analysis," his dialogue represents a deep inquiry into the essence of justice.

Question 4: How can a supposed abstract thing be a tool for communication?
Response:
While concepts themselves might be abstract, they are essential for human communication. Here's how:

Shared understanding: Concepts provide a common ground for people to share thoughts and ideas.
Efficient communication: By using concepts, we can convey complex information concisely.
Problem-solving: Concepts help us analyze problems and develop solutions.
Essentially, concepts are the building blocks of language and thought, making them indispensable for communication.

These responses provide a foundation for further discussion and exploration of the complex issues surrounding conceptual analysis.

Btw, I suggest you create an account with the various AI Chatbot; I guarantee it will expand your knowledge base and kick you out of your tall silo.
ChatGpt
https://openai.com/chatgpt/
ChatGpt4
https://chatbotapp.ai/landing

[Skepdick]

Try your Friend with the following questions.

1 What and where are supposed abstract things, such as concepts, and in what way do they exist?

Try yourself with this question...

What and where is this supposed "existence" (which is an abstract concept) and in what way does it exist?

[Peter Holmes]

In general, anti-realists don't deny the existence of features of reality that are or were the case. Their argument is that these features of reality don't organise themselves into facts that are or were the case.

And I agree. They don't. And to think they do is to mistake things that can be said about features of reality for those features of reality. To mistake the description for the described.

If we do that, it's easy to conclude that, since descriptions are always contextual and conventional, there is no reality outside or beyond our or any possible description. Hence 'there can be no reality-in-itself'.

VA insists that what most of us - undazzled by anti-realist fallacies - ie most non-philosophers - call facts are delusions. So the fact that the universe existed for billennia before life, let alone humans, evolved - and would have existed had life not evolved - is, according to VA, a delusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In general, anti-realists don't deny the existence of features of reality that are or were the case.
Their argument is that these features of reality don't organise themselves into facts that are or were the case.

Strawman as usual.
Anti-realists [Kantian] do believe the features of reality do organize themselves into facts that are or were the case [or state of affairs], and they are organized and contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC. Thus such FSERC-ed facts cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

And I agree. They don't.
And to think they do is to mistake things that can be said about features of reality for those features of reality. To mistake the description for the described.

Yes, antirealists [Kantian] don't.

If we do that, it's easy to conclude that, since descriptions are always contextual and conventional, there is no reality outside or beyond our or any possible description. Hence 'there can be no reality-in-itself'.

VA insists that what most of us - undazzled by anti-realist fallacies - ie most non-philosophers - call facts are delusions. So the fact that the universe existed for billennia before life, let alone humans, evolved - and would have existed had life not evolved - is, according to VA, a delusion.

Nope!

What antirealists [Kantian] believe is the following:
they do believe the features of reality organize themselves into facts that are or were the case [or state of affairs], BUT they
reject the realists' claim that the above is absolute as a dogmatic ideology.

So, it a FSERC-contingent-fact that the universe existed for billennia before life, let alone humans, evolved - and would have existed had life not evolved

Antirealists [Kantian] believe the features of reality spontaneously organize themselves into facts [emerged and are realized as real] that are or were the case [or state of affairs]
as contingent upon a human-based FSERC, thus these FSERC-ed facts are relative and never absolute.
Absolute in the sense, absolute from the human conditions to the extent the realists' facts exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
The philosophical realists claim of a human independent fact is chasing [reifying] an illusion.

Why philosophical realists claim facts as absolutely independent from the human conditions is driven by psychology, i.e. from an evolutionary default of an existential crisis generating cognitive dissonances if philosophical realists believe otherwise.

There is no way for humans to extricate themselves onto an absolute human independent platform to determine and ascertain the absoluteness of an absolute human independent reality.

[Atla]

There is something deeply mad in believing that the idea of the universe organizing itself based on human psychological stuff, isn't driven by psychology, but realism (which denies this) is.

[Peter Holmes]

If

features of reality do organize themselves into facts that are or were the case

then

they are

not

contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC.

QED.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If

features of reality do organize themselves into facts that are or were the case

then

they are

not

contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC.

QED.

Strawman as usual.
You are very deceptive in omitting what I wrote in detail that followed;

VA: Antirealists [Kantian] believe the features of reality spontaneously organize themselves into facts [emerged and are realized as real] that are or were the case [or state of affairs]
as contingent upon a human-based FSERC, thus these FSERC-ed facts are relative and never absolute.
Absolute in the sense, absolute from the human conditions to the extent the realists' facts exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Do you have some sort of intellectual cognitive issues [defects] in missing the above? or were you in a rush to some other tasks.

[Age]

What does make 'morality' objective is the exact same thing/s that make all of the the other 'objective things' 'objective'.

So, all one has to do now is just find out, or learn, and understand what, exactly, makes 'objective things' 'objective', and how 'that' is achieved and occurs.

One just had to put, or add, 'that' to 'morality', itself, to be able to see what is Truly 'morally objective'.

But, obviously one would also have to comprehend and understand 'morality', itself, in a Truly workable and irrefutable way, as well.

Also, and also obviously, while one is believing that 'morality', itself, could never ever be 'objective', then they could never ever work out, nor learn, and understand just what, exactly, makes 'morality', itself, actually, always, 'objective'.

[Peter Holmes]

...features of reality spontaneously organize themselves into facts [emerged and are realized as real] that are or were the case as contingent upon a human-based FSERC...

This is ridiculous. Features of reality don't organise themselves at all. They just are or were. The 'organising' is what we humans do when we describe them - and it's those descriptions that are 'human-based'.

And the condition that facts are 'emerged and...realised as real' is meaningless gibberish.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...features of reality spontaneously organize themselves into facts [emerged and are realized as real] that are or were the case as contingent upon a human-based FSERC...

This is ridiculous. Features of reality don't organise themselves at all. They just are or were. The 'organising' is what we humans do when we describe them - and it's those descriptions that are 'human-based'.

And the condition that facts are 'emerged and...realised as real' is meaningless gibberish.

That is where I accused [as usual and often] your thinking is narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
Seriously, you need to be a member of ChatGpt or other AI Chatbots.

Self-organization, also called spontaneous order in the social sciences, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by seemingly random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback.
The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation.
Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Self-organization naturally occurs between humans with its environment:
See the following Framework and System [FS] where each FS generate its specific FS-facts.

Cybernetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-orga ... ybernetics

Learning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-orga ... n#Learning

Linguistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-orga ... inguistics

Economics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-orga ... #Economics

See, I'd exposed you ignorance of the above.
Do you have counter for it?

[Peter Holmes]

1 Features of reality that are or were the case self-organise.
2 Features of reality that are or were the case self-organise, but only within a 'human-based FSERC'.
3 Features of reality that are or were the case don't self-organise.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA claims that 'With reference [to] morality & ethics on abortion, the question of 'when human life first begin[s]' is a very messy one.'

No, it's not. To say a question is messy or difficult or complex or hard to answer is to say there is an answer, but it's not easy to find. Hence: 'It's hard to say exactly when human life begins'. Iow, human life begins somewhere or some time, but it's hard to say where or when. And this is nonsense.

To be clear: there is no place or time in the development of a human life that, as a matter of fact, is the beginning of that life. The claim that there is such a beginning can only ever be a matter of opinion, which is subjective, even if it's collective.

So, to try to ground a moral argument about abortion on the 'fact' of when human life begins is to fail, because there is no such fact. And even if there were, such a fact would have no moral entailment anyway.

For example - 'A human life begins at the formation of a zygote; therefore, it's morally wrong to abort human zygotes or any human post-zygotic developments.' - is a non sequitur.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA claims that 'With reference [to] morality & ethics on abortion, the question of 'when human life first begin[s]' is a very messy one.'

No, it's not. To say a question is messy or difficult or complex or hard to answer is to say there is an answer, but it's not easy to find. Hence: 'It's hard to say exactly when human life begins'. Iow, human life begins somewhere or some time, but it's hard to say where or when. And this is nonsense.

To be clear: there is no place or time in the development of a human life that, as a matter of fact, is the beginning of that life. The claim that there is such a beginning can only ever be a matter of opinion, which is subjective, even if it's collective.

So, to try to ground a moral argument about abortion on the 'fact' of when human life begins is to fail, because there is no such fact. And even if there were, such a fact would have no moral entailment anyway.

For example - 'A human life begins at the formation of a zygote; therefore, it's moral wrong to abort human zygotes or any human post-zygotic developments.' - is a non sequitur.

Strawman as usual - > 'a million' times.

I wrote:
With reference morality & ethics on abortion, the question of 'when human life first begin' is a very messy one.
To avoid the above mess, the most effective approach is to establish a moral model with the maxim of ideal 'Abortion is not permissible' with a target of ZERO abortion as a guide and standard.
viewtopic.php?t=42726

If we are to focus on the target [objective] of ZERO unplanned birth, [avoid the messy question], then there is no need for the redundant messy question of "At what point does life become a human life"
viewtopic.php?p=726540#p726540

Also read this:
viewtopic.php?p=726648#p726648
The "zero unplanned pregnancies" is MERELY an ideal target [supposedly objective] that humanity must strive for at all times.
As such, we are planning to achieve "ZERO unplanned pregnancies" but we know in real life, what is actual rarely go according to what is plan.
....
What is critical here is the moral model must have an objective target to guide continual moral progress.
In contrast, moral relativism is to each their own and moral skepticism is flagrant indifference, thus both will not motivate moral progress at all.