What could make morality objective?

[Iwannaplato]

Strawman as usual - > 'a million' times.

If you are asserting that some part or a whole post is a strawman either show which part and exactly why. If you don't do this, you are not showing how it is a strawman. And sure you may have to say this for a million more times. In fact, not doing this, not being very specific about what is a strawman, only makes readers wonder if you''re avoiding the issue.

It's a strawman,
,
then'you repeat your position

does not justify the accusation.

And more importantly, it's terrible communication. Since it give no new information. There's no interaction with the other person's post.

[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 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.

Our having a goal or target, such as 'zero unplanned pregnancies', would not make morality objective, and would not clarify what (objectively) counts as moral progress.

In the absence of judgements as to moral rightness and wrongness, a theory is not a moral theory, and its reference to moral progress is incoherent.

Why are planned pregnancies morally progressive? Why are unplanned pregnancies morally regressive?

[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.

Our having a goal or target, such as 'zero unplanned pregnancies', would not make morality objective, and would not clarify what (objectively) counts as moral progress.

In the absence of judgements as to moral rightness and wrongness, a theory is not a moral theory, and its reference to moral progress is incoherent.

Why are planned pregnancies morally progressive? Why are unplanned pregnancies morally regressive?

As I had explained 'a million' times before,
The main theme is about 'abortion'.
The ZERO abortion [unplanned, plan] is a sub-target from
'no killing of humans by humans'
which is an objective fact as verified and justified inductively contingent upon the human-based anthropology, biology, neuroscience, psychology, cultural, social FSERC.
The above facts are incorporated into a human-based moral FSERC which generates its specific moral facts as a moral maxim [guide & standard only], i.e.
'no killing of humans by humans' [born or unborn].

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

missed this.
Perhaps if you link it to some post, I will be notified.

The above argument is not valid.

I have explained many times,
there are two senses of reality, i.e.
1. the philosophical realist, absolute mind-independent sense which is grounded on an illusion
2. the FSERC based sense - this is realistic grounded on empirical evidences.

Your P1 is grounded on an illusion, thus your conclusion is grounded on an illusion.

You were ignorant of the fact that self-organization happens in reality [all there is], note the link from WIKI.
Reality is contingent upon a human-based FSERC. There is no absolutely human independent reality as claimed by you.

[Age]

What could, and does, make 'morality', itself, 'objective' is the exact same thing that makes any and all things 'objective'.

And, what 'that' is, exactly, no one here appears to yet know.

So, does any one here know what makes things 'objective'?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

[Peter Holmes]

What could, and does, make 'morality', itself, 'objective' is the exact same thing that makes any and all things 'objective'.

And, what 'that' is, exactly, no one here appears to yet know.

So, does any one here know what makes things 'objective'?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

What makes a discipline or discourse objective is that it deals with facts - features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And that's why morality can't be objective: there are no moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

Been here once or twice.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What makes a discipline or discourse objective is that it deals with facts - features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And that's why morality can't be objective: there are no moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

Been here once or twice.

You sound as if you are the GOD of philosophy where whatever you dictate is absolute and final.
Your what is fact is grounded on an illusion thus has no [or the lowest of] credibility nor objectivity.

PH's What-is-Fact is Grounded on an Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Whatever is a fact, real and objective is contingent upon a human-based framework and system {FS} or in a FS of a language game of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
As such a FS generates its own FS-conditioned fact.
A moral FS generates its own moral-FS conditioned fact whereupon it is as credible and the scientific FS, thus has high degree of objectivity.
As such, moral is objective as contingent upon a human-based moral FS.

[Peter Holmes]

What makes a discipline or discourse objective is that it deals with facts - features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And that's why morality can't be objective: there are no moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

Been here once or twice.

You sound as if you are the GOD of philosophy where whatever you dictate is absolute and final.
Your what is fact is grounded on an illusion thus has no [or the lowest of] credibility nor objectivity.

PH's What-is-Fact is Grounded on an Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Whatever is a fact, real and objective is contingent upon a human-based framework and system {FS} or in a FS of a language game of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
As such a FS generates its own FS-conditioned fact.
A moral FS generates its own moral-FS conditioned fact whereupon it is as credible and the scientific FS, thus has high degree of objectivity.
As such, moral is objective as contingent upon a human-based moral FS.

Been here once or twice.

[Age]

What could, and does, make 'morality', itself, 'objective' is the exact same thing that makes any and all things 'objective'.

And, what 'that' is, exactly, no one here appears to yet know.

So, does any one here know what makes things 'objective'?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

What makes a discipline or discourse objective is that it deals with facts - features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And that's why morality can't be objective: there are no moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

Been here once or twice.

Some are also 'rolling' in regards that you keep re-repeating what you do here, while you appear to keep missing that all of this is your 'opinion' only, and, that the very 'things', which are called and known as 'tree' and/or 'water', and even 'reality', itself, are just 'opinions', as well.

The so-called 'features of reality' all rely on 'opinions'.

There is no, universal, fact that 'this' or 'that' is, actually, 'tree', 'water', nor 'reality'. 'Those things' are only 'known' as, and called, 'those things' because of 'opinions' only.

According to your so-called 'logic' anyway, only what is, regardless of 'opinion', is 'objective'. But, obviously, this is just 'your opinion'.

Now, why do you believe, absolutely, that any discourse about 'morality', itself, can never ever deal with 'facts', themselves?

Why, to you, are how human beings 'behave', or 'misbehave', not be a so-called'feature of reality', itself?

It is like human being's actions, or behaviors, are some things that, to you, do not actually happen and occur, in Life, as 'features of reality'.

Obviously any discourse about the 'behaviors', or 'nonbehaviors', of you human beings can include facts of what you do, or do not do. And, obviously what you do, or do not do, has an effect on the 'features of reality' than were, are, can, and will be, the case - regardless of what you call 'opinion'.

But then again, you are not open to 'this facts', Correct'?

And, you being 'here', once or twice previously, is because you are not open to 'the facts' here, and instead are just closed to your own personal opinions, beliefs, and/or presumptions, only.

[Peter Holmes]

What could, and does, make 'morality', itself, 'objective' is the exact same thing that makes any and all things 'objective'.

And, what 'that' is, exactly, no one here appears to yet know.

So, does any one here know what makes things 'objective'?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

What makes a discipline or discourse objective is that it deals with facts - features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And that's why morality can't be objective: there are no moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

Been here once or twice.

Some are also 'rolling' in regards that you keep re-repeating what you do here, while you appear to keep missing that all of this is your 'opinion' only, and, that the very 'things', which are called and known as 'tree' and/or 'water', and even 'reality', itself, are just 'opinions', as well.

The so-called 'features of reality' all rely on 'opinions'.

There is no, universal, fact that 'this' or 'that' is, actually, 'tree', 'water', nor 'reality'. 'Those things' are only 'known' as, and called, 'those things' because of 'opinions' only.

According to your so-called 'logic' anyway, only what is, regardless of 'opinion', is 'objective'. But, obviously, this is just 'your opinion'.

Now, why do you believe, absolutely, that any discourse about 'morality', itself, can never ever deal with 'facts', themselves?

Why, to you, are how human beings 'behave', or 'misbehave', not be a so-called'feature of reality', itself?

It is like human being's actions, or behaviors, are some things that, to you, do not actually happen and occur, in Life, as 'features of reality'.

Obviously any discourse about the 'behaviors', or 'nonbehaviors', of you human beings can include facts of what you do, or do not do. And, obviously what you do, or do not do, has an effect on the 'features of reality' than were, are, can, and will be, the case - regardless of what you call 'opinion'.

But then again, you are not open to 'this facts', Correct'?

And, you being 'here', once or twice previously, is because you are not open to 'the facts' here, and instead are just closed to your own personal opinions, beliefs, and/or presumptions, only.

1 Trees and water are not matters of opinion. They just exist, and would do even if there were no opinions about them.

2 Yes, there are facts about human behaviour. So what?

[Skepdick]

1 Trees and water are not matters of opinion. They just exist, and would do even if there were no opinions about them.

This holds equally well for morality.

2 Yes, there are facts about human behaviour. So what?

Yes, there are facts about trees and water. So what?

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 Trees and water are not matters of opinion. They just exist, and would do even if there were no opinions about them.

Who said so? You? your mother, father, son, daughter, kin, Tom, Dick or Harry?

We are doing philosophy here, you just cannot make the above claims without stating what authority are you grounding your claims on.
How can you be assured you are not in a matrix, brain-in-a-vat, or deceived by Descartes evil demon?

To avoid the above you may assert:
Trees exist as real because the human-based science-biology framework and system said as an objective science-biology-fact.
Water [H2O] exists as real [as a fact] because the human-based science-chemistry FS said so, as objective science-chemistry-fact.

Because the above claims are grounded to a human-based FS, the associated and resultant reality cannot be absolute independent of humans.
The above assertions cannot be make at all without reference to the imperative human conditions.
As such you have to suspend judgment on your absolutely human independent trees or water.

With the possibility of human-based FS facts, there is also a the possibility of human-based moral FS facts [as justified to be credible], thus enabling morality to be objective [as defined].

[Age]

What makes a discipline or discourse objective is that it deals with facts - features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And that's why morality can't be objective: there are no moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

Been here once or twice.

Some are also 'rolling' in regards that you keep re-repeating what you do here, while you appear to keep missing that all of this is your 'opinion' only, and, that the very 'things', which are called and known as 'tree' and/or 'water', and even 'reality', itself, are just 'opinions', as well.

The so-called 'features of reality' all rely on 'opinions'.

There is no, universal, fact that 'this' or 'that' is, actually, 'tree', 'water', nor 'reality'. 'Those things' are only 'known' as, and called, 'those things' because of 'opinions' only.

According to your so-called 'logic' anyway, only what is, regardless of 'opinion', is 'objective'. But, obviously, this is just 'your opinion'.

Now, why do you believe, absolutely, that any discourse about 'morality', itself, can never ever deal with 'facts', themselves?

Why, to you, are how human beings 'behave', or 'misbehave', not be a so-called'feature of reality', itself?

It is like human being's actions, or behaviors, are some things that, to you, do not actually happen and occur, in Life, as 'features of reality'.

Obviously any discourse about the 'behaviors', or 'nonbehaviors', of you human beings can include facts of what you do, or do not do. And, obviously what you do, or do not do, has an effect on the 'features of reality' than were, are, can, and will be, the case - regardless of what you call 'opinion'.

But then again, you are not open to 'this facts', Correct'?

And, you being 'here', once or twice previously, is because you are not open to 'the facts' here, and instead are just closed to your own personal opinions, beliefs, and/or presumptions, only.

1 Trees and water are not matters of opinion. They just exist, and would do even if there were no opinions about them.

Once more, this one has completely and utterly missed the point here

2 Yes, there are facts about human behaviour. So what?

And, what are human behaviors, and misbehaviors, in relation to, exactly?

[Peter Holmes]

What are trees and water in relation to, exactly?

[CIN]

This discussion about trees and water is entirely beside the point in an ethics thread. If you want to argue about whether trees and water are real, you should do it in the metaphysics part of the forum.

In ethics, we take it as given that other people exist, and that the external world in which these people are to be found exists as well. Otherwise discussions of ethics can't get off the ground, because there is nothing to discuss. Even Berkeley, who did not believe in the existence of an independent world, still believed in the existence of other people.

If you want to get anywhere with ethics, you need to stop all these discussions of metaphysics and get back to what ethics is actually about, which is how we ought to behave with regard to other people (and other sentient beings).