What could make morality objective?

[Age]

What are trees and water in relation to, exactly?

Thoughts, and thus opinions.

Now, will you answer the question I asked you.

[Age]

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.

1. If this was directed at me, then I do not want to argue about whether trees and water are real, as doing so would be absolutely ridiculous. So, what you said here is moot.

2. If you would like me to read, and/or respond, to what you say and write here, then I suggest you quote me so that I get notified.

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.

Here is another prime example of how just one Wrong assumption, only, can lead a person so, so far astray.

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).

Why, only, in regards to you people and other sentient beings, only?

This seems like a very narrowed or very closed view to have and hold here.

[Peter Holmes]

What are trees and water in relation to, exactly?

Thoughts, and thus opinions.

Now, will you answer the question I asked you.

You asked: '...what are human behaviours, and misbehaviours, in relation to, exactly?'

And I have no idea what that question means.

[Peter Holmes]

'...ethics is actually about...how we ought to behave with regard to other people (and other sentient beings).'

Whether 'other sentient beings' come into it is a completely open question, which itself demonstrates the subjectivity of ethics tout court. There are no facts of the matter.

[Skepdick]

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).

You seem to have missed the point entirely.

OUGHT we believe that morality exists?
OUGHT we attempt to categorize morality (if it even exists) as subjective; or objective?

[Skepdick]

Whether 'other sentient beings' come into it is a completely open question, which itself demonstrates the subjectivity of ethics tout court. There are no facts of the matter.

Is this a fact?

[CIN]

What are trees and water in relation to, exactly?

Thoughts, and thus opinions.

This is meaningless unless you say what the nature of the relation is.

So: what is the relation between trees and opinions? Is it that people have opinions about trees? That is uncontentious, but also philosophically uninteresting. Or is it that the existence of trees is a matter of opinion? This is philosophically interesting, but highly contentious.

If it isn't either of these, what is the nature of this relation?

[Skepdick]

This is meaningless unless you say what the nature of the relation is.

What's the nature of any relation?

What is a nature (in particular); or natures (in general) in relation to?

[CIN]

'...ethics is actually about...how we ought to behave with regard to other people (and other sentient beings).'

Whether 'other sentient beings' come into it is a completely open question, which itself demonstrates the subjectivity of ethics tout court. There are no facts of the matter.

I'm well aware of your opinions on this issue, Peter, you don't need to keep telling me. Only tell me if you have something new to add.

[Peter Holmes]

Does justice exist? And how how could we go about answering that question? Would producing a theory of justice - such as John Rawls' magnificent theory - answer the question? And if not, why not?

When we wake up to the fact that all philosophical questions are really - and have always been - about the ways we use certain important so-called abstract nouns, their cognates, and related words - then we'll cure ourselves of philosophy, which is an intellectual disease.

[Peter Holmes]

'...ethics is actually about...how we ought to behave with regard to other people (and other sentient beings).'

Whether 'other sentient beings' come into it is a completely open question, which itself demonstrates the subjectivity of ethics tout court. There are no facts of the matter.

I'm well aware of your opinions on this issue, Peter, you don't need to keep telling me. Only tell me if you have something new to add.

Understood.

[Skepdick]

Does justice exist? And how how could we go about answering that question? Would producing a theory of justice - such as John Rawls' magnificent theory - answer the question? And if not, why not?

When we wake up to the fact that all philosophical questions are really - and have always been - about the ways we use certain important so-called abstract nouns, their cognates, and related words - then we'll cure ourselves of philosophy, which is an intellectual disease.

Oh goodie! So when will you cure yourself from the subjective/objective distinction?

And this "importance" you speak about? Is it anything more than an abstraction?

[Age]

What are trees and water in relation to, exactly?

Thoughts, and thus opinions.

Now, will you answer the question I asked you.

You asked: '...what are human behaviours, and misbehaviours, in relation to, exactly?'

And I have no idea what that question means.

Okay.

It is these types of interactions why human beings, collectively, to so, so long to make any real progress, well forwards anyway.

[Age]

'...ethics is actually about...how we ought to behave with regard to other people (and other sentient beings).'

Whether 'other sentient beings' come into it is a completely open question, which itself demonstrates the subjectivity of ethics tout court. There are no facts of the matter.

LOL Including what this one just claimed here.

[Age]

What are trees and water in relation to, exactly?

Thoughts, and thus opinions.

This is meaningless unless you say what the nature of the relation is.

Okay.

But, is this because the question, or the answer, is meaningless?

So: what is the relation between trees and opinions?

Why are you even introducing things that I have never even been talking about nor referencing here?

Is it that people have opinions about trees? That is uncontentious, but also philosophically uninteresting. Or is it that the existence of trees is a matter of opinion?

Neither.

What I was talking about and referring to, exactly, that even when one talks about 'trees' or 'water', then this are also 'opinions'.

See, "peter holmes" believes, absolutely, opinions cannot be facts, and, that things likes trees and water are facts.

I have just been informing that one that all views about trees and water are just opinions.

So, that one has to choose their words better, or, just stop believing what it is here is true

This is philosophically interesting, but highly contentious.

If it isn't either of these, what is the nature of this relation?

'Comparing; making comparable', I would say on first thought.