What could make morality objective?

[Age]

Does justice exist?

Yes.

And how how could we go about answering that question?

Very easily, and very simply.

Would producing a theory of justice - such as John Rawls' magnificent theory - answer the question?

Not necessarily so.

And if not, why not?

Because theories do not necessarily hold answers.

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.

But, 'philosophy', itself, means many different things to many different people.

But, you, like others, do not seem to have yet fully comprehended and understood this irrefutable Fact.

It, if you believe you have, then why did you say and claim that 'philosophy', itself, is 'an intellectual disease', and especially say and claim this in a 'philosophy forum'.

By the way, there are 'moral facts', which can be found, objectively. But, this only applies, to some, and not to others who believe the same things that you do here.

[Peter Holmes]

Does justice exist?

Yes.

And how how could we go about answering that question?

Very easily, and very simply.

Would producing a theory of justice - such as John Rawls' magnificent theory - answer the question?

Not necessarily so.

And if not, why not?

Because theories do not necessarily hold answers.

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.

But, 'philosophy', itself, means many different things to many different people.

But, you, like others, do not seem to have yet fully comprehended and understood this irrefutable Fact.

It, if you believe you have, then why did you say and claim that 'philosophy', itself, is 'an intellectual disease', and especially say and claim this in a 'philosophy forum'.

By the way, there are 'moral facts', which can be found, objectively. But, this only applies, to some, and not to others who believe the same things that you do here.

By all means, produce a philosophical question to which the answer is not an explanation of the way(s) we do or could use a linguistic expression which is or includes a so-called abstract noun.

And when you can't, perhaps that will be a penny-drop moment for you.

[Age]

Does justice exist?

Yes.

And how how could we go about answering that question?

Very easily, and very simply.

Would producing a theory of justice - such as John Rawls' magnificent theory - answer the question?

Not necessarily so.

And if not, why not?

Because theories do not necessarily hold answers.

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.

But, 'philosophy', itself, means many different things to many different people.

But, you, like others, do not seem to have yet fully comprehended and understood this irrefutable Fact.

It, if you believe you have, then why did you say and claim that 'philosophy', itself, is 'an intellectual disease', and especially say and claim this in a 'philosophy forum'.

By the way, there are 'moral facts', which can be found, objectively. But, this only applies, to some, and not to others who believe the same things that you do here.

By all means, produce a philosophical question

What do you mean by 'philosophical question', exactly?

To me, the word 'philosophy' just means have the 'love-of-wisdom'.

So, are you asking me to produce a 'love-of-wisdom question' here?

If no, then what are you asking for, exactly?

But, if yes, then will you produce an example of what it is you are asking me to produce here?

If no, then why not?

(People like this one here would add the 'philosophical' word, where it is completely unnecessary to do so, but did it to appear as though they were 'intellectual'. Which, really, is, and was, very, very sad to watch and unfold.)

to which the answer is not an explanation of the way(s) we do or could use a linguistic expression which is or includes a so-called abstract noun.

I do not know what 'nouns', 'verbs', nor any of those other things are. Obviously because I have never learned what they are, just in case any of you were interested or curios.

Therefore, I am not able to provide you with an 'abstract noun', knowingly.

And when you can't, perhaps that will be a penny-drop moment for you.

Look "peter holmes" it appears that only things that can be touched, smelled, tasted, heard, and/or seen from the human body could be a fact, or factual. Is this correct?

Also, and by the way, because of what 'you believe' is, absolutely, true here, which you have obtained through the very thing that cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, heard, nor seen from the human body, you have 'ascertained' that there are no 'moral facts' ever, or forever more. And, that 'this' is an 'objectively obtained fact'.

LOL you, still, do not yet recognize that what you call 'facts' are just 'your opinions', only. And, just because a human body can feel, smell, taste, hear, and see some thing, this in and of itself, does not make 'that thing' 'a fact'. What that does is only make 'that thing' a physical thing, which can be 'sensed', from the nerve endings of a human body.

How do you even think or believe 'objectivity', itself, is obtained?

Are you able to answer this, with a 'linguistic expression', which is not or does not include a so-called 'abstract noun'?

And, when you cannot, then perhaps you might understand things more or further here.

[Peter Holmes]

But, 'philosophy', itself, means many different things to many different people.

But, you, like others, do not seem to have yet fully comprehended and understood this irrefutable Fact.

It, if you believe you have, then why did you say and claim that 'philosophy', itself, is 'an intellectual disease', and especially say and claim this in a 'philosophy forum'.

By the way, there are 'moral facts', which can be found, objectively. But, this only applies, to some, and not to others who believe the same things that you do here.

By all means, produce a philosophical question

What do you mean by 'philosophical question', exactly?

To me, the word 'philosophy' just means have the 'love-of-wisdom'.

So, are you asking me to produce a 'love-of-wisdom question' here?

If no, then what are you asking for, exactly?

But, if yes, then will you produce an example of what it is you are asking me to produce here?

If no, then why not?

(People like this one here would add the 'philosophical' word, where it is completely unnecessary to do so, but did it to appear as though they were 'intellectual'. Which, really, is, and was, very, very sad to watch and unfold.)

to which the answer is not an explanation of the way(s) we do or could use a linguistic expression which is or includes a so-called abstract noun.

I do not know what 'nouns', 'verbs', nor any of those other things are. Obviously because I have never learned what they are, just in case any of you were interested or curios.

Therefore, I am not able to provide you with an 'abstract noun', knowingly.

And when you can't, perhaps that will be a penny-drop moment for you.

Look "peter holmes" it appears that only things that can be touched, smelled, tasted, heard, and/or seen from the human body could be a fact, or factual. Is this correct?

Also, and by the way, because of what 'you believe' is, absolutely, true here, which you have obtained through the very thing that cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, heard, nor seen from the human body, you have 'ascertained' that there are no 'moral facts' ever, or forever more. And, that 'this' is an 'objectively obtained fact'.

LOL you, still, do not yet recognize that what you call 'facts' are just 'your opinions', only. And, just because a human body can feel, smell, taste, hear, and see some thing, this in and of itself, does not make 'that thing' 'a fact'. What that does is only make 'that thing' a physical thing, which can be 'sensed', from the nerve endings of a human body.

How do you even think or believe 'objectivity', itself, is obtained?

Are you able to answer this, with a 'linguistic expression', which is not or does not include a so-called 'abstract noun'?

And, when you cannot, then perhaps you might understand things more or further here.

1 A noun is a naming word. We use nouns to name things. For example, the word wisdom is a noun.

2 If the word wisdom names something, then it's not a physical thing, with physical or what could be called spatio-temporal properties. So it must be a non-physical or abstract thing.

3 What is a non-physical or abstract thing, and where and in what way does it exist? If it's an idea or concept in a mind, what and where are ideas, concepts and minds, and in what way do they exist?

4 You say, confidently rehearsing an ancient dogma, that things such as justice and wisdom exist. How and where do they exist?

[Age]

By all means, produce a philosophical question

What do you mean by 'philosophical question', exactly?

To me, the word 'philosophy' just means have the 'love-of-wisdom'.

So, are you asking me to produce a 'love-of-wisdom question' here?

If no, then what are you asking for, exactly?

But, if yes, then will you produce an example of what it is you are asking me to produce here?

If no, then why not?

(People like this one here would add the 'philosophical' word, where it is completely unnecessary to do so, but did it to appear as though they were 'intellectual'. Which, really, is, and was, very, very sad to watch and unfold.)

to which the answer is not an explanation of the way(s) we do or could use a linguistic expression which is or includes a so-called abstract noun.

I do not know what 'nouns', 'verbs', nor any of those other things are. Obviously because I have never learned what they are, just in case any of you were interested or curios.

Therefore, I am not able to provide you with an 'abstract noun', knowingly.

And when you can't, perhaps that will be a penny-drop moment for you.

Look "peter holmes" it appears that only things that can be touched, smelled, tasted, heard, and/or seen from the human body could be a fact, or factual. Is this correct?

Also, and by the way, because of what 'you believe' is, absolutely, true here, which you have obtained through the very thing that cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, heard, nor seen from the human body, you have 'ascertained' that there are no 'moral facts' ever, or forever more. And, that 'this' is an 'objectively obtained fact'.

LOL you, still, do not yet recognize that what you call 'facts' are just 'your opinions', only. And, just because a human body can feel, smell, taste, hear, and see some thing, this in and of itself, does not make 'that thing' 'a fact'. What that does is only make 'that thing' a physical thing, which can be 'sensed', from the nerve endings of a human body.

How do you even think or believe 'objectivity', itself, is obtained?

Are you able to answer this, with a 'linguistic expression', which is not or does not include a so-called 'abstract noun'?

And, when you cannot, then perhaps you might understand things more or further here.

1 A noun is a naming word. We use nouns to name things. For example, the word wisdom is a noun.

2 If the word wisdom names something, then it's not a physical thing,

What is the 'it's' word here referring to, exactly?

Also, did you mean to use the 'and' word here, instead of the 'then' word? Or, is the 'not' word here not meant to be here? Or, is what you wrote here what you actually mean, and meant to say and write?

If yes, to the latter, then how do you 'know', irrefutably, what 'the thing', that the word 'wisdom' is naming is, absolutely, not a physical thing at all, exactly?

with physical or what could be called spatio-temporal properties. So it must be a non-physical or abstract thing.

Again, do you 'know' this, irrefutably and absolutely?

Or, is this just what you imagine, think, or believe is true?

3 What is a non-physical or abstract thing, and where and in what way does it exist?

It is you that is here claiming that there are non-physical things, existing.

I have never, once, throughout this whole forum ever even implied that there were non-physical things existing, let alone ever said it, and meant it.

Also, what do you mean, exactly, with and by your use of the words 'abstract thing'?

If you want 'me' to tell 'you' what is an 'abstract thing', and where and in what way do/es 'abstract thing/s' exist, then 'you' will have to inform 'me' of what definition you are using here for the term or phrase 'abstract thing', exactly?

If it's an idea or concept in a mind, what and where are ideas, concepts and minds, and in what way do they exist?

If 'we' remove the 'mind' word here, as keep 'that word' will only cause further conflict or confusion for you human beings, and just 'looked at';

If you meant 'abstract thing' by your use of the 'it's' word here, then;

If an 'abstract thing' is an 'idea' or 'concept', and you are seeking an answer, and thus clarity, as to what and where are 'ideas' and 'concepts', and in what way do 'ideas' and 'concepts' exist, then 'the answer', and thus 'clarification', to this is;

'Thoughts', themselves, are what 'ideas' and 'concepts' are, exactly, where 'ideas' and 'concepts', or 'thoughts themselves, exist is within human bodies, and in what way do 'ideas' and 'concepts' exist is, again, in 'the way' of 'thinking', itself.

Is there anything else here that you would like answer, or clarification, to, exactly?

Oh, and by the way, there is only One Mind, and It exists HERE, within the Universe, Itself.

4 You say, confidently rehearsing an ancient dogma, that things such as justice and wisdom exist.

Which 'they' do exist, but only when human beings are showing 'such', literally, through their behaving, of course.

How and where do they exist?

Oh, through human beings behavior.

When, and while, you human beings are doing what is Right, in Life, then 'justice' and 'wisdom' are, or is, existing.

And, conversely, when you human beings are doing what is Wrong, in Life, then 'justice' and 'wisdom' is, or are, not existing.

But, you could not understand and comprehend this Fact, because you believe, absolutely, that there is no, actual, Right, nor Wrong, in Life, and that what absolutely any one does, or does not do, is perfectly acceptable, and all right, right?

[Peter Holmes]

Humans and some other species behave in ways that we humans call 'being fair' or 'being just'. So we could say that what we call fairness and justice exist. But there's no reason to think fairness and justice are abstract or non-physical things.

And the same goes for all of the other supposedly mysterious things that philosophy supposedly deals with. Why do we think we need theories of knowledge and truth and justice? And what do those theories describe or explain?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Humans and some other species behave in ways that we humans call 'being fair' or 'being just'. So we could say that what we call fairness and justice exist. But there's no reason to think fairness and justice are abstract or non-physical things.

And the same goes for all of the other supposedly mysterious things that philosophy supposedly deals with. Why do we think we need theories of knowledge and truth and justice? And what do those theories describe or explain?

What kind of human being are you?

Say you are working in a company with 9 co-workers and all of you are assign the same job responsibilities and all have produced the same output so far.
Recently, you found out that since you started work 5 years ago all your co-workers were paid £2,500 per month while you were only paid £500 per month.
Surely you are not going to keep quiet and continue as usual?
Maybe you will continue to do so because you are blind with any sense of justice, equity and fairness.

Normally, the person paid £500 will feel cheated because his inherent natural tendency for justice, equity and fairness will be triggered.
When his sense of justice [inherent in ALL humans] is triggered naturally and spontaneously, his emotions will be invoked that drive him to take the appropriate actions to maintain fairness.
In this case, from empirical evidences, we can infer, the algorithm represented by its neural correlates must exists thus triggering real actions.
Therefore justice exists as real within and contingent to the human brain and self.

If one do not take corrective actions, it can only be the person neural correlates re sense of justice and fairness is likely to be damaged [he is abnormal].

Have you seen this video?
Sense of Fairness in Monkeys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

I suppose the above experiment is repeatable with the same species of monkey.
We can infer the sense of fairness/justice must exists inherently within the brain and body of all monkeys of the same species.

[Peter Holmes]

Humans and some other species behave in ways that we humans call 'being fair' or 'being just'. So we could say that what we call fairness and justice exist. But there's no reason to think fairness and justice are abstract or non-physical things.

And the same goes for all of the other supposedly mysterious things that philosophy supposedly deals with. Why do we think we need theories of knowledge and truth and justice? And what do those theories describe or explain?

What kind of human being are you?

One with half a brain. What kind of human being are you?

[Age]

Humans and some other species behave in ways that we humans call 'being fair' or 'being just'.

Other things, besides humans and some other species, like 'water' behave in ways as well, that you human beings call 'flowing' or 'freezing'.

So we could say that what we call fairness and justice exist.

If you say so.

We could also say that what we call 'flowing' and 'freezing' exist, also right?

But there's no reason to think fairness and justice are abstract or non-physical things.

Was there ever any obligation, or reason, whatsoever to think 'flowing' and 'freezing' are abstract or non-physical things, as well?

And the same goes for all of the other supposedly mysterious things that philosophy supposedly deals with.

What are you trying to correlate here, exactly?

And, will you provide any examples of what are, supposedly, so-called 'mysterious things', in which are supposedly dealt with in philosophical discussions?

Why do we think we need theories of knowledge and truth and justice? And what do those theories describe or explain?

Are you asking anyone in particular here?

If yes, then who, exactly?

Now, if you responded to my response above to you, and answered and clarified the questions I asked you, then we could continue discussing how 'abstract' and/or so-called 'non-physical things' do not have any thing at all to do with what is 'objective' or not. And, also discuss what 'it' is, exactly, that makes all things 'objective', including 'morality', itself.

Absolutely all things can be 'looked at' from an 'objective', 'subjective', or 'both' perspectives.

But, considering the fact that you believe, absolutely, and hold onto a definition that the word 'objective' relates to, only, those things that can be 'touched' by the external human body, and absolutely could never ever be in relation to absolutely anything else, then having a True 'philosophical discussion' with you could not actually happen.

you have, obviously, aleady picked a, and 'currently' your, "side", and that is 'it', right? "your side" is 'right' and absolutely everyone should accept and agree with "your side", correct?

[Peter Holmes]

Calling anyone, over.

What and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist?
Just saying that abstract or non-physical things exist doesn't work, any more than does saying fairies and gods exist.

[Age]

Humans and some other species behave in ways that we humans call 'being fair' or 'being just'. So we could say that what we call fairness and justice exist. But there's no reason to think fairness and justice are abstract or non-physical things.

And the same goes for all of the other supposedly mysterious things that philosophy supposedly deals with. Why do we think we need theories of knowledge and truth and justice? And what do those theories describe or explain?

What kind of human being are you?

How many types of you human beings are there, exactly?

Say you are working in a company with 9 co-workers and all of you are assign the same job responsibilities and all have produced the same output so far.
Recently, you found out that since you started work 5 years ago all your co-workers were paid £2,500 per month while you were only paid £500 per month.
Surely you are not going to keep quiet and continue as usual?

Why is this, supposedly, a 'surety', exactly?

Maybe you will continue to do so because you are blind with any sense of justice, equity and fairness.

So, your 'surely' word was 'misleading', right?

Now, maybe they can clearly see the 'injustice', 'inequality', and 'unfairness', but are just satisfied and content with how things are, exactly?

Normally, the person paid £500 will feel cheated because his inherent natural tendency for justice, equity and fairness will be triggered.

LOL Any thing about 'money' has never been an 'inherent natural tendency' nor part of you human beings.

When his sense of justice [inherent in ALL humans]

LOL The 'sense' of 'justice', which is inherent within ALL human beings, is in regards to 'What is', actually, 'just', only. And never in regards to absolutely and and all meaningless and unnecessary things like 'money', for example.

is triggered naturally and spontaneously, his emotions will be invoked that drive him to take the appropriate actions to maintain fairness.

LOL The majority of you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, are, actually, doing the exact opposite, the majority of the time.

In this case, from empirical evidences, we can infer, the algorithm represented by its neural correlates must exists thus triggering real actions.

And, what so-called 'empirical evidences' are 'they', exactly?

Also, the rest of what you wrote after those two words are absolutely another prime example of how and when you people, back when this was being written, would say and claim just about any thing the hope that those words will, somehow, back up and support what they believe is true, while also hoping that they would come across as though they knew what they were talking about.

Therefore justice exists as real within and contingent to the human brain and self.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, because one will, supposedly, 'surely' do some thing, which, in fact, they may, actually, not do, and instead do the very opposite, because they are, supposedly, actually 'blind' to 'justice', then all of these contradictions are 'concluded', by "veritas aequitas" anyway, that, therefore, this all means that 'justice exists as real'.

That you confuse "your" own 'self' so much when you are trying to just find any word, which you hope will help you, that you end up actually refuting "your" own 'self' completely is, and has, been an hilarious thing to continually watch, and observe.

If one do not take corrective actions, it can only be the person neural correlates re sense of justice and fairness is likely to be damaged [he is abnormal].

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, once again, the contradictions continue. That is; when what is, supposedly, an 'inherent natural tendency' cannot be shown, seen, or proved to be 'there', then this is just, quite conveniently, likely due to 'damage'.

you, really, do say some of the most contradictory and funniest things here "veritas aequitas".

Have you seen this video?
Sense of Fairness in Monkeys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

I suppose the above experiment is repeatable with the same species of monkey.
We can infer the sense of fairness/justice must exists inherently within the brain and body of all monkeys of the same species.

[Age]

Calling anyone, over.

What and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist?

Are there non-physical things?

If yes, then what are they, exactly?

And, in what way do they exist, exactly?

Just saying that abstract or non-physical things exist doesn't work, any more than does saying fairies and gods exist.

Okay, if you say so.

[Peter Holmes]

Calling anyone, over.

What and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist?

Are there non-physical things?

If yes, then what are they, exactly?

And, in what way do they exist, exactly?

Just saying that abstract or non-physical things exist doesn't work, any more than does saying fairies and gods exist.

Okay, if you say so.

I was under the impression that you think there are abstract or non-physical things. My mistake. And, of course, I don't think there are. I think they're misleading fictions.

[Age]

Calling anyone, over.

What and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist?

Are there non-physical things?

If yes, then what are they, exactly?

And, in what way do they exist, exactly?

Just saying that abstract or non-physical things exist doesn't work, any more than does saying fairies and gods exist.

Okay, if you say so.

I was under the impression that you think there are abstract or non-physical things. My mistake. And, of course, I don't think there are. I think they're misleading fictions.

Okay.

But, how 'objectivity', itself, is found, and obtained, means that there are 'moral facts'. Although, and obviously, there are, still, some who believe absolutely otherwise, correct?

[Peter Holmes]

...how 'objectivity', itself, is found, and obtained, means that there are 'moral facts'.

I think this is false. But you can save time by simply showing why it's true. No need to sod about. Get to the point. Here's how you could start:

The way objectivity is found and obtained means that there are moral facts because...

Or you could try this:

1 Objectivity is found and obtained by...
2 Therefore, there are moral facts, because...

Or this is a popular variant:

1 All facts are matters of opinion.
2 Therefore, any matter of opinion is or can be a fact.
3 Therefore, there are or can be moral facts.