What could make morality objective?

[Age]

...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...

Now that you have saying and writing that you only 'think' 'objective moral facts existing' is false, then this might change things.

However,
1. There was no use of showing you the reason why some thing exists while you were believing, absolutely, that 'it' does not exist.

Also,
2. How is objectivity, itself, found and obtained, to you, exactly?

There, obviously, is absolutely no use showing you how there actually are 'moral facts' if you are believing 'objectivity' is found and obtained in a way that cannot concur with 'morality', itself.

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.

Or,
1. Do you believe, absolutely, that only the things that can be felt, smelt, tasted, seen, or heard can be what you call 'facts'?
2. If yes, then to you, absolutely nothing else could be a 'fact', right?
3. Do you consider that the only way to find and obtain 'objectivity' is when 'a thing' is a physical object?
4. Do you consider that what is 'morally Right, or, morally Wrong,' is decided by what you consider to be a non-physical thing, itself, and so do you believe, again absolutely, that there are no 'objective moral facts'?

Or, considering that it is you who has been coming across here with an 'absolute belief' that there are no 'objective moral facts', then it could be you who provides a sound and valid argument for 'your belief' here.

Now,
1. Do you only 'think' that there are no 'objective moral facts'?
2. Do you 'believe' that there are no 'objective moral facts'?
3. Do you 'believe', absolutely, that there are no 'objective moral facts'?

Because,
Depending on which one of these you share with 'us' here, then trying to show and prove to you how 'objective moral facts' can and do actually exist would either be easier, harder, or impossible.

And, obviously, there is absolutely no use proceeding if it is just going to be impossible anyway. If you decide upon 2. or 3. for me proceeding would be like trying to show to a person who believes, absolutely, that God does, or does not exist, while they are believing, absolutely, the opposite.

Now, if you ever would like to show, and prove, that you are a Truly open person, then 'we' could, and would, proceed, by;

1. Firstly discussing what the words 'objective', 'moral', and 'facts' mean, and refer to, exactly.
2. Then, when 'we' both come to an agreement, and acceptance, of what the definitions of those words will be in our discussion here.
3. Then 'we' will proceed about whether there are, or are not, 'objective moral facts', exactly.
4. If 'we' do this peacefully, and harmoniously, then 'we' arrive at, and uncover, what the actual irrefutable Truth is here.

Or, if you are absolutely sure that you have the sound and valid argumentative proof, which obviously no one could refute, for your continual claim that there are 'no objective moral facts', and would just like to present that here, for all of 'us' to 'look at' and 'see', then by all means you could just do this instead.

[Peter Holmes]

Age

1 I've explained the way I use the words fact and objectivity countless times. A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And to be objective is to rely on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. (Incidentally, the expression objective fact is redundant.)

2 Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, it follows that facts are physical things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 I've explained the way I use the words fact and objectivity countless times. A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And to be objective is to rely on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. (Incidentally, the expression objective fact is redundant.)

2 Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, it follows that facts are physical things.

I have countered your claim > 'a-million' times that
PH's What is Fact is Grounded on an Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Your claim is a dogmatic ideology from
Wokeism of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42740
pushed through based on the brute force of a majority.

PH: A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case.
who said so? and what are your justifications?

Note your circle:
To be objective is to rely on facts.
To be factual is to be objective.

There is no fact-in-itself, i.e. which exists independent of the human condition; that it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

The reality is,
what is factual, objective, real and true is contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition [FSERC] of reality; the scientific FSERC centered on empirical evidences plus critical thinking is the most credible and objective, thus the gold standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

[Iwannaplato]

I have countered your claim > 'a-million' times that
PH's What is Fact is Grounded on an Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There's been countering going on for along time by many parties. Countering, whether countering well or poorly, does not lead to the end of debates and differeing opinions. Even when done millions of times.

Your claim is a dogmatic ideology from
Wokeism of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42740
pushed through based on the brute force of a majority.

He has a minority opinion and if you want to find dogmatic ideologies head to the moral realisms first. He's not responsible for what happened in academia in the preveious century. Further, I'd suggest you ask an AI if saying that your philosophical opponents are idiots who are more likely to be violent and are chasing illusions, along with a variety of other ad homs and insults are signs of dogmatism.

[Atla]

Let's see if the AI can handle a more complex query?

Mr. Prism is a philosophical anti-realist because he wants to destroy Islam, wants to be recognized as the greatest philosopher of all time, wants to become humanity's saviour and also because he thinks anti-realism is true. Mr. Prism claims that the opposing philosophical realists are unsophisticated idiots, driven by existential cryses, chasing the illusion of objective reality, are more likely to kill people and are generally evil. Is Mr. Prism correct?

Mr. Prism's stance and reasoning raise several philosophical and ethical issues. Let's break down the various elements of his position:

1. Motivations for Anti-Realism
Destruction of Islam: Philosophical positions, including anti-realism, should ideally be driven by reasoned argument and pursuit of truth, rather than political, religious, or personal vendettas. If Mr. Prism's anti-realism is motivated by a desire to destroy a particular religion, this undermines the intellectual integrity of his position. It shifts the debate from philosophical discourse to ideological conflict, which may not contribute to a fair or rational discussion.
Desire for Recognition and Sainthood: If Mr. Prism seeks to be recognized as the greatest philosopher or to become humanity's savior, his motivations appear more self-serving than philosophical. Genuine philosophical inquiry should be grounded in the search for truth and understanding, not personal ambition or ego.
Belief in Anti-Realism: The fact that Mr. Prism believes anti-realism is true is a legitimate philosophical position. Anti-realism, in its various forms, argues that there are no objective truths independent of human perception or cognition. This is a respectable stance in philosophical debates, provided it is argued for with coherent reasoning and evidence.

2. Critique of Philosophical Realists
Calling Realists "Unsophisticated Idiots": Resorting to ad hominem attacks on opposing views, such as calling realists "idiots," is not a sound philosophical argument. Disparaging others' intelligence rather than addressing their arguments diminishes the quality of discourse and can be seen as intellectually dishonest.
Accusation of Existential Crises: It is possible that some realists are motivated by existential concerns, but that does not invalidate their arguments. Many philosophical positions, including realism, are defended on strong rational grounds, irrespective of personal psychological states.
Illusion of Objective Reality: Whether objective reality is an illusion is a matter of philosophical debate. Realists argue that there is a reality independent of our perceptions, while anti-realists deny this. Both positions have sophisticated arguments, and dismissing realism as mere illusion-chasing oversimplifies the debate.
Association with Violence and Evil: The claim that realists are more likely to kill people or are generally evil is an extreme generalization. Ethical behavior is not necessarily tied to one's stance on realism or anti-realism. People of various philosophical persuasions have engaged in both good and bad actions, and moral virtue or vice cannot be solely attributed to one's metaphysical beliefs.

Conclusion

Mr. Prism's motivations and arguments are deeply problematic. His desire to destroy a particular religion, gain personal fame, and disparage opponents undermine his philosophical credibility. While he is entitled to his anti-realist beliefs, his arguments should be evaluated on their logical coherence and not on personal attacks or ideological biases.

Therefore, Mr. Prism is not entirely correct. While he may hold valid anti-realist views, his approach to the debate is flawed, and his accusations against realists lack substantiation. A more constructive and reasoned discussion would benefit the philosophical community and contribute to a better understanding of both realism and anti-realism.

On a scale of 0%-100%, how correct is Mr. Prism?

…
Final Estimate
Taking everything into account, Mr. Prism is approximately 15%-25% correct. He holds a defensible philosophical position, but his motivations and reasoning are highly flawed, significantly reducing his overall correctness.

Looks like it can, pretty impressive!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have countered your claim > 'a-million' times that
PH's What is Fact is Grounded on an Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There's been countering going on for along time by many parties. Countering, whether countering well or poorly, does not lead to the end of debates and differeing opinions. Even when done millions of times.

Your claim is a dogmatic ideology from
Wokeism of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42740
pushed through based on the brute force of a majority.

He has a minority opinion and if you want to find dogmatic ideologies head to the moral realisms first. He's not responsible for what happened in academia in the preveious century. Further, I'd suggest you ask an AI if saying that your philosophical opponents are idiots who are more likely to be violent and are chasing illusions, along with a variety of other ad homs and insults are signs of dogmatism.

You're an idiot & moron [tit-for-tat] I have never called anyone an idiot [even gnat and the like] unless and except it is a retaliatory tit for tat.

However, I have unilaterally without hesitation highlighted to those whose thinking is shallow, narrow, with dogmatic ideology [philosophical realists] and are arrogant with their ignorance.

[Iwannaplato]

I have countered your claim > 'a-million' times that
PH's What is Fact is Grounded on an Illusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There's been countering going on for along time by many parties. Countering, whether countering well or poorly, does not lead to the end of debates and differeing opinions. Even when done millions of times.

Your claim is a dogmatic ideology from
Wokeism of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42740
pushed through based on the brute force of a majority.

He has a minority opinion and if you want to find dogmatic ideologies head to the moral realisms first. He's not responsible for what happened in academia in the preveious century. Further, I'd suggest you ask an AI if saying that your philosophical opponents are idiots who are more likely to be violent and are chasing illusions, along with a variety of other ad homs and insults are signs of dogmatism.

[/quote]

You're an idiot & moron [tit-for-tat]

If you think I said that above in the post you're quoting you are confused. If mean I have said this at some point, you are likely correct. The previous time you called me that I had not said anything like that either. So, it seems like your morality is: if something was done to you, you will continue tatting, even if it is not done.

I have never called anyone an idiot [even gnat and the like] unless and except it is a retaliatory tit for tat.

That might be true, but as I said in my previous post you have started threads that are ad hom and people who have positions that contrast with yours. These are blanket insults and ad homs. For example, realists are move violence than anti-realists. And you do this in the specific by telling people they should read things more or again, for example, and other forms of going ad hom, by implication or directly. Not in response to an insult, but in response to disagreement, for example about interpretation. This happened when I disagreed about a Kant position, presented evidence for my interpretation in the form of quotes, and you told me I needed to read Kant, instead of interacting with what I wrote and making your case. Yes, you did re-present your case, without interacting with the quotes I presented.

I don't think you notice the ways you go personal when it is not a response to someone else going personal.

However, I have unilaterally without hesitation highlighted to those whose thinking is shallow, narrow, with dogmatic ideology [philosophical realists] and are arrogant with their ignorance.

Well, thank you for confirming my point. Instead of simply demonstrating that their points are incorrect, you go ad hom/insult.

And I notice that you did not even try to justify your implication that there is some reason PH should be associated with the behavior of Analytic Philosophers in the previous century nor the framing of him as if he is in the majority positions. Moral antirealists are in a minority position in the world, so the implications of the thread about bullying Analytical Philosophers was an irrelevant ad hom and the framing him in general as coming from a majority position was also false.

[Age]

Age

1 I've explained the way I use the words fact and objectivity countless times.

I have explained the way I use words also. But, what does this in and of itself actually mean or prove, exactly?

A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case.

And, once again, 'reality' to you is different than it is to others. So, and absolutely obviously, what is a so-called 'feature of reality' can be different to all of you, human beings.

A 'feature of reality' is you human beings 'see' 'different realities' and 'different features of reality'. And, that is 'a fact', right?

And to be objective is to rely on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. (Incidentally, the expression objective fact is redundant.)

Great. Hopefully you will stop using that expression, from now on then.

And, let 'us' also not forget how many times I have informed that all of what you human beings call 'facts' are, solely, reliant on your beliefs, judgments, and/or opinions, and absolutely all of the other actual things and 'features of reality' that can be classed within the group called 'thoughts', themselves.

So, the fact that it is 'thought', alone, which 'objective' and/or 'objectivity' 'relies' up on means the 'exact opposite' of what you believe, judge to be, or opinion.

LOL What you have been completely missing and/or misunderstanding here is that you, "yourself", have been using the very 'thing', itself, to rely upon, which you also 'try to' claim is the very 'thing' that 'objective' cannot be relied nor based upon.

And, this is a Fact, which cannot be refuted.

2 Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, it follows that facts are physical things.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The very 'thing', a 'fact' is, and is even based or relied upon, is what some of you human beings call and class as 'non-physical'.

Now, if 'facts', themselves, are 'physical things', (and, obviously, you can take this in more than just one way), provide 'the physical thing', which is 'a fact', itself.

Also, if you continue to not quote 'me' when 'you' respond to 'my words', then do not expect to get a response, 'from me'. Which, may be, what your whole intention was/is here.

So, what 'we' have here 'currently' the opinion, judgment, and belief from the one here known as "peter holmes" is that only so-called 'physical things' can be 'facts'.

Which 'I' wonder if "peter holmes" has, now, 'seen' where, exactly, the contradiction and hypocrisy is here

[Peter Holmes]

Age

1 I've explained the way I use the words fact and objectivity countless times.

I have explained the way I use words also. But, what does this in and of itself actually mean or prove, exactly?

You wanted us to define terms, and I've done it countless times. But you can always disagree with my explanations.

A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case.

And, once again, 'reality' to you is different than it is to others. So, and absolutely obviously, what is a so-called 'feature of reality' can be different to all of you, human beings.

No - and here's the rub. I say that the existence and nature of features of reality have nothing to do with their being perceived, known and described, by humans or any other species. There's no evidence that a reality perceived differently is a different reality - and it's irrational to believe it is.

A 'feature of reality' is you human beings 'see' 'different realities' and 'different features of reality'. And, that is 'a fact', right?

Wrong. See above. You've been suckered by empiricist skepticism.

And to be objective is to rely on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. (Incidentally, the expression objective fact is redundant.)

Great. Hopefully you will stop using that expression, from now on then.

You use the expression 'objective moral fact', which is redundant. I don't think I've ever used the expression 'objective fact'. But if I have, it was a mistake.

And, let 'us' also not forget how many times I have informed that all of what you human beings call 'facts' are, solely, reliant on your beliefs, judgments, and/or opinions, and absolutely all of the other actual things and 'features of reality' that can be classed within the group called 'thoughts', themselves.

Wrong. My or our belief, judgement or opinion that something is a fact doesn't make it a fact, any more than my or our belief, etc, that something isn't a fact would mean it isn't. That's what makes facts facts - independence from belief, judgement or opinion.

So, the fact that it is 'thought', alone, which 'objective' and/or 'objectivity' 'relies' up on means the 'exact opposite' of what you believe, judge to be, or opinion.

False. See above.

LOL What you have been completely missing and/or misunderstanding here is that you, "yourself", have been using the very 'thing', itself, to rely upon, which you also 'try to' claim is the very 'thing' that 'objective' cannot be relied nor based upon.

False. See above.

And, this is a Fact, which cannot be refuted.

2 Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, it follows that facts are physical things.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The very 'thing', a 'fact' is, and is even based or relied upon, is what some of you human beings call and class as 'non-physical'.

Now, if 'facts', themselves, are 'physical things', (and, obviously, you can take this in more than just one way), provide 'the physical thing', which is 'a fact', itself.

These words are examples of physical things.

Also, if you continue to not quote 'me' when 'you' respond to 'my words', then do not expect to get a response, 'from me'. Which, may be, what your whole intention was/is here.

Cut the hippy crap about 'you humans', etc, get to the point quickly and simply, and I'm more likely to reply directly. I find your writing tedious.

So, what 'we' have here 'currently' the opinion, judgment, and belief from the one here known as "peter holmes" is that only so-called 'physical things' can be 'facts'.

Which 'I' wonder if "peter holmes" has, now, 'seen' where, exactly, the contradiction and hypocrisy is here

What contradiction? Spell it out without the bs, and I'll be able to respond. If your 'gotcha' is that what constitutes a fact is a matter of opinion, then that's patently false and self-refuting.

[Age]

Age

1 I've explained the way I use the words fact and objectivity countless times.

I have explained the way I use words also. But, what does this in and of itself actually mean or prove, exactly?

You wanted us to define terms, and I've done it countless times. But you can always disagree with my explanations.

A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case.

And, once again, 'reality' to you is different than it is to others. So, and absolutely obviously, what is a so-called 'feature of reality' can be different to all of you, human beings.

No - and here's the rub. I say that the existence and nature of features of reality have nothing to do with their being perceived, known and described, by humans or any other species. There's no evidence that a reality perceived differently is a different reality - and it's irrational to believe it is.

A 'feature of reality' is you human beings 'see' 'different realities' and 'different features of reality'. And, that is 'a fact', right?

Wrong. See above. You've been suckered by empiricist skepticism.

And to be objective is to rely on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. (Incidentally, the expression objective fact is redundant.)

Great. Hopefully you will stop using that expression, from now on then.

You use the expression 'objective moral fact', which is redundant. I don't think I've ever used the expression 'objective fact'. But if I have, it was a mistake.

And, let 'us' also not forget how many times I have informed that all of what you human beings call 'facts' are, solely, reliant on your beliefs, judgments, and/or opinions, and absolutely all of the other actual things and 'features of reality' that can be classed within the group called 'thoughts', themselves.

Wrong. My or our belief, judgement or opinion that something is a fact doesn't make it a fact, any more than my or our belief, etc, that something isn't a fact would mean it isn't. That's what makes facts facts - independence from belief, judgement or opinion.

So, the fact that it is 'thought', alone, which 'objective' and/or 'objectivity' 'relies' up on means the 'exact opposite' of what you believe, judge to be, or opinion.

False. See above.

LOL What you have been completely missing and/or misunderstanding here is that you, "yourself", have been using the very 'thing', itself, to rely upon, which you also 'try to' claim is the very 'thing' that 'objective' cannot be relied nor based upon.

False. See above.

And, this is a Fact, which cannot be refuted.

2 Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, it follows that facts are physical things.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The very 'thing', a 'fact' is, and is even based or relied upon, is what some of you human beings call and class as 'non-physical'.

Now, if 'facts', themselves, are 'physical things', (and, obviously, you can take this in more than just one way), provide 'the physical thing', which is 'a fact', itself.

These words are examples of physical things.

Also, if you continue to not quote 'me' when 'you' respond to 'my words', then do not expect to get a response, 'from me'. Which, may be, what your whole intention was/is here.

Cut the hippy crap about 'you humans', etc, get to the point quickly and simply, and I'm more likely to reply directly. I find your writing tedious.

So, what 'we' have here 'currently' the opinion, judgment, and belief from the one here known as "peter holmes" is that only so-called 'physical things' can be 'facts'.

Which 'I' wonder if "peter holmes" has, now, 'seen' where, exactly, the contradiction and hypocrisy is here

What contradiction? Spell it out without the bs, and I'll be able to respond. If your 'gotcha' is that what constitutes a fact is a matter of opinion, then that's patently false and self-refuting.

I responded to all of this but because of the way it was quoted most of my response was lost.

But, in essence, you are, still, using the very thing/s that you say, believe, and claim are not facts.

[Age]

Contrary to popular belief 'facts' are not based upon 'physical things' alone.

And, how 'objectivity', itself, is actually found and obtained and what 'objectivity' actually is proves this.

So, what makes 'morality' objective is the very thing that makes all other 'objective things' objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Contrary to popular belief 'facts' are not based upon 'physical things' alone.

This is a claim which incurs the burden of proving (demonstrating) that any non-physical thing exists - a burden unmet, so far, to my knowledge. Which means that skepticism with regard to non-physical or abstract things is the only rational position.

[Skepdick]

This is a claim which incurs the burden of proving (demonstrating) that any non-physical thing exists - a burden unmet, so far, to my knowledge. Which means that skepticism with regard to non-physical or abstract things is the only rational position.

This nonsense incurs the burden of specifying the evaluation and discrimination criteria for "existence". What exists if not everything?

Go ahead and give us an example of a non-existent.

[Fairy]

What exists if not everything?

Go ahead and give us an example of a non-existent.

Well for a start, when one thing is known every thing is known. Once the thing is known, everything is known, since all known things come from the same one knower.

When the knower is known, so too will all things be known.

Non-existence cannot be known, because there is no such existence, as a non existing existence that can be known, except as concept, in this conception. The irony here, is that as each concept is known, the concept in and of itself knows nothing of this knowing. That's the nondual nature of reality, insofar as knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of existence, reality. It's one thing.

And this one thing never claims to be one thing, until it does, which creates the duality of a claimer and the claimed. A knower and the known.

And that duality is all that is known. Nonduality simply means, two, but not two, simultaneously, because duality can never not be a duality, in the sense of non-dual, there is no such thing as a non-dual dual.

[Age]

Contrary to popular belief 'facts' are not based upon 'physical things' alone.

This is a claim which incurs the burden of proving (demonstrating) that any non-physical thing exists - a burden unmet, so far, to my knowledge. Which means that skepticism with regard to non-physical or abstract things is the only rational position.

Do you know of any non-physical thing?

If yes, then what is that, or are they?