What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Factual results based on subjective data are not subjective facts' is not a contradiction.

Seriously? ...you are failing logically.

1 Agreed. A fact is a fact, so the expression 'subjective fact' is as redundant as the expression 'objective fact'.

No. They are based on differences within reality. Both facts have VALUE, but objective FACT is clearly the desire.

No. A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. Please give an example of a declarative that asserts what you call a subjective fact. Then I'll show you why it isn't. The expression 'subjective fact' is incoherent.

First,
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

Your "A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case" is grounded on an illusion, thus the bastardized form.
Prove to me a fact-by-itself [is the case absolutely] exists as real?

What Atto is proposing is not a subjective fact per se, but rather an intersubjective fact, i.e. that is contingent upon a collective-of-subjects within a framework and system[FS] of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
What Atto did not consider is the degrees of credibility and objectivity of a fact.

An objective scientific fact is an intersubjective fact as contingent upon the scientific FSERC.

All facts are intersubjective [objective] facts as contingent upon its specific human-based FSERC each with varying degrees of credibility and objectivity.

Here is the intersubjective-FS-fact as presented below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

[attofishpi]

'Factual results based on subjective data are not subjective facts' is not a contradiction.

Sorry, I see your distinction.

No. They are based on differences within reality. Both facts have VALUE, but objective FACT is clearly the desire.

No. A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. Please give an example of a declarative that asserts what you call a subjective fact. Then I'll show you why it isn't. The expression 'subjective fact' is incoherent.

I need to make the distinction that I am talking about objective statistical fact based on subjective data (such as the FACTUAL result of a survey of 1000 people as to whether burning widowers alive is ethical).

You said 'FACTS are attained by analysis of subjective data', and that's not always the case. So I pointed out your mistake.

I didn't state it was ALWAYS the case so there was no mistake on my part.

Yet I am not stating societal "theories" of truth. I am stating that societies hold a subjective TRUTH value to account.

Word salad.

It is not word salad, societies have a way of measuring a degree of ethical standard by statistical information gathered from surveying members of said society as to their ethical opinions.

The degree of accuracy of ethical standards - the 'truth value' is increased per sample size, hence 'bandwagon fallacy' is an incorrect assertion where ethics is concerned within society.

Do you use "bandwagon fallacy" for those that believe with the majority of scientists, such as those that believe in the Big Bang Theory?

With regards to the thread title: What could make morality objective?

..what I am stating is the best you are going to get - CONSENSUS agreement as to what IS or NOT ethical.

Agreed. And that means nothing can make morality objective. Well done.

Sure, but my argument all along is (perhaps mainly with FlashD) is that we can have a measurable yardstick via CONSENSUS agreement within society - that peoples opinions on the matter of what is or not is ethical can be reasonable (hence my gripe with 'bandwagon fallacy')

You don't seem to know what a bandwagon fallacy is. It has nothing to do with people's intelligence.

Again, that's not the point. A FALLACY (Fallacy: an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false) still requires those upon the "wagon" to be irrational for the 'fallacy' to stand/hold water.

Society...consensus etc... ain't that daft.

No. A bandwagon fallacy is the claim that a conclusion is true because many people, or all people believe it is. The conclusion could, of course, be true nonetheless - so your gloss is incorrect.

I disagree that people believe something is ethical or not (TRUE or NOT) is based on what society (many people) by consensus deems as ethical or not (your bandwagon fallacy). People make their own reasoned minds up as to what is ethical, they aren't relying on what everyone else thinks.

[attofishpi]

Again. By your use of "TRUE" you are insisting that I believe in something objective in relation to ethics.

No I am not. My use of the word true is in contrast with false. Surely you can agree that if something is true then it cannot also be false.

So I ask you again,and please answer this time...
So you think Y true for society X if everyone in society X believes Y because people are generally good and wise when they get together in large groups?

NO - I think that is referred to as the bandwagon fallacy.

I think that people within a society are not making value judgements based on what SOCIETY deems as ethical, that they are capable of reasoning on a personal level what is or isn't ethical. The societal consensus argument I am making is my insistence that we can have a yardstick to measure our societal ethical standards, in comparison to others - per our personal opinions.

[attofishpi]

So by all means use societal ethical opinion as a preliminary indicator of where to look for ethical truths, but don't expect societal opinion to be the arbiter of what is true in ethics; it can't do that.

I know.

[Peter Holmes]

The entire argument I have with you - is that you think that subjective (opinion) within the realm of ethics has NO value (no yardstick as you previously mentioned)

I am merely stating, that where it comes to what HUMANS consider as 'ethical' or NOT 'ethical' - DOES have a yardstick - a measurement value and it is based upon those upon the BANDWAGON (not a fallacy where they CANT comprehend a value to what is rationally ethical)- social humanity has a measurement value.

It is theoretically possible that societal ethical opinion could have some limited value, in the sense of being a pointer to correct ethical views. This could happen in one of three ways:
1. Someone in the past produced sound arguments and/or weighty evidence in favour of correct ethical opinions, and society has been influenced by their thinking. In other words, societal ethical opinion happens to be largely correct because of an inherited 'folk ethics' which, because it was originally derived from a sound evaluation of argument and/or evidence, is itself largely correct.
2. A majority of people in society are capable of arriving at correct ethical opinions by a process of reasoning which, while generally sound, is not overt, i.e. not fully conscious and articulated.
3. A combination of 1. and 2.

The point to note here is that in both 1 and 2, reference is made to 'correct ethical opinion'. Even if you managed to establish that one of the above three theories about societal ethical opinion is correct, you would still be required to show that the ethical opinions arrived at by any of the above processes are themselves correct. You could not rely on societal opinion to show this, because that would be circular reasoning. Irrespective of what goes on with societal opinion, therefore, the burden of proof is still on the objectivist to show by some method other than reference to societal opinion that there are in fact correct objectivist beliefs, and what these beliefs are. The only available method is to look for sound arguments and/or weighty evidence that would support some particular objectivist ethical theory. So by all means use societal ethical opinion as a preliminary indicator of where to look for ethical truths, but don't expect societal opinion to be the arbiter of what is true in ethics; it can't do that.

I think this analysis is confused. The issue is the possibility of moral 'correctness' or 'ethical truths'. So to say they can't be established by reference to 'societal opinion' is to beg the question.

The question is this. Can an assertion such as 'eating animals is morally wrong' be true or false? In other words, is it a factual assertion with a truth-value which is independent from opinion? If it is or can be, then morality is objective. And I say it isn't and can't be, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

attofishpi's point about where our moral values come from is a separate issue. And I happen to think personal and social moral values can be more or less rational - with not a bandwagon in sight.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The entire argument I have with you - is that you think that subjective (opinion) within the realm of ethics has NO value (no yardstick as you previously mentioned)

I am merely stating, that where it comes to what HUMANS consider as 'ethical' or NOT 'ethical' - DOES have a yardstick - a measurement value and it is based upon those upon the BANDWAGON (not a fallacy where they CANT comprehend a value to what is rationally ethical)- social humanity has a measurement value.

It is theoretically possible that societal ethical opinion could have some limited value, in the sense of being a pointer to correct ethical views. This could happen in one of three ways:
1. Someone in the past produced sound arguments and/or weighty evidence in favour of correct ethical opinions, and society has been influenced by their thinking. In other words, societal ethical opinion happens to be largely correct because of an inherited 'folk ethics' which, because it was originally derived from a sound evaluation of argument and/or evidence, is itself largely correct.
2. A majority of people in society are capable of arriving at correct ethical opinions by a process of reasoning which, while generally sound, is not overt, i.e. not fully conscious and articulated.
3. A combination of 1. and 2.

The point to note here is that in both 1 and 2, reference is made to 'correct ethical opinion'. Even if you managed to establish that one of the above three theories about societal ethical opinion is correct, you would still be required to show that the ethical opinions arrived at by any of the above processes are themselves correct. You could not rely on societal opinion to show this, because that would be circular reasoning. Irrespective of what goes on with societal opinion, therefore, the burden of proof is still on the objectivist to show by some method other than reference to societal opinion that there are in fact correct objectivist beliefs, and what these beliefs are. The only available method is to look for sound arguments and/or weighty evidence that would support some particular objectivist ethical theory. So by all means use societal ethical opinion as a preliminary indicator of where to look for ethical truths, but don't expect societal opinion to be the arbiter of what is true in ethics; it can't do that.

I think this analysis is confused. The issue is the possibility of moral 'correctness' or 'ethical truths'. So to say they can't be established by reference to 'societal opinion' is to beg the question.

The question is this. Can an assertion such as 'eating animals is morally wrong' be true or false? In other words, is it a factual assertion with a truth-value which is independent from opinion? If it is or can be, then morality is objective. And I say it isn't and can't be, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

PH: "I say it isn't and can't be."
Wow! you commanded as if you are God.
WHO ARE YOU to claim that morality isn't and can't be objective?

Whatever is true or false is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system.
As such, whatever is claimed to be true or false must always be qualified to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].
You cannot be an ultracrepidarian to insist, it is true or false because I say it is or isn't.

Thus, while the claim, 'water is H2O' is often stated without qualification, to be rigorous, the actual situation is 'water is H2O' because the science-chemistry FS said so.

So the objective fact 'the oughtnot_ness of humans killing humans' is true as qualified to a credible and objective moral FS.

[Peter Holmes]

It is theoretically possible that societal ethical opinion could have some limited value, in the sense of being a pointer to correct ethical views. This could happen in one of three ways:
1. Someone in the past produced sound arguments and/or weighty evidence in favour of correct ethical opinions, and society has been influenced by their thinking. In other words, societal ethical opinion happens to be largely correct because of an inherited 'folk ethics' which, because it was originally derived from a sound evaluation of argument and/or evidence, is itself largely correct.
2. A majority of people in society are capable of arriving at correct ethical opinions by a process of reasoning which, while generally sound, is not overt, i.e. not fully conscious and articulated.
3. A combination of 1. and 2.

The point to note here is that in both 1 and 2, reference is made to 'correct ethical opinion'. Even if you managed to establish that one of the above three theories about societal ethical opinion is correct, you would still be required to show that the ethical opinions arrived at by any of the above processes are themselves correct. You could not rely on societal opinion to show this, because that would be circular reasoning. Irrespective of what goes on with societal opinion, therefore, the burden of proof is still on the objectivist to show by some method other than reference to societal opinion that there are in fact correct objectivist beliefs, and what these beliefs are. The only available method is to look for sound arguments and/or weighty evidence that would support some particular objectivist ethical theory. So by all means use societal ethical opinion as a preliminary indicator of where to look for ethical truths, but don't expect societal opinion to be the arbiter of what is true in ethics; it can't do that.

I think this analysis is confused. The issue is the possibility of moral 'correctness' or 'ethical truths'. So to say they can't be established by reference to 'societal opinion' is to beg the question.

The question is this. Can an assertion such as 'eating animals is morally wrong' be true or false? In other words, is it a factual assertion with a truth-value which is independent from opinion? If it is or can be, then morality is objective. And I say it isn't and can't be, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

PH: "I say it isn't and can't be."
Wow! you commanded as if you are God.
WHO ARE YOU to claim that morality isn't and can't be objective?

Whatever is true or false is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system.
As such, whatever is claimed to be true or false must always be qualified to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].
You cannot be an ultracrepidarian to insist, it is true or false because I say it is or isn't.

Thus, while the claim, 'water is H2O' is often stated without qualification, to be rigorous, the actual situation is 'water is H2O' because the science-chemistry FS said so.

So the objective fact 'the oughtnot_ness of humans killing humans' is true as qualified to a credible and objective moral FS.

Erm. No. My whole point is that something isn't or wasn't the case because I or we or all of us say it is or was. Features of reality - facts - just are or were the case. Your error is to mistake the ways we humans perceive, know and describe reality - for reality itself. And here's the error.

'Whatever is true or false is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system. As such, whatever is claimed to be true or false must always be qualified to a specific human-based framework and system [FS].'

This is correct. A factual assertion - and therefore a truth-claim - 'whatever is true or false' - is always contextual and conventional.

But we're talking about the reality outside language - what you call 'whatever is real' - and that has nothing to do with language, and so nothing to do with the linguistic context in which truth and falsehood 'exist'. Iow, a truth-claim is contingent, but what it's about is not.

[FlashDangerpants]

Again. By your use of "TRUE" you are insisting that I believe in something objective in relation to ethics.

No I am not. My use of the word true is in contrast with false. Surely you can agree that if something is true then it cannot also be false.

So I ask you again,and please answer this time...
So you think Y true for society X if everyone in society X believes Y because people are generally good and wise when they get together in large groups?

NO - I think that is referred to as the bandwagon fallacy.

I think that people within a society are not making value judgements based on what SOCIETY deems as ethical, that they are capable of reasoning on a personal level what is or isn't ethical. The societal consensus argument I am making is my insistence that we can have a yardstick to measure our societal ethical standards, in comparison to others - per our personal opinions.

How would that look if you expressed it in the form of meaningful propositions?

[attofishpi]

No I am not. My use of the word true is in contrast with false. Surely you can agree that if something is true then it cannot also be false.

So I ask you again,and please answer this time...
So you think Y true for society X if everyone in society X believes Y because people are generally good and wise when they get together in large groups?

NO - I think that is referred to as the bandwagon fallacy.

I think that people within a society are not making value judgements based on what SOCIETY deems as ethical, that they are capable of reasoning on a personal level what is or isn't ethical. The societal consensus argument I am making is my insistence that we can have a yardstick to measure our societal ethical standards, in comparison to others - per our personal opinions.

How would that look if you expressed it in the form of meaningful propositions?

Complicated/complex but in no way as complex as logical gateways within human brains (which is what it's ALL about).

[FlashDangerpants]

NO - I think that is referred to as the bandwagon fallacy.

I think that people within a society are not making value judgements based on what SOCIETY deems as ethical, that they are capable of reasoning on a personal level what is or isn't ethical. The societal consensus argument I am making is my insistence that we can have a yardstick to measure our societal ethical standards, in comparison to others - per our personal opinions.

How would that look if you expressed it in the form of meaningful propositions?

Complicated/complex but in no way as complex as logical gateways within human brains (which is what it's ALL about).

I see you are still determined to outthink yourself. Let's start with the first step perhaps.

You have already told me there are no objective values. In context that means that it isn't objectively better to be alive than dead, nor objectively nicer to drink a cool beer in the shade than to dig a ditch under the hot sun. We all like one option more than the other because of a shared subjective view that isn't right or wrong, true or false in any objective sense.

Thus far your expressions in this matter have tended towards the people of a society arriving together via consensus of what is moral within that society.

Are we correct this far? You should probably be able to correct any errors above with straight forward meaningful sentences.

[attofishpi]

How would that look if you expressed it in the form of meaningful propositions?

Complicated/complex but in no way as complex as logical gateways within human brains (which is what it's ALL about).

I see you are still determined to outthink yourself. Let's start with the first step perhaps.

Well, before we get going let me just point out that you have PROVEN yourself as a LIAR with no respect of what I state, in a similar fashion to Sculptor who ended up being banned.

You have already told me there are no objective values.

That's a lie or something perhaps I have overlooked - provide evidence.

..in context that means that it isn't objectively better to be alive than dead, nor objectively nicer to drink a cool beer in the shade than to dig a ditch under the hot sun.

..all of which (premise being a LIE) renders everything else that follows as garbage (GIGO).

We all like one option more than the other because of a shared subjective view that isn't right or wrong, true or false in any objective sense.

Thus far your expressions in this matter have tended towards the people of a society arriving together via consensus of what is moral within that society.

Are we correct this far? You should probably be able to correct any errors above with straight forward meaningful sentences.

Sure, but things can be considered right or wrong in a subjective sense where a key ingredient that has formed human society for millennia is concerned, ethics.

[FlashDangerpants]

Complicated/complex but in no way as complex as logical gateways within human brains (which is what it's ALL about).

I see you are still determined to outthink yourself. Let's start with the first step perhaps.

Well, before we get going let me just point out that you have PROVEN yourself as a LIAR with no respect of what I state, in a similar fashion to Sculptor who ended up being banned.

You have already told me there are no objective values.

That's a lie or something perhaps I have overlooked - provide evidence.

Oh FFS here's the quote.

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

Don't be like this.

..in context that means that it isn't objectively better to be alive than dead, nor objectively nicer to drink a cool beer in the shade than to dig a ditch under the hot sun.

..all of which (premise being a LIE) renders everything else that follows as garbage (GIGO).

We all like one option more than the other because of a shared subjective view that isn't right or wrong, true or false in any objective sense.

Thus far your expressions in this matter have tended towards the people of a society arriving together via consensus of what is moral within that society.

Are we correct this far? You should probably be able to correct any errors above with straight forward meaningful sentences.

Sure, but things can be considered right or wrong in a subjective sense where a key ingredient that has formed human society for millennia is concerned, ethics.

sort yourself out

[attofishpi]

I see you are still determined to outthink yourself. Let's start with the first step perhaps.

Well, before we get going let me just point out that you have PROVEN yourself as a LIAR with no respect of what I state, in a similar fashion to Sculptor who ended up being banned.

You have already told me there are no objective values.

That's a lie or something perhaps I have overlooked - provide evidence.

Oh FFS here's the quote.

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

Don't be like this.

Where am I stating there are "NO objective values" ?

The context I provided was within ETHICS AND MORALITY --- not in ANYTHING.

So go on, PROVIDE an example of an objective value within ethics and morality.

..in context that means that it isn't objectively better to be alive than dead, nor objectively nicer to drink a cool beer in the shade than to dig a ditch under the hot sun.

..all of which (premise being a LIE) renders everything else that follows as garbage (GIGO).

We all like one option more than the other because of a shared subjective view that isn't right or wrong, true or false in any objective sense.

Thus far your expressions in this matter have tended towards the people of a society arriving together via consensus of what is moral within that society.

Are we correct this far? You should probably be able to correct any errors above with straight forward meaningful sentences.

Sure, but things can be considered right or wrong in a subjective sense where a key ingredient that has formed human society for millennia is concerned, ethics.

sort yourself out

..meaning WOT?

..that as usual an ad hominem response is sufficient for the 'elite' - those that wasted their time reading philosophical books without the intellect required to CHALLENGE any of it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Maybe sober up and try again tomorrow., I CBA with this nonsense when you're pissed up.

[attofishpi]

I've just dealt with you and your pathetic attempt to misrepresent me (*AGAIN) whilst eating my dinner.
If I was boozed up, all the more pathetic you are, that you resort to such crap without a reasonable refutation of ANYTHING I have stated. coward.