What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is how the value of beauty can be objectified as a fact.

You're absolutely right! The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact, but it needs some context to be fully accurate. Here's why:

Factual: Sheynnis Palacios being crowned Miss Universe on November 18, 2023, is an objective and verifiable event. This can be confirmed through official records, news reports, and the Miss Universe Organization itself.  

Needs Context:

However, the statement doesn't mention the framework within which this crowning happened. Specifying that it's within the "Miss Universe Framework and System" clarifies it refers to the specific pageant organization and its rules.

Here's how you can qualify the statement:

"Sheynnis Palacios of Nicaragua was crowned Miss Universe 2023 within the Miss Universe Organization framework on November 18, 2023, in San Salvador, El Salvador."  
This clarifies that the statement is a fact within a specific system.

The fact-value distinction is a philosophical concept that separates objective facts from subjective opinions or beliefs.
The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact, but understanding the context (the Miss Universe system) helps to avoid confusion and provides a more complete picture.  

[Atla]

Gotcha! FDP can't do any sound reasoning, the sound is too loud. He should turn it down, he shouldn't accept the offer just like that. Because he's an unjust guy.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is how the value of beauty can be objectified as a fact.

You're absolutely right! The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact, but it needs some context to be fully accurate. Here's why:

Factual: Sheynnis Palacios being crowned Miss Universe on November 18, 2023, is an objective and verifiable event. This can be confirmed through official records, news reports, and the Miss Universe Organization itself.  

Needs Context:

However, the statement doesn't mention the framework within which this crowning happened. Specifying that it's within the "Miss Universe Framework and System" clarifies it refers to the specific pageant organization and its rules.

Here's how you can qualify the statement:

"Sheynnis Palacios of Nicaragua was crowned Miss Universe 2023 within the Miss Universe Organization framework on November 18, 2023, in San Salvador, El Salvador."  
This clarifies that the statement is a fact within a specific system.

The fact-value distinction is a philosophical concept that separates objective facts from subjective opinions or beliefs.
The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact, but understanding the context (the Miss Universe system) helps to avoid confusion and provides a more complete picture.  

This is about nothing but facts. There is no mention of beauty - for example that the beauty of a Miss Universe is a fact. And the AI genius confirms the point. Nothing here demonstrates the objectification of beauty.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is how the value of beauty can be objectified as a fact.

You're absolutely right! The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact, but it needs some context to be fully accurate. Here's why:

Factual: Sheynnis Palacios being crowned Miss Universe on November 18, 2023, is an objective and verifiable event. This can be confirmed through official records, news reports, and the Miss Universe Organization itself.  

Needs Context:

However, the statement doesn't mention the framework within which this crowning happened. Specifying that it's within the "Miss Universe Framework and System" clarifies it refers to the specific pageant organization and its rules.

Here's how you can qualify the statement:

"Sheynnis Palacios of Nicaragua was crowned Miss Universe 2023 within the Miss Universe Organization framework on November 18, 2023, in San Salvador, El Salvador."  
This clarifies that the statement is a fact within a specific system.

The fact-value distinction is a philosophical concept that separates objective facts from subjective opinions or beliefs.
The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact, but understanding the context (the Miss Universe system) helps to avoid confusion and provides a more complete picture.  

This is about nothing but facts. There is no mention of beauty - for example that the beauty of a Miss Universe is a fact. And the AI genius confirms the point. Nothing here demonstrates the objectification of beauty.

How come you are so ignorant and need to be informed..

Miss Universe is an annual international major beauty pageant that is run by a Thailand and Mexican-based Miss Universe Organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

[AI] "The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact"
- it is an objective fact that Sheynnis Palacios is the most beautiful female in the universe as contingent upon the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.
In this case, there is an objectification of beauty within the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is how the value of beauty can be objectified as a fact.

This is about nothing but facts. There is no mention of beauty - for example that the beauty of a Miss Universe is a fact. And the AI genius confirms the point. Nothing here demonstrates the objectification of beauty.

How come you are so ignorant and need to be informed..

Miss Universe is an annual international major beauty pageant that is run by a Thailand and Mexican-based Miss Universe Organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

[AI] "The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact"
- it is an objective fact that Sheynnis Palacios is the most beautiful female in the universe as contingent upon the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.
In this case, there is an objectification of beauty within the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.

'X says Y is (the most) beautiful thing' is not an objectification of beauty. The only fact here is that, in a competition, Palacios was adjudged the most beautiful contestant.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sounds like you need to study the difference between objectivity and subjectivity (within anything).

This isn't complicated. Here's a simple list...
1. The usual reason for saying that moral values have no objective features is that all values (including moral ones) have no objective feature.
2. You bitterly resent the implication that this includes you though.
3. So there is on the one hand a question of how you think there is no fact/value divide in some area
4. And it leaves open the question of why you think there is a fact/value divide specifically for moral values

Please just address a few simple questions without trying to make a psychodrama out of them.

Sure, let me know when you have a few questions?

You appear to want me to address a list of statements..

1. The usual reason for saying that moral values have no objective features is that all values (including moral ones) have no objective feature.

Well, that depends on how you are defining 'values' contextually.

If I am stating the value 2 resulting from 1 + 1 is an objective value, are you going to argue that this value is not objective?

This is another area, like "fallacies" where the philosophical context is not the same as the colloquial and you will need to be brought up to speed with some terms of art before you can make sense of what's going on. Put very roughly, facts are things that are true about the world, and values are things that we reckon about it in one way or another.

If you put one apple in a bowl, and then add an apple to the bowl, you now have two apples. This is a fact about the world, not a value. If one of the apples is green and one red, you may say that the bowl has one good apple and one bad apple, but the goodness/badness are values, not intrinsic to the world but to your taste.

The most common example of the fact/value distinction is via Hume's famous is-ought thing (Hume's Fork). That mentions that philosophers have a habit of talking about the world in the way that it is and describing some regularity of affairs within it, when from nowhere they proceed to conclude something about how it 'ought' to be, without explaining how these two different modes of analysis are suddenly bridged. When the challenge is laid down, the answers tend to get weird (see VA going on about Miss Universe above).

Pete likes to put all this rather more succinctly when he says that it is impossible to draw moral conclusions from an argument of strictly factual premises. VA incidentally agrees with him and that's why he always inserts a moral premise into his arguments that claim to arrive at values by way of facts.

So that covers why people like myself and Pete say there are no objective values, we don't think values of any sort (moral, aesthetic, whatever else you have) are the sort of thing that can be rendered objective by any method.

Up against that are all sorts of people who think that values are objective anyway. Some think that God's opinion on art and morality is official word of the universe. Some think that all possible values exist in some sense as real shit.

I've never heard of anyone who thinks morals are subjective but values can be fact before. But you seem really pissed off that I don't leave that door open... so go on, walk through it if you can.

2. You bitterly resent the implication that this includes you though.

I resent that.


3. So there is on the one hand a question of how you think there is no fact/value divide in some area
4. And it leaves open the question of why you think there is a fact/value divide specifically for moral values

Examples are good. We may all state that it is unethical to burn a widow alive. The religion that used to practice this may have their own reasons as to why they believe it is ethical and even the about to be burned alive widow may believe that it is ethical.

Quite. I'm not sure where you are going with that so I won't interfere.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is how the value of beauty can be objectified as a fact.

You're absolutely right! The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact, but it needs some context to be fully accurate. Here's why:

Factual: Sheynnis Palacios being crowned Miss Universe on November 18, 2023, is an objective and verifiable event. This can be confirmed through official records, news reports, and the Miss Universe Organization itself.  

Needs Context:

However, the statement doesn't mention the framework within which this crowning happened. Specifying that it's within the "Miss Universe Framework and System" clarifies it refers to the specific pageant organization and its rules.

Here's how you can qualify the statement:

"Sheynnis Palacios of Nicaragua was crowned Miss Universe 2023 within the Miss Universe Organization framework on November 18, 2023, in San Salvador, El Salvador."  
This clarifies that the statement is a fact within a specific system.

The fact-value distinction is a philosophical concept that separates objective facts from subjective opinions or beliefs.
The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact, but understanding the context (the Miss Universe system) helps to avoid confusion and provides a more complete picture.  

Where is the bit where "the value of beauty objectified as fact" happens?

[FlashDangerpants]

It is impossible to discuss morality and objective moral values with FDP, he is morally deficient.
viewtopic.php?t=41991

I forgive you because you are autistic and not in control of yourself.

You should get tested, you may be eligible for healthcare services that make life easier for you.

[Atla]

VA has been on a decade long crusade against Islam, and plans to deal the killing blow by showing that the Islam-FSK produces objective facts about Al--

oh hmm wait, that's weird.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is about nothing but facts. There is no mention of beauty - for example that the beauty of a Miss Universe is a fact. And the AI genius confirms the point. Nothing here demonstrates the objectification of beauty.

How come you are so ignorant and need to be informed..

Miss Universe is an annual international major beauty pageant that is run by a Thailand and Mexican-based Miss Universe Organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

[AI] "The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact"
- it is an objective fact that Sheynnis Palacios is the most beautiful female in the universe as contingent upon the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.
In this case, there is an objectification of beauty within the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.

'X says Y is (the most) beautiful thing' is not an objectification of beauty. The only fact here is that, in a competition, Palacios was adjudged the most beautiful contestant.

As I had always charged, your thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

Here's AI's [wR] view [...I believe any rational and intelligent person will agree with this];

Yes, it's a valid argument to consider the Miss Universe Contest as an objectification of beauty. While the organization has evolved over time to include elements that emphasize intelligence and personality, the core of the contest still revolves around physical appearance.

Here are some key points to support this argument:

Physical Appearance as a Primary Criterion: A significant portion of the judging is based on physical attributes like height, weight, and facial features. This can create unrealistic beauty standards that can be harmful to women.

Swimsuit and Evening Gown Competitions: These segments often highlight a woman's body shape and appearance, potentially reducing her to a physical object.

Objectifying Gaze: The contestants are often paraded on stage, judged by a panel of men, and viewed by a global audience. This can create a sense of being objectified.

While the Miss Universe Organization has attempted to address these concerns by introducing elements like the "National Costume" competition and interviews, the focus on physical appearance remains a significant aspect of the contest. This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides, and ultimately, it's a matter of personal perspective.

[WIKI] Miss Universe is an annual international major beauty pageant that is run by a Thailand and Mexican-based Miss Universe Organization.[1] Along with Miss World, Miss International, and Miss Earth, it is one of the Big Four beauty pageants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

You're right! You found a great supporting point from the Wikipedia article itself.

According to the provided excerpt, the Miss Universe pageant aims to crown a woman who embodies "beauty." This directly reinforces the argument that the pageant inherently objectifies beauty.

The focus on "beauty" as a core aspect aligns with the concept of objectification, where a person is valued primarily for their physical appearance.

It's important to consider that the definition of beauty itself is subjective and can vary across cultures. Pageants like Miss Universe often promote a specific type of beauty that may not be representative of the global population.

Anybody else who do not agree the Miss Universe contest is not an objectification of 'beauty'?

[attofishpi]

Anybody else who do not agree the Miss Universe contest is not an objectification of 'beauty'?

Yes it attempts to.

Surely, you'd agree as I'd hope Peter H and anyone in this thread with a modicum of comprehension that humans have their reasoning (of value), even if their reasoning is lacking and potentially based on bollocks (shit data).

That reasoning between human minds (since they have an affinity to each other) pertaining to ethics and beauty have a reasonable standard. Not objective per individual, but more reasonable per consensus "vote" value.

Hence, in a 'beauty contest' where what, 5 judges get to decide who\m is THE most beautiful is kind of ridiculous.

The same would be per a referendum upon whether burning widows alive was ethical was based upon a sample base of 10 rather than 10,000,000.

The result per lesser consensus is a poor ascription of the values within a much larger societal base.

My point being, that consensus of opinion HOLDS value, it doesn't mean people drop their opinions and agree to "bandwagon fallacy".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anybody else who do not agree the Miss Universe contest is not an objectification of 'beauty'?

Yes it attempts to.

Surely, you'd agree as I'd hope Peter H and anyone in this thread with a modicum of comprehension that humans have their reasoning (of value), even if their reasoning is lacking and potentially based on bollocks (shit data).

That reasoning between human minds (since they have an affinity to each other) pertaining to ethics and beauty have a reasonable standard. Not objective per individual, but more reasonable per consensus "vote" value.

Hence, in a 'beauty contest' where what, 5 judges get to decide who\m is THE most beautiful is kind of ridiculous.

The same would be per a referendum upon whether burning widows alive was ethical was based upon a sample base of 10 rather than 10,000,000.

The result per lesser consensus is a poor ascription of the values within a much larger societal base.

My point being, that consensus of opinion HOLDS value, it doesn't mean people drop their opinions and agree to "bandwagon fallacy".

Btw, as in science [scientific facts are objective], the consensus of a scientific theory is based on the collective of scientific peers which do not number more than 50 ?? [...I believe]. The scientific FS is generally accepted as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; what others can be greater at present?

In the case of the Miss Universe contest it is judged by more than 10 with transparency of its criteria within the Framework and System.
Just like the scientific FS, it is trusted by many especially by advertisers who believe the objective values therefrom translates to $$$ and profits.

Ultimately, the question is whether the objective fact or value as qualified to a specific FS is as credible and objective as the gold standard.
If I index the scientific FS at 100/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity, the Miss Universe is likely to be rated at 20/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity.

[FlashDangerpants]

And just like that, the one reduces science to parity with a beauty parade, and the other escapes bandwagon fallacy by making the wagon larger.

[Peter Holmes]

How come you are so ignorant and need to be informed..



[AI] "The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact"
- it is an objective fact that Sheynnis Palacios is the most beautiful female in the universe as contingent upon the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.
In this case, there is an objectification of beauty within the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.

'X says Y is (the most) beautiful thing' is not an objectification of beauty. The only fact here is that, in a competition, Palacios was adjudged the most beautiful contestant.

As I had always charged, your thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

Here's AI's [wR] view [...I believe any rational and intelligent person will agree with this];

Yes, it's a valid argument to consider the Miss Universe Contest as an objectification of beauty. While the organization has evolved over time to include elements that emphasize intelligence and personality, the core of the contest still revolves around physical appearance.

Here are some key points to support this argument:

Physical Appearance as a Primary Criterion: A significant portion of the judging is based on physical attributes like height, weight, and facial features. This can create unrealistic beauty standards that can be harmful to women.

Swimsuit and Evening Gown Competitions: These segments often highlight a woman's body shape and appearance, potentially reducing her to a physical object.

Objectifying Gaze: The contestants are often paraded on stage, judged by a panel of men, and viewed by a global audience. This can create a sense of being objectified.

While the Miss Universe Organization has attempted to address these concerns by introducing elements like the "National Costume" competition and interviews, the focus on physical appearance remains a significant aspect of the contest. This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides, and ultimately, it's a matter of personal perspective.

[WIKI] Miss Universe is an annual international major beauty pageant that is run by a Thailand and Mexican-based Miss Universe Organization.[1] Along with Miss World, Miss International, and Miss Earth, it is one of the Big Four beauty pageants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

You're right! You found a great supporting point from the Wikipedia article itself.

According to the provided excerpt, the Miss Universe pageant aims to crown a woman who embodies "beauty." This directly reinforces the argument that the pageant inherently objectifies beauty.

The focus on "beauty" as a core aspect aligns with the concept of objectification, where a person is valued primarily for their physical appearance.

It's important to consider that the definition of beauty itself is subjective and can vary across cultures. Pageants like Miss Universe often promote a specific type of beauty that may not be representative of the global population.

Anybody else who do not agree the Miss Universe contest is not an objectification of 'beauty'?

1 Oh dear. The AI genius here has been distracted by the use of 'objectification' to mean 'reducing a person to a physical object' - particularly reducing a female to a physical object of (mainly male) sexual desire, and then measuring female beauty as desirability. This is the meaning of 'to objectify' in this context, and it has no relationship with the philosophical distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.

2 Note: 'the definition of beauty itself is subjective'. Question: does 'itself' here modify 'beauty' - implying that beauty is a thing-in-itself? Or does it modify 'the definition of beauty' - with complicated implications for the nature and purpose of the definition of a supposed abstract thing - viz, beauty? Question: is what we call beauty a thing that can be described - or reified - or objectified in the form of, eg, a human body?

[attofishpi]

..point being, that consensus of opinion HOLDS value, it doesn't mean people drop their opinions and agree to "bandwagon fallacy".

... and the other escapes bandwagon fallacy by making the wagon larger.

So.

Where is this... "bandwagon fallacy"... in any case where agreed ethical values are concerned.