What could make morality objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

The only two philosophers who said anything useful on this issue were Descartes and Hume. Descartes pointed out that I think, therefore I am, but that's all I know, while Hume pointed out that I have no direct experience of my self, so I can't even be sure what kind of thing I am. So I can't know what I am, nor whether the experiences I am currently having are caused by an external world, as they appear to be, or whether this is an illusion, and they are being caused by something else that I can't detect. Hence it would be irrational for me to be either a realist or an idealist.

If you people exist, you are in the same position as me. You should therefore give up this futile argument, which can never be resolved, and talk about something else.

And that something else can therefore never be resolved either. What was the point?

One version of the point is probably that realism and antirealism just aren't important positions. That we don't need an explanation of why the world presents itself to us as it does in order to reason within the world that has represented itself. And surely most importantly, that there is no possible reason to need to discuss whether the world is really really entirely truly real in order to discuss ethics.

[Skepdick]

One version of the point is probably that realism and antirealism just aren't important positions. That we don't need an explanation of why the world presents itself to us as it does in order to reason within the world that has represented itself. And surely most importantly, that there is no possible reason to need to discuss whether the world is really really entirely truly real in order to discuss ethics.

This guy doesn't get it.

There are no important positions on ethics, because taking positions about ethics isn't the same thing as practicing ethics when faced with concrete ethical issues.

All philosophical positioning and posturing amounts to exactly this thread.

Ethics is this.
No! It's that!

All ethics is ultimately vacuous, because actions not words resolve the ambiguity at the sharp end.

[Atla]

The only two philosophers who said anything useful on this issue were Descartes and Hume. Descartes pointed out that I think, therefore I am, but that's all I know, while Hume pointed out that I have no direct experience of my self, so I can't even be sure what kind of thing I am. So I can't know what I am, nor whether the experiences I am currently having are caused by an external world, as they appear to be, or whether this is an illusion, and they are being caused by something else that I can't detect. Hence it would be irrational for me to be either a realist or an idealist.

If you people exist, you are in the same position as me. You should therefore give up this futile argument, which can never be resolved, and talk about something else.

And that something else can therefore never be resolved either. What was the point?

One version of the point is probably that realism and antirealism just aren't important positions. That we don't need an explanation of why the world presents itself to us as it does in order to reason within the world that has represented itself. And surely most importantly, that there is no possible reason to need to discuss whether the world is really really entirely truly real in order to discuss ethics.

I'm fairly convinced that VA's version of Kantian antirealism is the end of all ethics, as we only pretend that other people exist but actually we are all alone. So there is no ethics to discuss.

[Skepdick]

I'm fairly convinced that VA's version of Kantian antirealism is the end of all ethics, as we only pretend that other people exist but actually we are all alone. So there is no ethics to discuss.

You don't want to be nice to all the people who live in your head?

That would explan why you are the way you are...

[Atla]

I'm fairly convinced that VA's version of Kantian antirealism is the end of all ethics, as we only pretend that other people exist but actually we are all alone. So there is no ethics to discuss.

You don't want to be nice to all the people who live in your head?

That would explan why you are the way you are...

Ok, you seem to know a great deal about how to handle those folks who live in your head..

[Skepdick]

Ok, you seem to know a great deal about how to handle those folks who live in your head..

Sure. No rent - no stay.

[Peter Holmes]

If you people exist, you are in the same position as me. You should therefore give up this futile argument, which can never be resolved, and talk about something else.

And that something else can therefore never be resolved either. What was the point?

One version of the point is probably that realism and antirealism just aren't important positions. That we don't need an explanation of why the world presents itself to us as it does in order to reason within the world that has represented itself. And surely most importantly, that there is no possible reason to need to discuss whether the world is really really entirely truly real in order to discuss ethics.

Fair enough. Trouble is, how do we stop discussion about moral rightness and wrongness turning into discussion about metaphysics?

If there are only physical things, then there are only physical properties. And in that case, moral rightness and wrongness must be physical properties. (Discuss. )

[Skepdick]

Fair enough. Trouble is, how do we stop discussion about moral rightness and wrongness turning into discussion about metaphysics?

You've already turned it into metaphysics. By distinguishing "moral" rightness and wrongness from other kinds of rightness and wrongness.

How many kinds of rightness and wrongness are there?

Welcome to metaphysics and abstract categories.

[Peter Holmes]

If there are only physical things, then there are only physical properties. And if there are only physical properties, then:
1 beauty and ugliness must be physical properties, and
2 moral rightness and wrongness must be physical properties.

So aesthetic and moral objectivists have the burden of proving (demonstrating) the physical existence of beauty, ugliness, moral rightness and moral wrongness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there are only physical things, then there are only physical properties. And if there are only physical properties, then:
1 beauty and ugliness must be physical properties, and
2 moral rightness and wrongness must be physical properties.

So aesthetic and moral objectivists have the burden of proving (demonstrating) the physical existence of beauty, ugliness, moral rightness and moral wrongness.

As usual your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

To you what is physical is this;

1a : of or relating to natural science
1b (1): of or relating to physics
(2): characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics

2a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
—Thomas De Quincey
2b: of or relating to material things
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical

To you morality is specifically related to rightness and wrongness where both are very loose and ambiguous terms.

Obviously from your very narrow perspective, general moral elements cannot be physical.

However, if one view the issue of morality more widely and deeply, the elements of morality which are very evident within humanity whilst at first glance are very mental and subjective, there are fundamental physical elements that are universal in all humans that support these moral activities.

Take the moral elements, 'no torturing and killing of babies' which is a natural potential as universal in all humans.
This natural potential is represented by its DNA code and physical neural correlates.
Because it is universal in all humans and easily cognized as such, this moral element is considered objective [i.e. independent of any individual subject's beliefs].
Based on this physical and objective element, morality is objective.

There are societies that practice the killing of babies to optimize survival of the tribe within environmental constraints, but that does not obviate the actual existence of the natural and physical moral potential within those humans.

Therefore morality is objective as qualified to the list of moral elements that are justified as physically grounded and justified within a credible moral framework and system.

[Peter Holmes]

If there are only physical things, then there are only physical properties. And if there are only physical properties, then:
1 beauty and ugliness must be physical properties, and
2 moral rightness and wrongness must be physical properties.

So aesthetic and moral objectivists have the burden of proving (demonstrating) the physical existence of beauty, ugliness, moral rightness and moral wrongness.

As usual your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

To you what is physical is this;

1a : of or relating to natural science
1b (1): of or relating to physics
(2): characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics

2a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
—Thomas De Quincey
2b: of or relating to material things
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical

To you morality is specifically related to rightness and wrongness where both are very loose and ambiguous terms.

Obviously from your very narrow perspective, general moral elements cannot be physical.

However, if one view the issue of morality more widely and deeply, the elements of morality which are very evident within humanity whilst at first glance are very mental and subjective, there are fundamental physical elements that are universal in all humans that support these moral activities.

As usual, your thinking is deeply confused.

Your factual premise is that, for neurological (physical) reasons. all humans are inclined to do X and not do Y - that all humans have this 'natural potential'. This is what the word universal means. But this premise, even if true, has no moral entailment. In other words, the premise 'all humans are inclined (etc) to do X' does not entail the conclusion 'therefore, X is morally right/good'.

You use the terms 'elements of morality' and 'moral activities', though you deny that the moral rightness and wrongness of those activities is the issue, because those are 'subjective' matters. But then you explain morality-proper as being about reducing evil and promoting good - with no attempt to explain evil and goodness in other than circular ways. Why is it 'moral' to reduce evil and promote goodness?

Take the moral elements, 'no torturing and killing of babies' which is a natural potential as universal in all humans.
This natural potential is represented by its DNA code and physical neural correlates.
Because it is universal in all humans and easily cognized as such, this moral element is considered objective [i.e. independent of any individual subject's beliefs].
Based on this physical and objective element, morality is objective.

Not so. It may be a fact that humans have this 'programming', but to say this has anything to do with morality is to beg the question. And this is where your reasoning has always stumbled. As Flash puts it: you assume and deny your moral premise, eg: torturing and killing babies is immoral. You can't establish the objectivity of morality by starting with a moral premise.

There are societies that practice the killing of babies to optimize survival of the tribe within environmental constraints, but that does not obviate the actual existence of the natural and physical moral potential within those humans.

Therefore morality is objective as qualified to the list of moral elements that are justified as physically grounded and justified within a credible moral framework and system.

Nope. Your argument is, and has always been, fallacious.

[FlashDangerpants]

To you morality is specifically related to rightness and wrongness

What a strange choice; to accuse the man of being sane and having a correct grasp of the obvious truth.

[Skepdick]

To you morality is specifically related to rightness and wrongness

What a strange choice; to accuse the man of being sane and having a correct grasp of the obvious truth.

What a confused clown.

Truth is species of morality.

[Atla]

To you morality is specifically related to rightness and wrongness

What a strange choice; to accuse the man of being sane and having a correct grasp of the obvious truth.

It could be the mythical shaming-tactic-proper.. I thought it was just a legend, I never thought I'd see it with my own eyes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there are only physical things, then there are only physical properties. And if there are only physical properties, then:
1 beauty and ugliness must be physical properties, and
2 moral rightness and wrongness must be physical properties.

So aesthetic and moral objectivists have the burden of proving (demonstrating) the physical existence of beauty, ugliness, moral rightness and moral wrongness.

As usual your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

To you what is physical is this;

1a : of or relating to natural science
1b (1): of or relating to physics
(2): characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics

2a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
—Thomas De Quincey
2b: of or relating to material things
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical

To you morality is specifically related to rightness and wrongness where both are very loose and ambiguous terms.

Obviously from your very narrow perspective, general moral elements cannot be physical.

However, if one view the issue of morality more widely and deeply, the elements of morality which are very evident within humanity whilst at first glance are very mental and subjective, there are fundamental physical elements that are universal in all humans that support these moral activities.

As usual, your thinking is deeply confused.

Your factual premise is that, for neurological (physical) reasons. all humans are inclined to do X and not do Y - that all humans have this 'natural potential'. This is what the word universal means. But this premise, even if true, has no moral entailment. In other words, the premise 'all humans are inclined (etc) to do X' does not entail the conclusion 'therefore, X is morally right/good'.

You use the terms 'elements of morality' and 'moral activities', though you deny that the moral rightness and wrongness of those activities is the issue, because those are 'subjective' matters. But then you explain morality-proper as being about reducing evil and promoting good - with no attempt to explain evil and goodness in other than circular ways. Why is it 'moral' to reduce evil and promote goodness?

I defined morality-proper as management [elimination, reduction and prevention] of evil to facilitate its related good.
I define [done elsewhere] evil as that which is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.
What is evil and defined is presented in an exhaustive list of evil acts or moral elements.
One example the moral element is "no torturing and/or killing of babies" as a moral standard.

In this case I do not have to invoke the rightness and wrongness [loose and ambiguous terms] as the primary elements of what is morality.
If there are torturing and/or killing of babies, I would classify that as a deviation, variance or gap from the standard which need to be eliminated, reduced or prevented.

Why are you so obsessed with rightness and wrongness in relation to morality; such thinking is too shallow and ineffective to trigger and expedite moral progress.

Take the moral elements, 'no torturing and killing of babies' which is a natural potential as universal in all humans.
This natural potential is represented by its DNA code and physical neural correlates.
Because it is universal in all humans and easily cognized as such, this moral element is considered objective [i.e. independent of any individual subject's beliefs].
Based on this physical and objective element, morality is objective.

Not so. It may be a fact that humans have this 'programming', but to say this has anything to do with morality is to beg the question. And this is where your reasoning has always stumbled. As Flash puts it: you assume and deny your moral premise, eg: torturing and killing babies is immoral. You can't establish the objectivity of morality by starting with a moral premise.

As I had stated,
Whatever "is" [real, truth, knowledge, facts of X, e.g. morality,] is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system - FS/FSERC which is objective, i.e. independent of any subject[s] beliefs.
As such in dealing with morality-proper we need a morality-proper FSERC.

I have argued there is a moral potential [supported by its physical neural correlates] within all humans that is verifiable via the scientific FSERC and thereupon the morality-proper FSERC.

I have established objectivity of morality when it is constituted within a morality-proper FSERC [as emerging naturally and improved]; the analogy is how the science FSERC is established from the universal human impulse "to know" [scientia] which is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; the other FSERC [politics, history, language, economics, etc.] are below the standard.

So, where that universal moral potential [as "programmed"] when processed via a morality-proper FSERC is deemed to be a moral element that is objective.

There are societies that practice the killing of babies to optimize survival of the tribe within environmental constraints, but that does not obviate the actual existence of the natural and physical moral potential within those humans.

Therefore morality is objective as qualified to the list of moral elements that are justified as physically grounded and justified within a credible moral framework and system.

Nope. Your argument is, and has always been, fallacious.
[/quote]
Where is your justifications?

Analogy:
All humans are "programmed" with the basic sexual drive [supported by DNA and its physical neural correlates] to f..k with the opposite sex [supposedly heterosexuality] to facilitate the production of the next generation to preserve the species. This is the universal standard for all humans, thus it objective within the science-biology FSERC.

However, in real life, there are those who turned out to be asexual, homosexual, bisexual and other sexual perversions.
These variations do not necessary obviate that objective universal primary sexual potential within all humans.
It is just that its secondary features are damaged during DNA-RNA expression which results in the deviation from the norm and standard.
Therefore, despite the variation is sexual tendencies, the primary sexual neural correlates are still in existence, thus sexuality is objective at the fundamental level.

The above analogy is the same for morality, which is represented by its objective universal primary moral potential within all humans.
The variations [small %] in moral inclinations within humans is due to damage or weakness to the objective universal primary moral potential [algorithm] within all humans.
This is what happened to FDP who is morally deficient as a result of some damage or an inactive moral algorithm in the brain.

Do you have any counters for the above?

Btw, my response above had been repeated many times, you just do not have the philosophical intelligence and cognitive power to grasp and understand it.