What could make morality objective?

[CIN]

For all practical purposes, Kant tried to make everyone a solipsist who just pretends sometimes that others exist, and thereby Kant tried to destroy humanity. The question is what were his motivations for that.

I think Kant's idea that we are ends in a kingdom of ends absolves him from that charge. I'm also increasingly of the opinion that he was right about that, though I don't agree with his criteria for qualifying as an end.

[CIN]

If the fact that facts are dependent on humans is dependent on humans, then, if there were no humans, it would not be a fact that facts are dependent on humans.

If facts are dependent on humans, then if there are no humans, there are no facts, not even the fact that there are no humans.

[CIN]

If the world is everything that is the case, then if there is no world, nothing is the case. (Wittgenstein was right, VA is wrong.)

[attofishpi]

If the fact that facts are dependent on humans is dependent on humans, then, if there were no humans, it would not be a fact that facts are dependent on humans.

Which still relies upon analysis of things beyond being human.

[Peter Holmes]

If the fact that facts are dependent on humans is dependent on humans, then, if there were no humans, it would not be a fact that facts are dependent on humans.

If facts are dependent on humans, then if there are no humans, there are no facts, not even the fact that there are no humans.

Agreed. Tooshay. One feels one is circling the drain.

[CIN]

If the fact that facts are dependent on humans is dependent on humans, then, if there were no humans, it would not be a fact that facts are dependent on humans.

Which still relies upon analysis of things beyond being human.

If all facts are dependent on humans, then if there are no humans, since there are also no facts, there can be no things for any facts to be about.

[CIN]

If the fact that facts are dependent on humans is dependent on humans, then, if there were no humans, it would not be a fact that facts are dependent on humans.

If facts are dependent on humans, then if there are no humans, there are no facts, not even the fact that there are no humans.

Agreed. Tooshay. One feels one is circling the drain.

OTOH, who would have thought that we could have so much innocent fun with VA's wacky ideas?

[Atla]

For all practical purposes, Kant tried to make everyone a solipsist who just pretends sometimes that others exist, and thereby Kant tried to destroy humanity. The question is what were his motivations for that.

I think Kant's idea that we are ends in a kingdom of ends absolves him from that charge. I'm also increasingly of the opinion that he was right about that, though I don't agree with his criteria for qualifying as an end.

Or his kingdom of ends view is invalidated by what I wrote. Ugh I wish all these different personas in Kant's head with their own philosophies, had come together and created a coherent philosophy, before Kant wrote his books.

[attofishpi]

If the fact that facts are dependent on humans is dependent on humans, then, if there were no humans, it would not be a fact that facts are dependent on humans.

Which still relies upon analysis of things beyond being human.

If all facts are dependent on humans, then if there are no humans, since there are also no facts, there can be no things for any facts to be about.

U can flabby babby on about tautologies all U want, the fact remains that all tautologies require unobtrusive logic to remain a tautology. Once I throw into the mix that a human fact requires analysis of environment - your tautology is ducked.

[CIN]

For all practical purposes, Kant tried to make everyone a solipsist who just pretends sometimes that others exist, and thereby Kant tried to destroy humanity. The question is what were his motivations for that.

I think Kant's idea that we are ends in a kingdom of ends absolves him from that charge. I'm also increasingly of the opinion that he was right about that, though I don't agree with his criteria for qualifying as an end.

Or his kingdom of ends view is invalidated by what I wrote.

Well, I don't share Kant's idealist views, so that doesn't apply to me. I take the view that it is rational to behave as if the physical world and the people in it exist even though we have no proof that they do, because after all, what could you do differently if they don't? This may not be reality, but the fact is we're stuck with it, so the sensible thing to do is stop all this metaphysical navel-gazing, behave as if it's all real, and get on with other things, including a sensible ethics that assumes the reality of the physical world.

[CIN]

Which still relies upon analysis of things beyond being human.

If all facts are dependent on humans, then if there are no humans, since there are also no facts, there can be no things for any facts to be about.

U can flabby babby on about tautologies all U want, the fact remains that all tautologies require unobtrusive logic to remain a tautology. Once I throw into the mix that a human fact requires analysis of environment - your tautology is ducked.

Actually I was making the point that VA's theory entails that before humans existed, nothing existed. Of course this point may have been made here before, in which case I apologise for duplicating other people's work. I don't tend to read VA's posts and the replies to them, they make me want to slit my wrists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the fact that facts are dependent on humans is dependent on humans, then, if there were no humans, it would not be a fact that facts are dependent on humans.

If referenced to me, it is strawman.
Those who rush into a wild ride on it to mock the point are very philosophical childish.

I have NEVER asserted "facts are dependent on humans" which I had explained a 'million' times.
I have even raised an OP in it.
"Not Mind-Independent" is not equal "Mind-Dependent"
viewtopic.php?t=40562

My claim is;
whatever is fact, one cannot claim it is absolutely independent of the human conditions [human mind] which is the ideology of philosophical realism.
The fact is the claim of philosophical realism has generated loads of philosophical dilemmas and problems throughout human history, and even to the extent of the genocide of humans [via evil religions grounded on philosophical realism]

Due to the above unresolvable dilemmas, it would be more realistic and practical to claim [Kant's Copernican Revolution], i.e.
"what is fact" [reality, truth, knowledge, objectivity] is somehow part and parcel in interaction with the human conditions as contingent upon a human-based framework and system[FS], of which the scientific FS is the exemplar.

Since reality is somehow related to the human conditions, this leave room and possibility for reality of evil to be managed [fool proof] toward the good via the variation of the human conditions.

Philosophical realism's mind independence cannot contribute effective to the good of humanity and reality because whatever is real is absolutely independent of them and thus outside the ambit of their control, thus they are eternally at the mercy of an independent reality.

[Skepdick]

If the fact that facts are dependent on humans is dependent on humans, then, if there were no humans, it would not be a fact that facts are dependent on humans.

Are factual counter-factuals confusing you?

Nothing new...

[Age]

What makes any thing so-called 'objective'?

Is there a poster here who can, and will, answer this?

And, answer it 'objectively', and thus also 'irrefutably Correct'?

Let 'us' see just how much, or how little, these posters here really knew.

[CIN]

What makes any thing so-called 'objective'?

Is there a poster here who can, and will, answer this?

And, answer it 'objectively', and thus also 'irrefutably Correct'?

Let 'us' see just how much, or how little, these posters here really knew.

Something is objective if it continues to be the case irrespective of whether anyone is thinking about it or has an opinion about it.