What could make morality objective?

[CIN]

2 Objective: contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system;
i.e. they are confirmed by peers within the scientific framework and system within the respective field of science.

This thread was started by Peter Holmes, and in his OP he defined very clearly what he meant by 'objective':

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent from judgement, belief or opinion?

'Independent from judgement, belief or opinion'. This rules out your use of 'objective' to mean 'contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values'.

What you are trying to do is change the question that this thread has always been about. You should respect Peter's definition of 'objective', and not try to unilaterally change it, because that is obscurantist, discourteous, and inconsiderate to everyone else who is trying to address the question that Peter originally asked.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Time to sort this nonsense out. VA offers these definitions:

1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people.

2 Objective: contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system.

Perhaps there's a class distinction between a loose mob of people and a collective of subjects - but there's certainly no useful philosophical distinction. VA's 'objectivity' is nothing more than ponced-up subjectivity. Nul point.

Your thinking is very shallow, narrow and dogmatic.
Your skull must be very thick, we have gone through this a "million" times.

Note what are objective scientific knowledge, truth or facts;

Scientific facts are not subjective because,
1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people;
i.e. they are not dependent on one scientists' view or a loose mob of people who are not peers recognized within the scientific framework and system.

Scientific knowledge, truth or facts are objective because,
2 Objective: contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system;
i.e. they are confirmed by peers within the scientific framework and system within the respective field of science.
For example, the theory of general relativity is not true and objective because Einstein the individual scientists said do, rather it because the peers within the science-physics community within the scientific framework and system agree to it collectively and intersubjectively.

Scientific facts cannot be "that is the case" or "just-is" being objective without being imperatively contingent and qualified to the scientific framework and system.

It is the same for whatever is fact which must be imperatively contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS]; the question is how credible and objective is the said FS relative the the scientific FS as the gold standard. This is A-Class philosophy thinking which is rational and practical.

No. 'Subjective' means 'dependent on belief, judgement or opinion'. So which or how many people are involved is irrelevant. An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion. And an opinion held by 'a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system' is still an opinion.

'Objective' means 'factual' or 'dependent on facts'. So, again, which or how many people are involved is irrelevant. A fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. For example, that's why, when 'a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system' thought the earth is flat, it is in fact an oblate spheroid. VA's is a consensus or bandwagon theory of truth, which is absurd.

What authority are you relying on the above?
Do you have any references to support your above views?
It is most likely you are depending on hearsays without solid justifications?

So how do you square your above views with the fact that scientific facts are objective where they are contingent upon a collective-of-subject [human based] within a scientific framework and system and not dependent on one scientist or person's opinion, beliefs and judgment.

If an organized framework and system thought the "earth is flat", we have to contrast its credibility and objective against the gold standard [indexed at 100], i.e. the scientific FS - QED.
In this case, an organized FS that claimed the 'Earth is Flat' would have a rating of 0.1/100 credibility and objectivity which is 99.9/100 subjectivity.
It would be the same rating for an organized FS that claimed 'God exists as real.'
This approach is not dismissive but provide for the practical subject to the known limitations.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The good is about neither killing nor not killing. The good is about thinking and feeling about the matter of good and evil. What is good in some circumstances is bad in other circumstances.

What is bad is to not think about the question at all. Not -thinking is what stones and machines do. It's always good to think and think again and again; except when you are required by circumstances to swim for your life in a hurricane surge. A properly civilised society will have provided for its citizens protected institutions where people are taught to think and where thinking is the aim.

What is 'good' in this case represent a state of mind that has potential to be a motivation for action.
As I had stated, to enable such a state of mind to be present neurally is not effective morality.

We don't have a reasonable civilized society at present but possible in say 75, 100, 150, 200 years time provided we have some approach [seeded now] to progressively rewire the neural connectivity within the brain of the majority in the future.

To do this we need to establish a framework and system for morality-proper especially with the abandonment of the ideas of what is good, right & wrong from the drive for progress within morality.
I have discussed the details in this sections in many threads.

To produce a civilised society in twenty years time we need universal education in thinking ,to the best standard and level. Truth and goodness are closely related. Truth is not a list of facts, and goodness is not a list of morals. Truth/goodness comes only from good and true men. Good and true men all possess a sacrosanct core of goodness.

Education helps but it is limited. A very educated intelligent psychopath is one that lacks a developed moral compass. No amount of education can change a malignant psychopath within his lifetime.
What we need is to facilitate the development of the neural moral compass so that humans has high moral competence or moral intelligence. So we need neural changes in the inherent moral compass in the next few generations [not possible within one generation].
So the question is how to do it expeditiously and effectively without any detrimental side effects.
I believe my proposed principle and methodology is sound and feasible but the details need to be ironed out.

The effects of that goodness in action, i.e. politics ,varies with the circumstances of the environment which the good man finds himself in. A good man adapts his response to the best action for the circumstances. If he has no choice but to bomb a kill other men in battle then he would do so to the best of his ability. However a man who has learned how to think will not obey orders when the orders are bad orders. Bombing a hospital is not battle.
The best of men , of whom we have examples in recorded history ,refused to obey bad political orders even although they had to sacrifice their own lives to do so.

At present, given the current state of the psychology status of humanity,
-it is not easy to get rid of evil,
-if for some weighed-decision a hospital need to be bombed, so be it and refer to the international court of justice where necessary,
-we have to tolerate with the existing evils and curb it the best we can,

BUT what is most critical is to find our the root causes and prevent it from happening at source - this can only be achieved in the future whilst setting the initial processes at present.
As such, we need to find out the root causes why there are wars so as to prevent them from happening in the first place, so that there is no bombing of hospital and other despicable evil acts of war.
We need to find out the root causes of unplanned birth so as to reduce abortion only the critical necessary.
We need to find out the root causes of all evil acts to reduce, prevent and/or eliminate all evils in the future.
To achieve above it is critical to recognize that 'Moral is Objective', so that we can have fixed objective [not moving goal posts] to improve towards the moral ideals.

There is no way, moral relativism can achieve the above objectives.
It is worst for moral skeptics, moral nihilists and amoralists who has no moral say on moral matters. e.g. its progress to prevent and/or eliminate all evils in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

With reference to morality, I define 'good' as not-evil.
Then I provided a definition of 'what is evil', i.e. that which is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity. One example is the killings of humans by humans.

So what is your definition of 'good' outside morality, e.g. in the sentence 'that was a good cup of coffee'?

"One man's meat is another man's poison.
One man's poison is another man's meat."

Note the typical dictionary meaning of 'good';
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good
the various meanings are all subject to the above meat <-> poison dilemma.
The meanings of the term 'good' is too loose.

As such to be precise with the meaning of what is good, there is need to refer to the perspective, context and conditions involved; this will involved some detailed explanations to convince the other party who think otherwise.

It is already messy in the general sense, thus more worst in the moral sense or context.
see:
"Good" within Moral Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42955
That is why I propose to avoid using the term 'good' as significant within morality.

Since your focus is on the term 'good' supposedly within morality, do you have any views on the above OP?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Scientific facts are not subjective because,
1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people;
i.e. they are not dependent on one scientists' view or a loose mob of people who are not peers recognized within the scientific framework and system.

So, in those situations where one scientist realized something, perhaps a decade before her peers and it turned out later that her position was correct - became the consensus scientific position - she was both correct and merely subjective, at first, because she was alone, at least amongst professionals in her belief.

And the people who thought she was wrong - her science colleagues - were wrong and objective, because they believe the (false) consensus position in science.

This could be based on paradigmatic biases in the earlier consensus opinion or even errors in experimentation that were endemic at that time.

There could also be, for example, bias created by the financing of research.

So, do we then decide that really the consensus wasn't objective? Or was it both incorrect AND objective? And do we later argue that she was in fact objective - perhaps even her experimental protocols were actually the only ones that eliminated unwanted variables. IOW her methodology was what would usually be called more objective, but since it wasn't popular, at the time, it really was merely subjective, however correct and better organized?

If a proposition is from one subject only, that is a subjective opinion or belief depending on the personal justifications done.
By the time Einstein presented his Theory of General Relativity, the theory would be complete and supposedly proven. But before it is accepted by his peers within the science-Physics FS, that was at best a subjective belief [polished from its original abducted opinion] with high personal convictions.
It is only an objective scientific facts when it is accepted by his peers within the science-Physics conditions.

The philosophical realists [grounded on an illusion] will think otherwise, with the belief that there is the absolutely mind-independent pre-existing fact to be discovered. This belief is not realistic nor tenable.

It is not a question that the lady scientist's proposal was wrong by consensus; the determining factor is that her proposal was not accepted within the conditions of the scientific framework and system.
If it is not accepted within the scientific FS, then it is a subjective belief.
If it is accepted within the scientific FS, then it is a scientific fact as qualified to the condition of the scientific FS.

One provision of the scientific FS is whatever it accepts as a scientific fact is always provisional, thus, is never absolutely certain.

Thus, even the lady scientist's proposal which was not accepted but is accepted later as a scientific fact, it is still vulnerable to be rejected upon new empirical evidence that suggest otherwise.

So a scientific fact is objective as long as it is accepted within a specific human-based scientific FS.
What is critical with 'whatever is fact' is its imperative conditions, i.e. a specific human-based FS.

[Iwannaplato]

Scientific facts are not subjective because,
1 Subjective: dependent on one person, or a loose mob of people;
i.e. they are not dependent on one scientists' view or a loose mob of people who are not peers recognized within the scientific framework and system.

So, in those situations where one scientist realized something, perhaps a decade before her peers and it turned out later that her position was correct - became the consensus scientific position - she was both correct and merely subjective, at first, because she was alone, at least amongst professionals in her belief.

And the people who thought she was wrong - her science colleagues - were wrong and objective, because they believe the (false) consensus position in science.

This could be based on paradigmatic biases in the earlier consensus opinion or even errors in experimentation that were endemic at that time.

There could also be, for example, bias created by the financing of research.

So, do we then decide that really the consensus wasn't objective? Or was it both incorrect AND objective? And do we later argue that she was in fact objective - perhaps even her experimental protocols were actually the only ones that eliminated unwanted variables. IOW her methodology was what would usually be called more objective, but since it wasn't popular, at the time, it really was merely subjective, however correct and better organized?

If a proposition is from one subject only, that is a subjective opinion or belief depending on the personal justifications done.
By the time Einstein presented his Theory of General Relativity, the theory would be complete and supposedly proven. But before it is accepted by his peers within the science-Physics FS, that was at best a subjective belief [polished from its original abducted opinion] with high personal convictions.
It is only an objective scientific facts when it is accepted by his peers within the science-Physics conditions.

So far you are simply confirming what I wrote with an example.

The philosophical realists [grounded on an illusion] will think otherwise, with the belief that there is the absolutely mind-independent pre-existing fact to be discovered. This belief is not realistic nor tenable.

utterly irrevelant to my post. My post was about what is entailed by your position. The potential errors and misunderstandings of people with other positions has nothing to do with that.

It is not a question that the lady scientist's proposal was wrong by consensus; the determining factor is that her proposal was not accepted within the conditions of the scientific framework and system.
If it is not accepted within the scientific FS, then it is a subjective belief.

Again you are simply confirming what I wrote.

If it is accepted within the scientific FS, then it is a scientific fact as qualified to the condition of the scientific FS.

Again you are simply confirming what I wrote.

One provision of the scientific FS is whatever it accepts as a scientific fact is always provisional, thus, is never absolutely certain.

Yes, and that does not contradict anything I said.

Thus, even the lady scientist's proposal which was not accepted but is accepted later as a scientific fact, it is still vulnerable to be rejected upon new empirical evidence that suggest otherwise.

And I said that also.

So a scientific fact is objective as long as it is accepted within a specific human-based scientific FS.
What is critical with 'whatever is fact' is its imperative conditions, i.e. a specific human-based FS.

Which also confirms what I wrote.

You just confirmed what I wrote. Thank you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, in those situations where one scientist realized something, perhaps a decade before her peers and it turned out later that her position was correct - became the consensus scientific position - she was both correct and merely subjective, at first, because she was alone, at least amongst professionals in her belief.

And the people who thought she was wrong - her science colleagues - were wrong and objective, because they believe the (false) consensus position in science.

This could be based on paradigmatic biases in the earlier consensus opinion or even errors in experimentation that were endemic at that time.

There could also be, for example, bias created by the financing of research.

So, do we then decide that really the consensus wasn't objective? Or was it both incorrect AND objective? And do we later argue that she was in fact objective - perhaps even her experimental protocols were actually the only ones that eliminated unwanted variables. IOW her methodology was what would usually be called more objective, but since it wasn't popular, at the time, it really was merely subjective, however correct and better organized?

If a proposition is from one subject only, that is a subjective opinion or belief depending on the personal justifications done.
By the time Einstein presented his Theory of General Relativity, the theory would be complete and supposedly proven. But before it is accepted by his peers within the science-Physics FS, that was at best a subjective belief [polished from its original abducted opinion] with high personal convictions.
It is only an objective scientific facts when it is accepted by his peers within the science-Physics conditions.

So far you are simply confirming what I wrote with an example.

The philosophical realists [grounded on an illusion] will think otherwise, with the belief that there is the absolutely mind-independent pre-existing fact to be discovered. This belief is not realistic nor tenable.

utterly irrevelant to my post. My post was about what is entailed by your position. The potential errors and misunderstandings of people with other positions has nothing to do with that.

It is not a question that the lady scientist's proposal was wrong by consensus; the determining factor is that her proposal was not accepted within the conditions of the scientific framework and system.
If it is not accepted within the scientific FS, then it is a subjective belief.

Again you are simply confirming what I wrote.

If it is accepted within the scientific FS, then it is a scientific fact as qualified to the condition of the scientific FS.

Again you are simply confirming what I wrote.

One provision of the scientific FS is whatever it accepts as a scientific fact is always provisional, thus, is never absolutely certain.

Yes, and that does not contradict anything I said.

Thus, even the lady scientist's proposal which was not accepted but is accepted later as a scientific fact, it is still vulnerable to be rejected upon new empirical evidence that suggest otherwise.

And I said that also.

So a scientific fact is objective as long as it is accepted within a specific human-based scientific FS.
What is critical with 'whatever is fact' is its imperative conditions, i.e. a specific human-based FS.

Which also confirms what I wrote.

You just confirmed what I wrote. Thank you.

The "facts are contingent upon a specific human-based FS" is my original idea, so you agree with it?

[FlashDangerpants]

If an organized framework and system thought the "earth is flat", we have to contrast its credibility and objective against the gold standard [indexed at 100], i.e. the scientific FS - QED.
In this case, an organized FS that claimed the 'Earth is Flat' would have a rating of 0.1/100 credibility and objectivity which is 99.9/100 subjectivity.
It would be the same rating for an organized FS that claimed 'God exists as real.'
This approach is not dismissive but provide for the practical subject to the known limitations.

The Earth is objectively not flat, that means claims that the Earth is flat are falsified by comparing their claims about the Earth to the physical object, which is round. A bullshit statistic that the claim has some invented number of "credibles" is not needed and does not offer anything of value.

That's what makes a thing objective: You check claims about the object against the properties of the object itself. No aggregate of multiple subjective beliefs can mimmic that, not even with made up numbers for "credibility".

[Belinda]

What is 'good' in this case represent a state of mind that has potential to be a motivation for action.
As I had stated, to enable such a state of mind to be present neurally is not effective morality.

We don't have a reasonable civilized society at present but possible in say 75, 100, 150, 200 years time provided we have some approach [seeded now] to progressively rewire the neural connectivity within the brain of the majority in the future.

To do this we need to establish a framework and system for morality-proper especially with the abandonment of the ideas of what is good, right & wrong from the drive for progress within morality.
I have discussed the details in this sections in many threads.

To produce a civilised society in twenty years time we need universal education in thinking ,to the best standard and level. Truth and goodness are closely related. Truth is not a list of facts, and goodness is not a list of morals. Truth/goodness comes only from good and true men. Good and true men all possess a sacrosanct core of goodness.

Education helps but it is limited. A very educated intelligent psychopath is one that lacks a developed moral compass. No amount of education can change a malignant psychopath within his lifetime.
What we need is to facilitate the development of the neural moral compass so that humans has high moral competence or moral intelligence. So we need neural changes in the inherent moral compass in the next few generations [not possible within one generation].
So the question is how to do it expeditiously and effectively without any detrimental side effects.
I believe my proposed principle and methodology is sound and feasible but the details need to be ironed out.

The effects of that goodness in action, i.e. politics ,varies with the circumstances of the environment which the good man finds himself in. A good man adapts his response to the best action for the circumstances. If he has no choice but to bomb a kill other men in battle then he would do so to the best of his ability. However a man who has learned how to think will not obey orders when the orders are bad orders. Bombing a hospital is not battle.
The best of men , of whom we have examples in recorded history ,refused to obey bad political orders even although they had to sacrifice their own lives to do so.

At present, given the current state of the psychology status of humanity,
-it is not easy to get rid of evil,
-if for some weighed-decision a hospital need to be bombed, so be it and refer to the international court of justice where necessary,
-we have to tolerate with the existing evils and curb it the best we can,

BUT what is most critical is to find our the root causes and prevent it from happening at source - this can only be achieved in the future whilst setting the initial processes at present.
As such, we need to find out the root causes why there are wars so as to prevent them from happening in the first place, so that there is no bombing of hospital and other despicable evil acts of war.
We need to find out the root causes of unplanned birth so as to reduce abortion only the critical necessary.
We need to find out the root causes of all evil acts to reduce, prevent and/or eliminate all evils in the future.
To achieve above it is critical to recognize that 'Moral is Objective', so that we can have fixed objective [not moving goal posts] to improve towards the moral ideals.

There is no way, moral relativism can achieve the above objectives.
It is worst for moral skeptics, moral nihilists and amoralists who has no moral say on moral matters. e.g. its progress to prevent and/or eliminate all evils in the future.

I thought psychopathy is defined by the sufferer's lack of insight into their own condition. I thought talking therapy alone did not affect psychopathy and medication is always indicated. The "neural moral compass" of someone suffering from a psychopathic incident is affected by both medication and talking therapy .So i agree that "No amount of education can change a malignant psychopath within his lifetime".
I have medicalised my language about psychopathy because medical ethics are such that medics attach no blame to someone who lacks insight their own selves and motives. The law is not so merciful as it tends to be punitive and is only recently emerging from more extreme punitiveness. In countries that have undergone the scientific enlightenment the meaning of agape-love has only recently ,with improved universal education, become normal.

You write about "root causes "(of moral evil). The root cause is lack of moral development of a society. Some traditional societies are morally developed without any intervention apart from its accustomed rituals. But other societies have traditions that cause suffering rather than happiness , and it's those societies that need as many educated people as possible to help the society to be happier, to not perceive any need for war or greed .

In the meantime there is no developed society in the world that is untainted by war and greed. The United Nations comes closest to the ideal, with international law a close runner-up.The UN is at present suffering from attrition by Israel however it would be too optimistic to expect a world of peace and justice to happen with ease.

[Peter Holmes]

One provision of the scientific FS is whatever it accepts as a scientific fact is always provisional, thus, is never absolutely certain.

The very provisionality of scientific conclusions demonstrates the independence of reality from the collective-of-subjects' opinion.

Thus, even the lady scientist's proposal which was not accepted but is accepted later as a scientific fact, it is still vulnerable to be rejected upon new empirical evidence that suggest otherwise.

Which itself demonstrates that facts are not dependent on the consensus opinion of scientists.

So a scientific fact is objective as long as it is accepted within a specific human-based scientific FS.
What is critical with 'whatever is fact' is its imperative conditions, i.e. a specific human-based FS.

Nope. The points you make argue for exactly the opposite conclusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I thought psychopathy is defined by the sufferer's lack of insight into their own condition. I thought talking therapy alone did not affect psychopathy and medication is always indicated. The "neural moral compass" of someone suffering from a psychopathic incident is affected by both medication and talking therapy .So i agree that "No amount of education can change a malignant psychopath within his lifetime".
I have medicalised my language about psychopathy because medical ethics are such that medics attach no blame to someone who lacks insight their own selves and motives. The law is not so merciful as it tends to be punitive and is only recently emerging from more extreme punitiveness. In countries that have undergone the scientific enlightenment the meaning of agape-love has only recently ,with improved universal education, become normal.

You write about "root causes "(of moral evil). The root cause is lack of moral development of a society. Some traditional societies are morally developed without any intervention apart from its accustomed rituals. But other societies have traditions that cause suffering rather than happiness , and it's those societies that need as many educated people as possible to help the society to be happier, to not perceive any need for war or greed .

In the meantime there is no developed society in the world that is untainted by war and greed. The United Nations comes closest to the ideal, with international law a close runner-up.The UN is at present suffering from attrition by Israel however it would be too optimistic to expect a world of peace and justice to happen with ease.

I agree with the above points.

To add:
There is a lack of attention to the root causes of moral development by the individual[s] and no facilitation from a society.

But to understand the root causes there is a need to recognize what are the basic principles of morality and that there are objective moral facts as grounds to facilitate continuous improvements.

Then there is the need to cultivate the motivation and drive for moral progress. This can only be done with improvements to the connectivity of the neural moral compass in the brain/body in the future to expedite moral progress.

The above moral progress will be badly inhibited if morality is not recognized as objective [OP], whilst the moral relativists, moral skeptics are trying to impose their will and their ideology that hinder moral progress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If an organized framework and system thought the "earth is flat", we have to contrast its credibility and objective against the gold standard [indexed at 100], i.e. the scientific FS - QED.
In this case, an organized FS that claimed the 'Earth is Flat' would have a rating of 0.1/100 credibility and objectivity which is 99.9/100 subjectivity.
It would be the same rating for an organized FS that claimed 'God exists as real.'
This approach is not dismissive but provide for the practical subject to the known limitations.

The Earth is objectively not flat, that means claims that the Earth is flat are falsified by comparing their claims about the Earth to the physical object, which is round. A bullshit statistic that the claim has some invented number of "credibles" is not needed and does not offer anything of value.

From the perspective of more rigor, higher precision and refined philosophy, your above view is relatively kindergartenish.

"The Earth is objectively not flat.."
Who said so?? and on what authority?
Your mother?

To be more rigorous, the proposition ""The Earth is objectively not flat.." cannot standalone, but somehow must be based on some authority to enable credibility and objectivity; in this case it is the science-physics-cosmology framework and system [FS].

For example 'Pluto is a dwarf planet" because the International Astronomical Union (IAU) a specific FS said so. The IAU FS is also grounded on the science-physics-cosmology FS.

That's what makes a thing objective: You check claims about the object against the properties of the object itself. No aggregate of multiple subjective beliefs can mimmic that, not even with made up numbers for "credibility".

It cannot be that an individual "check claims about the object against the properties of the object itself." That would only be subjective, not objective.
It is up to the peers within the science-physics-cosmology FS to confirm the "Earth is not flat but spherical [ellipsoid]" because this FS is generally accepted as credible and objective.
Then it is up to the individual layperson to rely on faith and trust on the credibility and objectivity of the science-physics-cosmology FS.

That the earth is not flat but roughly round, spherical, ellipsoid or the like must always be qualified to a FS where these shapes are at best abstractions. It is impossible to define the exact particular shape of the Earth with its protruding mountain ranges [up to 28,000 ft above sea level], deep valleys, and undulating grounds, ever changing seas.

Currently there is an organized group of Flat-Earthers as mentioned here:
Flat Earth "Science" -- Wrong, but not Stupid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2cc
and all over the internet.

There is no credibility for an individual [subject] to counter the Flat-Earther's Theory to make an objective assertion that the Earth is spherical [ellipsoid] and not flat; however, any rational individual will refer to the science-physics-cosmology FS [incl. geometry FS] as the authority to maintain the claim from this FS is credible and objective.

The view that,
Flat Earth "Science" -- Wrong, but not Stupid
from the science-physics-cosmology FS will implied that is a comparison of its credibility and objective with the Flat-Earther FS.

So, a comparison of credibilities and objectivities of the respected FS is necessary and critical to understand the truths of reality.

Thus your
"A bullshit statistic that the claim has some invented number of "credibles" is not needed and does not offer anything of value."
merely exposed your ignorance and insults your own intelligence.

[Belinda]

I thought psychopathy is defined by the sufferer's lack of insight into their own condition. I thought talking therapy alone did not affect psychopathy and medication is always indicated. The "neural moral compass" of someone suffering from a psychopathic incident is affected by both medication and talking therapy .So i agree that "No amount of education can change a malignant psychopath within his lifetime".
I have medicalised my language about psychopathy because medical ethics are such that medics attach no blame to someone who lacks insight their own selves and motives. The law is not so merciful as it tends to be punitive and is only recently emerging from more extreme punitiveness. In countries that have undergone the scientific enlightenment the meaning of agape-love has only recently ,with improved universal education, become normal.

You write about "root causes "(of moral evil). The root cause is lack of moral development of a society. Some traditional societies are morally developed without any intervention apart from its accustomed rituals. But other societies have traditions that cause suffering rather than happiness , and it's those societies that need as many educated people as possible to help the society to be happier, to not perceive any need for war or greed .

In the meantime there is no developed society in the world that is untainted by war and greed. The United Nations comes closest to the ideal, with international law a close runner-up.The UN is at present suffering from attrition by Israel however it would be too optimistic to expect a world of peace and justice to happen with ease.

I agree with the above points.

To add:
There is a lack of attention to the root causes of moral development by the individual[s] and no facilitation from a society.

But to understand the root causes there is a need to recognize what are the basic principles of morality and that there are objective moral facts as grounds to facilitate continuous improvements.

Then there is the need to cultivate the motivation and drive for moral progress. This can only be done with improvements to the connectivity of the neural moral compass in the brain/body in the future to expedite moral progress.

The above moral progress will be badly inhibited if morality is not recognized as objective [OP], whilst the moral relativists, moral skeptics are trying to impose their will and their ideology that hinder moral progress.

Are you perhaps ignoring theories of moral development such as Kohlberg's?
https://bmdeducation.org/understanding- ... ive-guide/ Theories of moral development get a lot of attention from educationists .

"The connectivity of neural tissue" is important. However the B vitamins that we need for this can be bought over the counter, are water soluble, and are common knowledge.

I don't think quibbles about the meaning of 'objective' are any help .

Moral maturity is widely recognised as a worthy goal by educationists , courts of law, and parents

[FlashDangerpants]

If an organized framework and system thought the "earth is flat", we have to contrast its credibility and objective against the gold standard [indexed at 100], i.e. the scientific FS - QED.
In this case, an organized FS that claimed the 'Earth is Flat' would have a rating of 0.1/100 credibility and objectivity which is 99.9/100 subjectivity.
It would be the same rating for an organized FS that claimed 'God exists as real.'
This approach is not dismissive but provide for the practical subject to the known limitations.

The Earth is objectively not flat, that means claims that the Earth is flat are falsified by comparing their claims about the Earth to the physical object, which is round. A bullshit statistic that the claim has some invented number of "credibles" is not needed and does not offer anything of value.

From the perspective of more rigor, higher precision and refined philosophy, your above view is relatively kindergartenish.

"The Earth is objectively not flat.."
Who said so?? and on what authority?
Your mother?

To be more rigorous, the proposition ""The Earth is objectively not flat.." cannot standalone, but somehow must be based on some authority to enable credibility and objectivity; in this case it is the science-physics-cosmology framework and system [FS].

For example 'Pluto is a dwarf planet" because the International Astronomical Union (IAU) a specific FS said so. The IAU FS is also grounded on the science-physics-cosmology FS.

That's what makes a thing objective: You check claims about the object against the properties of the object itself. No aggregate of multiple subjective beliefs can mimmic that, not even with made up numbers for "credibility".

It cannot be that an individual "check claims about the object against the properties of the object itself." That would only be subjective, not objective.
It is up to the peers within the science-physics-cosmology FS to confirm the "Earth is not flat but spherical [ellipsoid]" because this FS is generally accepted as credible and objective.
Then it is up to the individual layperson to rely on faith and trust on the credibility and objectivity of the science-physics-cosmology FS.

That the earth is not flat but roughly round, spherical, ellipsoid or the like must always be qualified to a FS where these shapes are at best abstractions. It is impossible to define the exact particular shape of the Earth with its protruding mountain ranges [up to 28,000 ft above sea level], deep valleys, and undulating grounds, ever changing seas.

Currently there is an organized group of Flat-Earthers as mentioned here:
Flat Earth "Science" -- Wrong, but not Stupid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2cc
and all over the internet.

There is no credibility for an individual [subject] to counter the Flat-Earther's Theory to make an objective assertion that the Earth is spherical [ellipsoid] and not flat; however, any rational individual will refer to the science-physics-cosmology FS [incl. geometry FS] as the authority to maintain the claim from this FS is credible and objective.

The view that,
Flat Earth "Science" -- Wrong, but not Stupid
from the science-physics-cosmology FS will implied that is a comparison of its credibility and objective with the Flat-Earther FS.

So, a comparison of credibilities and objectivities of the respected FS is necessary and critical to understand the truths of reality.

What absolute nonsense. Plenty of people have been up into space and can report that they have witnessed the non flatness of the Earth with their own eyes.

The property of "flat" does not belong to the object that is the Earth. That lack of a property why it is objectively not the case that the Earth is flat. Your FSK crap is not needed to explain this.

Thus your
"A bullshit statistic that the claim has some invented number of "credibles" is not needed and does not offer anything of value."
merely exposed your ignorance and insults your own intelligence.

I am however right.

[CIN]

My thinking has moved on a little since that discussion.

I no longer think that all beings capable of experiencing pleasure and/or pain have the same moral standing. Nor do I think moral standing is related to current net pleasure. I am now inclined to think that a being's moral standing is proportional to that being's potential lifetime net pleasure, rather than the net pleasure they are experiencing at the moment. Suppose a child and an old lady are trapped in a burning building, and you can only rescue one of them. The child is terrified and unhappy, and has a broken leg which is very painful but mendable; the old lady is calm and not in any pain. If we decide who to rescue on the basis of their current net pleasure, we will rescue the old lady and leave the child to die. I think this would be irrational: more lifetime net pleasure can be created for the child than for the old lady, so the child has the greater moral standing. We should rescue the child and let the old lady die (sorry gran).

I think I get the idea. The old plan had an issue (in my view at the time anyway) that it followed two masters in the form of pleasure and fairness. This switch to a total factor style lifetime net pleasure blends them in a way that maintains the primary status of pleasure without discarding the broad need for equitable distribution.

Prima facie I think the change works, and probably retains everything you wanted to keep while closing down the arguments I could see that targeted your position rather than just all consequentialist positions equally.

Yes, thanks. Unfairness would analyse into arbitrary (and therefore unjustifiably) different treatment of beings with similar moral standing.

I'm having more of a problem with treatment for those who are terminally and incurably ill. Suppose we have two children, one dying from cancer, the other healthy, and can only give a treat to one of them. My intuition is that we give it to the child with cancer, for two reasons:
1. to compensate for the child's suffering
2. because the healthy child will have other chances for treats, but the sick child may not.
However, the theory appears to say that we should give the treat to the healthy one because it has higher moral standing. In the burning building scenario I think we would rescue the healthy child, but treats seem to be different. I don't know what to say about that at present.

Whether your great aunt and the foetus have moral standing, then, depends on whether they have potential positive lifetime net pleasure. If they do, then they have positive moral standing. To abort the foetus or withdraw life support from your great aunt would be to treat them as if they had no moral standing at all. If they have potential positive moral standing, this is a moral error. If something is a moral error, then I think it can be regarded as morally wrong.

Do you intend to drift into Singer territory here, or have you got a preferred way to avoid it if not? Is every unfertilized ovum that ends up going to waste (be it human, rabbit, or toad) not equally capable of a potential positive lifetime net pleasure? Do we need to investigate methods to keep as many females of all species pregnant at once as is physiologically possible?

I think that strategy might be both good and right to start with, but in time it would be good but not right. It's the Repugnant Conclusion scenario: in a world with finite resources, as the number of beings increases, total net pleasure increases but when resources become insufficient, average net pleasure decreases. Increasingly the beings would be unable to fulfil their potential for lifetime net pleasure, so by creating them, we would have treated them as having less moral standing then they actually have, which would be wrong. So I think this issue gets taken up as part of the wider issue of how to deal with conflicts between good and right.

I also note the oblique reference to utilitarian calculus, but I assume you wouldn't go so far as to endorse actually creating a measurement system to assign units of pleasurability and pain-ness to the mouse and the man's situations, assuming them to be scientific data now, because that would be giberring insanity?

I think we do recognise that some pleasures and pains are more intense than others, and I can't see how this could be the case unless it is also the case that pleasures and pains are quantified. But I would agree that quantified does not necessarily imply measurable.

Point taken. Although I think I might want to argue later that metaphors of scale are purely metaphorical. I think perhaps we take urgency, or focus and convert that into a matter of size for purposes of making some thing describable rather than because it reflects the nature of the thing that is being described.

I can't refute that, but I'm sceptical. Obviously pleasant experiences can be very different from one another, as can unpleasant experiences, but I don't see how there could be more than one kind of pleasantness and one kind of unpleasantness. If we then accept that there are variations in intensity, it would seem that we are left with a single scale of intensity for the only possible type of pleasantness, and similarly for unpleasantness. However, it may just be that I lack imagination or understanding in this area. The trouble is that we are reliant for our data on introspection, which is notoriously unreliable. Maybe science will come to our rescue and map brain activity onto reported experience in such a way that we can deduce what people are experiencing from outside. Then we might have a clearer idea of what's really going on when people are having different pleasant and unpleasant experiences.

I am not sure up front how you can use fairness that way. The thing that makes utilitarianism tempting is that it massively simplifies the situation and provides a principle allows assignation of internally uncontroversial statuses of right and wrong. By which I mean that all who agree to the pleasure/pain thing can agree on which is the rigth or wrong course of action in any hypothetical or factual scenario where the outcome is known. but fairness breaks that unless you deal with the rthings that might make any outcome fair or unfair. That would at the very least include dessert, unless we are simplifying "fairness" into equality of outcome or something?

My current view is that goodness does not imply rightness, and that it is possible for an action to be morally good but also morally wrong. (Good and right are different concepts, so 'X is good' does not contradict 'X is wrong'.) An example is our old friend, the surgeon who kills a healthy patient and uses his organs to extend the lives of five unhealthy patients. His action is morally good, because (we assume) it creates more net pleasure than would otherwise be created; but it involves treating the healthy patient as if he was an object with no moral standing (in Kantian language, treating him as a mere means rather than an end), and since he does have moral standing, this is morally wrong.

Should the surgeon choose what is morally good (killing the healthy patient), or what is morally right (not killing him)? I don't think there is an objective answer to this question. We probably give a relative weighting to goodness and rightness in such cases, but I can't see how there could be a single objective scale against which goodness and rightness can both be weighted, so the choice must be subjective.

All comments on the above (from you, not necessarily from anyone else) welcome, but my ethical theory is a work in progress and could still change, so if you don't want to waste time on it, don't.

This bit I still need to think about. I'm partly inclined to pick it up and run with it and see if I can throw more stuff into the cart. It looks like you are open an argument from incommensurability, or indeed that you are tempted to make such an argument yourself. If we can end up with competing answers to the question of what outcome we ought to prefer versus what ought we to do, then I am not at all sure we haven't fundamentally grasped the nettle with regard to mortal antirealism?

Well, the theory says that good and right are objective, so If good and right point to the same action, then in effect you have an objective guide to action. It's only if they point in different directions that you are reduce to making a subjective choice. So apparently yes, but only up to a point.

There's also the little matter of justice. I haven't got anywhere near that yet.