What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nonsense. The fact that natural science can't confirm any conclusion about reality absolutely - because of the problem of induction - does not mean that there is no reality absolutely independent from humans. That doesn't follow. Yours is a non sequitur fallacy.

How do you prove [demonstrate, justify] there is a reality that is absolutely independent from humans? i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Consider the following argument.

Premise: We can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans.

Do you think the premise entails the conclusion? Or, to put it another way, do you think it possible that, even if we can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans, it may exist anyway?

It is obvious the statements above are valid and practical.

It is an evolutionary default [of Primal Reason] that the majority [philosophical realists and theists] will jump to the conclusion such an absolutely independent reality exists, especially an independent God.
It is the same with the secular [as driven by evolution] to spontaneously jumped the conclusion there has to be something real out there, else they will suffer from cognitive dissonances.

The evolutionary default was adapted from this one example among others;
When our original ancestors went out to hunt and they heard a cracking sound [broken dry twig] somewhere from the bushes, they had jumped to the conclusion there was a sable-toothed tiger on the prowl.
This jumping to conclusion in the absence of evidence but merely based on blind belief there is certainly a tiger there had saved lives and was adapted within our ancestors and is still embedded in the present human DNA.
In fact, all those humans whose tribal members did not speculate on the belief of 'the certainty of a sable toothed tiger even without evidence' would have likely been killed eventually.
If our ancestors had not run away from merely belief without direct evidence, the human species could have gone the way of the Dodo.

Thus your "it may exist anyway" is merely a trigger of the above evolutionary primal instinct which was more suitable for the primal period than our modern times.

When we are in the know, we should face the cognitive dissonances, rationalize it and suspend judgement.

"In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace." WIKI

As I had explained, those philosophical realists who do not suspend judgment has brought forth much philosophical issues, failures and problems that hinder the humanity's progress.
The Failures of Philosophical Realism
viewtopic.php?t=43061

Therefore, it is optimal to suspend judgment and limit reality to what is empirically possible, verifiable and justifiable, i.e. a FSERC based reality.

What has you got to lose if you were to give up the ideology philosophical realism? i.e. giving up the belief of an absolutely human independent reality and stay with a relative human independent reality?
Nothing!!
except for the cognitive dissonance rearing its ugly head is is very psychologically painful.

[Iwannaplato]

It is an evolutionary default [of Primal Reason] that the majority [philosophical realists and theists] will jump to the conclusion such an absolutely independent reality exists, especially an independent God.

The problem here, in relation to your positions as a whole, is that in relation to morality, you use the presence of moral thinking, moral attitudes present in humans (which is also a human default) to argue it is objective. That morals are objective. So, for some defaults you take them as proof that they are objective. But here you take it as perjorative, negative. Empathy, you argues for months to years, was objectively good, even, because it was present in mirror neurons univerally, except for damaged people like psychopaths. But here something built in, the idea of independent reality, you consider it false and problematic and primitive.

With no explanation about what vantage point you have to make these value based and/or objective pronouncements.

The evolutionary default was adapted from this one example among others;
When our original ancestors went out to hunt and they heard a cracking sound [broken dry twig] somewhere from the bushes, they had jumped to the conclusion there was a sable-toothed tiger on the prowl.
This jumping to conclusion in the absence of evidence but merely based on blind belief there is certainly a tiger there had saved lives and was adapted within our ancestors and is still embedded in the present human DNA.

1) the problem with this argument is that animals are quite capable of defending themselves and treating sounds like this as potential threats, but there is no evidence they think there is a mind-independent reality 2) more importantly the only reason this is an effective or necessary characteristic of humans - reacting to sounds as potential threats, is because there are predators out there. Your analogy includes the reality of the thing that in relation to realism/antirealism you deny.

If our ancestors did not run away from merely belief without direct evidence, the human species could have gone the way of the Dodo.

And animals run away without having taken some stand on realism/antirealism.

Thus your "it may exist anyway" is merely a trigger of the above primal instinct which was more suitable for the primal period than our modern times.

Huh. WE don't need to react to potential threats anymore? And of course why a false ontological belief would lead to greater survival than the true belief has not been explained. Especially when one need not have any belief, just reactions.

When we are in the know, we should face the cognitive dissonances and suspend judgement.

"In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace." WIKI

Skepticism can be aimed at both your arguments adn conclusions.

As I had explained, those philosophical realists who do not suspend judgment has brought forth much philosophical issues and problem that hinder the humanity's progress.

You could suspend judgment, as many antirealists do, about whether there is a mind independent reality or not. But for some reason you do not do this.

Therefore, it is optimal to suspend judgment and limit reality to what is empirically possible, verifiable and justifiable, i.e. a FSERC based reality.

What has you got to loose if you were to give up the ideology philosophical realism? i.e. giving up the belief of an absolutely human independent reality and stay with a relative human independent reality?
Nothing!!
except for the cognitive dissonance rearing its ugly head is is very psychologically painful.

This goes for your position also. This does for your fear of every conceding that one of your arguments can be aimed at your own beliefs. Your inability to ever concede that one of your arguments was weak or illogical or fallacious, even when doing so does not entail that your core positions are false. But this never happens. Even when several people coming from a range of philosophical positions, even some agreeing with your conclusions but not the argument, all point out the problem.

Can you deal with that cognitive dissonance? Not so far.

[Atla]

What has you got to lose if you were to give up the ideology philosophical realism? i.e. giving up the belief of an absolutely human independent reality and stay with a relative human independent reality?
Nothing!!

Nothing to lose! Except for your life of course, in case a mind-independent tiger is in fact hiding in the bush.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is an evolutionary default [of Primal Reason] that the majority [philosophical realists and theists] will jump to the conclusion such an absolutely independent reality exists, especially an independent God.

The problem here, in relation to your positions as a whole, is that in relation to morality, you use the presence of moral thinking, moral attitudes present in humans (which is also a human default) to argue it is objective. That morals are objective. So, for some defaults you take them as proof that they are objective. But here you take it as perjorative, negative. Empathy, you argues for months to years, was objectively good, even, because it was present in mirror neurons univerally, except for damaged people like psychopaths. But here something built in, the idea of independent reality, you consider it false and problematic and primitive.

With no explanation about what vantage point you have to make these value based and/or objective pronouncements.

Your whole lot of counters here is a mess because you are confused and did not take into my complete philosophical stance.

I differentiated between,
1. Philosophical realism - absolutely mind-independent
2. Philosophical empirical realism - relatively mind-independent

Philosophical realists insist moral elements cannot be objective because they are not absolutely mind-independent, but this has no credibility because it is grounded on an illusion driven from an evolutionary default [re sable-toothed tigers].

On the other hand, I claim objectivity is based on 2. Philosophical empirical realism - relatively mind-independent, where a credible moral FSERC is possible.
On this basis morality is objective, i.e. FSERC objectivity.
Mirron neurons are objective per the scientific FSERC and when inputted into the moral FSERC, they form objective FSERC moral facts.

The evolutionary default was adapted from this one example among others;
When our original ancestors went out to hunt and they heard a cracking sound [broken dry twig] somewhere from the bushes, they had jumped to the conclusion there was a sable-toothed tiger on the prowl.
This jumping to conclusion in the absence of evidence but merely based on blind belief there is certainly a tiger there had saved lives and was adapted within our ancestors and is still embedded in the present human DNA.

1) the problem with this argument is that animals are quite capable of defending themselves and treating sounds like this as potential threats, but there is no evidence they think there is a mind-independent reality 2) more importantly the only reason this is an effective or necessary characteristic of humans - reacting to sounds as potential threats, is because there are predators out there. Your analogy includes the reality of the thing that in relation to realism/antirealism you deny.

Strawman!!
I have stated many time, the sense of externalness [the external sound of a possible tiger] adapted by via our ancestors was ideologized by philosophical realists as a dogmatic ideology.
Animals do not ideologize.
Philosophical antirealists oppose the the externalness [jumping to conclusion] as an ideology, i.e. with absoluteness.
Philosophical antirealists [Kantian] do not grasp it as an ideology but merely accept it is within human nature to jump to conclusion but the conclusion need not be absolute but merely relatively mind-independent.

If our ancestors did not run away from merely belief without direct evidence, the human species could have gone the way of the Dodo.

And animals run away without having taken some stand on realism/antirealism.

Animals do not ideologize but humans do, e.g. philosophical realism.
Philosophical antirealism is not an ideology per se but merely an objection.

I am not going to bother [waste time] with the rest of the points which as above are evidently based on very shallow thinking.

[Peter Holmes]

How do you prove [demonstrate, justify] there is a reality that is absolutely independent from humans? i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Consider the following argument.

Premise: We can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans.

Do you think the premise entails the conclusion? Or, to put it another way, do you think it possible that, even if we can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans, it may exist anyway?

It is obvious the statements above are valid and practical.

Okay, so you really don't know what deductive validity is. Your premise is false, so the argument is unsound. But even if the premise were true, the conclusion doesn't follow. You're wasting your own and everyone else's time here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Consider the following argument.

Premise: We can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans.

Do you think the premise entails the conclusion? Or, to put it another way, do you think it possible that, even if we can't prove the existence of a reality absolutely independent from humans, it may exist anyway?

It is obvious the statements above are valid and practical.

Okay, so you really don't know what deductive validity is. Your premise is false, so the argument is unsound. But even if the premise were true, the conclusion doesn't follow. You're wasting your own and everyone else's time here.

It is none of your business with what I post here nor that of others.
There is no official obligation, but merely a principle of 'supply and demand' and mutual interests based on free will.

Cheap escape route?
I stated the above as statements and not as 'argument' so there is no issue of deduction as in a syllogism. I stated they are valid and practical whilst there were missing premises which I filled via the explanations that followed.

What counters do you have the points and questions I raised above?
Cornered and Running away?

[Peter Holmes]

It is obvious the statements above are valid and practical.

Okay, so you really don't know what deductive validity is. Your premise is false, so the argument is unsound. But even if the premise were true, the conclusion doesn't follow. You're wasting your own and everyone else's time here.

It is none of your business with what I post here nor that of others.
There is no official obligation, but merely a principle of 'supply and demand' and mutual interests based on free will.

Cheap escape route?
I stated the above as statements and not as 'argument' so there is no issue of deduction as in a syllogism. I stated they are valid and practical whilst there were missing premises which I filled via the explanations that followed.

What counters do you have the points and questions I raised above?
Cornered and Running away?

Waste of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay, so you really don't know what deductive validity is. Your premise is false, so the argument is unsound. But even if the premise were true, the conclusion doesn't follow. You're wasting your own and everyone else's time here.

It is none of your business with what I post here nor that of others.
There is no official obligation, but merely a principle of 'supply and demand' and mutual interests based on free will.

Cheap escape route?
I stated the above as statements and not as 'argument' so there is no issue of deduction as in a syllogism. I stated they are valid and practical whilst there were missing premises which I filled via the explanations that followed.

What counters do you have the points and questions I raised above?
Cornered and Running away?

Waste of time.

It is very valid and sound to ask?

Giving Up Your Philosophical Realism, What is there to Lose?
viewtopic.php?t=43083

[Peter Holmes]

It is none of your business with what I post here nor that of others.
There is no official obligation, but merely a principle of 'supply and demand' and mutual interests based on free will.

Cheap escape route?
I stated the above as statements and not as 'argument' so there is no issue of deduction as in a syllogism. I stated they are valid and practical whilst there were missing premises which I filled via the explanations that followed.

What counters do you have the points and questions I raised above?
Cornered and Running away?

Waste of time.

It is very valid and sound to ask?

Giving Up Your Philosophical Realism, What is there to Lose?
viewtopic.php?t=43083

Waste of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Waste of time.

It is very valid and sound to ask?

Giving Up Your Philosophical Realism, What is there to Lose?
viewtopic.php?t=43083

Waste of time.

I sense there are fears in learning the truths of reality.

[Peter Holmes]

It is very valid and sound to ask?

Giving Up Your Philosophical Realism, What is there to Lose?
viewtopic.php?t=43083

Waste of time.

I sense there are fears in learning the truths of reality.

Waste of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Waste of time.

I sense there are fears in learning the truths of reality.

Waste of time.

That is what happened when the intellect go loopy like a broken record or damaged bot.

[Peter Holmes]

I sense there are fears in learning the truths of reality.

Waste of time.

That is what happened when the intellect go loopy like a broken record or damaged bot.

Waste of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

........

An answer to the OP.
Moral Empirical Realism is Objective
viewtopic.php?p=741085#p741085

A Checkmate Move on your clinging to science to "prove" philosophical realism:
External World: Scientific Methodological Assumption
viewtopic.php?t=43136

[popeye1945]

Biological consciousness is the only source of meaning in the world; it is the measure and meaning of all things. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only as it relates to biological consciousness. That said, the only way for morality, which is a meaning, thus is the property of consciousness to become objective, is through subjective projection into the world. Morality is the subjective sentiments of humans, in this case, as extensions of human nature and self-interest, which can be found objectively in the forms of systems, establishments, codes of conduct, and societal norms. All meanings in the world are subjective projections onto a meaningless world. There is only meaning for life forms.