What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

Do you have a counter against the above from WIKI?

VA you're legit mentally retarded now.

Look at a mirror and read the above statement without the initials.

So far you have not provided any valid and legit counters to all my points.
If you think you have, where is it??
Open a thread and just give me one valid example.

Seriously it's time for you to seek professional help. You can't think straight at all.

[Peter Holmes]

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

A question for aesthetic objectivists. If objectivity is independence from belief, judgement or opinion, could a thing be beautiful even if everyone thinks it's ugly? Or even if no collective-of-subjects thinks it's beautiful?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

A question for aesthetic objectivists. If objectivity is independence from belief, judgement or opinion, could a thing be beautiful even if everyone thinks it's ugly? Or even if no collective-of-subjects thinks it's beautiful?

Whatever is a fact and objective is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.
There is no other approach to credibility and objectivity of reality.

It a thing is ugly within a specific U-FSERC, there is no way it can be beautiful within that specific U-FSERC.

There is no such thing as beauty-in-itself without any reference to and conditioned upon a specific human-based FSERC.
Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSERC is objective in varying degrees dependent on the credibility and objectivity of the FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.

There is a correlation between 'beauty' [attractiveness] and health, thus serves an evolutionary advantage.
In this case, there has to some sort of universality and objectivity to what is beautiful and attractive.
If subjectivity is allowed to prevail, there would be no evolutionary advantages to the human species or any other species that are inclined to attractiveness or beauty.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10781122/
Facial Beauty and the Correlation of Associated Attributes: An Empirical Aesthetic Database Study

[Atla]

Let's run one last experiment, it's so curious.

the standards of validity of judgments of beauty are intersubjective, i.e. dependent on a group of judges, rather than fully subjective or objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

Do you have a counter against the above from WIKI?

Again:

WIKI: "intersubjective, i.e. dependent on a group of judges, rather than fully objective"

Again:

WIKI: intersubjective != objective

VA: "Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined."

Again:

VA: intersubjective = objective

-------------------------------

VA: "Do you have a counter against the above from WIKI?"

VA: "So far you have not provided any valid and legit counters to all my points.
If you think you have, where is it??
Open a thread and just give me one valid example."

-------------------------------

Again:

WIKI: intersubjective != objective
VA: intersubjective = objective

VA: just give me one valid example

[Peter Holmes]

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

A question for aesthetic objectivists. If objectivity is independence from belief, judgement or opinion, could a thing be beautiful even if everyone thinks it's ugly? Or even if no collective-of-subjects thinks it's beautiful?

Whatever is a fact and objective is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.
There is no other approach to credibility and objectivity of reality.

It a thing is ugly within a specific U-FSERC, there is no way it can be beautiful within that specific U-FSERC.

So, to spell it out, here's VA's argument for aesthetic objectivity.

1 A fact depends on or exists within a human discourse/practice.
2 Any human discourse/practice produces facts.
3 Aesthetic discourse/practice produces facts.
4 The beauty and ugliness of things are facts dependent on or existing within aesthetic discourse/practice.

Problem. If 1 is true, then there is no way to assess the credibility or reliability of a discourse/practice, no way to measure its credibility or reliability against other discourses/practices.

VA claims that natural science discourses/practices are the 'gold standard' for credibility or reliability - but can't explain why, because his premise 1 denies the existence of a reality - of facts - outside human discourses/practices.

We can leave aside the downstream silliness of the idea that a thing's beauty or ugliness are facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A question for aesthetic objectivists. If objectivity is independence from belief, judgement or opinion, could a thing be beautiful even if everyone thinks it's ugly? Or even if no collective-of-subjects thinks it's beautiful?

Whatever is a fact and objective is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.
There is no other approach to credibility and objectivity of reality.

It a thing is ugly within a specific U-FSERC, there is no way it can be beautiful within that specific U-FSERC.

So, to spell it out, here's VA's argument for aesthetic objectivity.

1 A fact depends on or exists within a human discourse/practice.
2 Any human discourse/practice produces facts.
3 Aesthetic discourse/practice produces facts.
4 The beauty and ugliness of things are facts dependent on or existing within aesthetic discourse/practice.

Problem. If 1 is true, then there is no way to assess the credibility or reliability of a discourse/practice, no way to measure its credibility or reliability against other discourses/practices.

VA claims that natural science discourses/practices are the 'gold standard' for credibility or reliability - but can't explain why, because his premise 1 denies the existence of a reality - of facts - outside human discourses/practices.

We can leave aside the downstream silliness of the idea that a thing's beauty or ugliness are facts.

PH: 1 A fact depends on or exists within a human discourse/practice.

Strawman as usual:
My P1 has always been this - posted "a million" times

VA: P1 - A fact [objective] is contingent upon a specific collective-of-subjects [human-based] framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition [knowledge] [FSERC] of reality.

In addition, I do not use the term 'depend' at all.
There is no way you can counter the above other than deliberating twisting and strawmaning it.

You are insulting your own intelligence by deliberating twisting what I had been posting.

Btw, my P1 is based on my opposition to your claim, i.e.
PH: "what is fact is a feature of reality that is the case, a state of affair, just is which is absolutely independent of the human conditions or mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not."
Such a claim is not tenable and impossible to be realistic.
Your claim is more like hearsays and you have not provided any valid arguments to justify your belief.

[Atla]

"it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not."

Such a claim is ... impossible to be realistic.

I wonder, do you actually know what the word 'impossible' means?

[Peter Holmes]

VA: P1 - A fact [objective] is contingent upon a specific collective-of-subjects [human-based] framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition [knowledge] [FSERC] of reality.

Beneath the anaesthetising comfort blanket of big words, this means that facts are human constructs. From this, VA concludes that, since humans construct facts, there can be aesthetic and moral facts - that 'this is beautiful' and 'this is morally wrong' are factual assertions with truth-value.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA: P1 - A fact [objective] is contingent upon a specific collective-of-subjects [human-based] framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition [knowledge] [FSERC] of reality.

Beneath the anaesthetising comfort blanket of big words, this means that facts are human constructs. From this, VA concludes that, since humans construct facts, there can be aesthetic and moral facts - that 'this is beautiful' and 'this is morally wrong' are factual assertions with truth-value.

Strawman again.

I have never claimed that human construct facts literally like a constructor.

The fact is this;
it is an obvious fact we have empirical evidence and experience of reality, but it is also a fact, humans can never extricate themselves from the reality [experience and evidenced] they are intricately part and parcel of.

As such, I conclude;
whatever is fact, reality, truth, knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based collective of subjects framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality.

As such, I have never claimed 'humans [literally] construct fact'.

When an adult learned that 'water is H20' only via the science-chemistry FSERC, that adult as a zygote then had already interacted "that" which he subsequently realized and cognized 'water is H20'.
This a priori experience is traceable when his ancestors were one-celled organisms.


Why do philosophical realists have a different view?

It is also evident from common sense that all humans experience a sense of externalness i.e. of external things which evidently are external to themselves and consciousness.
But there is no basis nor grounds for humans to claim what is experienced as external and independent can be absolutely independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether human exists or not.
Such a claim is merely a reasoned-thought thus cannot be an absolutely matter of fact.
This reasoned-thought is driven by an existential crisis arising from an evolutionary default.

[FlashDangerpants]

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

That's like saying that your trousers aren't cotton because they are independent of one particular strand of cotton. Subjectivity multiplied is just a quantitative change. Subjectivity and objectivity are different types not different amounts. You are wasting your life in pursuit of an obviously doomed argument.

[Peter Holmes]

it is an obvious fact we have empirical evidence and experience of reality...

And that is the reality - those are the facts - the existence of which you deny.

but it is also a fact, humans can never extricate themselves from the reality [experience and evidenced] they are intricately part and parcel of.

But so what? That doesn't mean that, if there were no humans, there would be no reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

it is an obvious fact we have empirical evidence and experience of reality...

And that is the reality - those are the facts - the existence of which you deny.

1. You claimed your "what is fact" is that feature of reality, that is the case, state of affairs, just is which is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

then contradictory you claim

"we have empirical evidence and experience of reality..."
2. PH: And that is the reality - those are the facts - the existence of which you deny.

If you claims 'what is fact' is absolutely independent of the human condition [1], how can you also claim the non-independent empirical evidence and experience of reality [2] are the facts.

You are only speculating from 2 to 1.
It is impossible for 2-as-experienced to be 1-as-reasoned which is beyond experience.

On the other hand,
the philosophical antirealist [Kantian] claimed what is fact is always conditioned upon what is experienced refined/polished with critical thinking of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective polishing-of-reality machine.

See the difference? and that you are speculating without proof beyond the empirical and the experience. Actually you are clinging on to Metaphysics, i.e. meta -beyond the physical, i.e. empirical.

Why do you [as the majority] do that? It is because you are driven by an evolutionary default to do so [as it has done so for billions of years] culminating with a cultist ideology of philosophical realism.
Unfortunately for you are caught in an entrapment* which is very difficult to get out at present. * more sophisticated than geocentrism.

but it is also a fact, humans can never extricate themselves from the reality [experience and evidenced] they are intricately part and parcel of.

But so what? That doesn't mean that, if there were no humans, there would be no reality.

Your view is merely based on crude reason and speculation without proof .. in any case can never be proven. As such you are merely clinging on to a logical illusion that soothe your cognitive dissonances.

I have explained above why you are caught in this delusion that had generated loads of philosophical dilemmas in human history.

[Peter Holmes]

it is an obvious fact we have empirical evidence and experience of reality...

And that is the reality - those are the facts - the existence of which you deny.

1. You claimed your "what is fact" is that feature of reality, that is the case, state of affairs, just is which is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

then contradictory you claim

"we have empirical evidence and experience of reality..."
2. PH: And that is the reality - those are the facts - the existence of which you deny.

If you claims 'what is fact' is absolutely independent of the human condition [1], how can you also claim the non-independent empirical evidence and experience of reality [2] are the facts.

You are only speculating from 2 to 1.
It is impossible for 2-as-experienced to be 1-as-reasoned which is beyond experience.

And here's where you go wrong - and, I think, misinterpret Kant.

P: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
C: Therefore, there is no reality independent from the reality that we humans perceive, know and describe.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And it has ridiculous implications, such as that there was no universe before humans evolved, wouldn't be a universe had humans not evolved, and won't be a universe when we've gone.

Also, if there is no noumenon (thing-in-itself), it's irrational to conclude that there is something we can never know about reality, including our selves. It's a kind of mysticism. And its unfalsifiable circularity is what has dazzled and seduced you, along with many others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And that is the reality - those are the facts - the existence of which you deny.

1. You claimed your "what is fact" is that feature of reality, that is the case, state of affairs, just is which is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

then contradictory you claim

"we have empirical evidence and experience of reality..."
2. PH: And that is the reality - those are the facts - the existence of which you deny.

If you claims 'what is fact' is absolutely independent of the human condition [1], how can you also claim the non-independent empirical evidence and experience of reality [2] are the facts.

You are only speculating from 2 to 1.
It is impossible for 2-as-experienced to be 1-as-reasoned which is beyond experience.

And here's where you go wrong - and, I think, misinterpret Kant.

P: We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
C: Therefore, there is no reality independent from the reality that we humans perceive, know and describe.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And it has ridiculous implications, such as that there was no universe before humans evolved, wouldn't be a universe had humans not evolved, and won't be a universe when we've gone.

Also, if there is no noumenon (thing-in-itself), it's irrational to conclude that there is something we can never know about reality, including our selves. It's a kind of mysticism. And its unfalsifiable circularity is what has dazzled and seduced you, along with many others.

Strawman again, the > "a million" times.

Note Kant first para of this Critique of Reason;

I. The Distinction Between Pure And Empirical Knowledge
There is no doubt whatever that all our Cognition [Erkenntnis [diff from Knowledge-Wissen] begins with Experience;
........
But although all our Cognition commences [begins] with Experience, yet it does not on that account all arise from Experience.
CPR B1

Cognition is more basic than knowledge.
Thus Kant's
".. yet it does not on that account all arise from Experience"
as explained in his texts and also is implied, there are prior processes within the human system that correlate with the emergence of the object [thing] to be experienced and then known and described.


The argument should thus be;
1. The object emerged with the human conditions to be realized, perceived, cognized, known and described as real.
2. Therefore, there is no reality [object, thing] existing absolutely independent from the reality that we humans perceive, know and describe.

You are ignorant of Kant's famous Copernican Revolution??

1. Hitherto it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our cognition of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

2. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our cognition.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have cognition of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
CPR Bxvi

Point 1 above assume there is an external thing [object] that absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind].

However in point 2, Kant proposed "Objects must conform to our cognition" i.e. implying humans contribute in bringing about the emergence of the things before it is perceived, known and described.

Kant rejected that there is any rea pre-existing absolute independent object or thing [noumenal or thing-in-itself] awaiting discovery by humans.

I have stated many times, your desperation in strawmaning your narrow view is due to some sort of psychological limitations which is inherent & primitive in the majority of humans. Humans need to evolve out of it as an ideology.
Your ideological view [philosophical realism] is very mystical [metaphysical] in that you are chasing for an illusion that is beyond the empirical.

Also, if there is no noumenon (thing-in-itself), it's irrational to conclude that there is something we can never know about reality, including our selves. It's a kind of mysticism. And its unfalsifiable circularity is what has dazzled and seduced you, along with many others.

Cannot understand your point.

According to Kant, the noumenon [thing-in-itself] is merely a thought that is a useful illusion or useful fiction. It is something like Santa Claus which is a useful fiction to please children and for commercial interests.

For Kant the thing-in-itself is a VERY useful illusion [imperative] for the purpose of his moral theories.

[Peter Holmes]

Your ideological view [philosophical realism] is very mystical [metaphysical] in that you are chasing for an illusion that is beyond the empirical.

Not so. You fantasise about something beyond the physical. I don't, and won't until there's evidence for it.

Also, if there is no noumenon (thing-in-itself), it's irrational to conclude that there is something we can never know about reality, including our selves. It's a kind of mysticism. And its unfalsifiable circularity is what has dazzled and seduced you, along with many others.

VA: Cannot understand your point.

Quite. And that incomprehension is what's holding you back.