What is Philosophical Objectivity?

[tillingborn]

Here is my proper argument [.I have done a similar one in another post];

• 1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],

For those of us who don't know, can you give an example of a moral fact?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my proper argument [.I have done a similar one in another post];

• 1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],

For those of us who don't know, can you give an example of a moral fact?

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

General Facts to Moral Facts, Political to Moral System
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

An example of a moral fact that must always be qualified within a moral FSK would be;

All humans has the inherent ought_not-to-kill humans embedded within the human brain and mind.

[tillingborn]

Here is my proper argument [.I have done a similar one in another post];

• 1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],

For those of us who don't know, can you give an example of a moral fact?

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

General Facts to Moral Facts, Political to Moral System
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

An example of a moral fact that must always be qualified within a moral FSK would be;

All humans has the inherent ought_not-to-kill humans embedded within the human brain and mind.

I had to look up FSK. From what you say about that, and the links you kindly provided above, I think you can argue that there are facts of human behaviour; Alice killed Bob, for example. There are facts about human intentions: Alice meant to kill Bob. And facts about human judgements: Charlie doesn't think Alice should have killed Bob. I think those facts can broadly be described as objective. It's not clear to me whether you are claiming that "All humans has the inherent ought_not-to-kill humans embedded within the human brain and mind." is objective in the same way; or that 'a moral FSK' is a collection of dicta which are taken as true.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is my proper argument. (I have done a similar one in another post.)

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],

2. As such moral facts are objective.

3. Objective moral facts are imputed as moral standards within a moral system.

4. A moral system represents morality, i.e. the practices of morals in comparing to moral standards.

5. Therefore morality within is FSK is objective.[/list]

Show me where my premises are wrong and the whole argument fallacious?

Okay. Thanks for this. And here's why your argument is unsound.

1 Your premise #1 merely makes the claim that we're disputing: there are moral facts. It provides neither evidence to support the claim, nor an argument concluding with the claim. And saying that moral facts are 'justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK' - and are therefore objective - also merely makes a claim without providing either evidence or argument. So your premise #1 IS your conclusion, which means your syllogism is a question-begging fallacy.

2 Your premise #2 merely repeats the unsupported claim about objectivity in #1 and is therefore redundant.

3 Your premise #3 merely repeats the unsupported claim in #1 that there are moral facts. So the claim that we adopt these moral facts as standards within a moral system is incoherent. And anyway, the expression 'are imputed as moral standards' is unclear, if not unintelligible.

4 Your premise #4 is incoherent, because a moral system can't be said to 'represent' morality. But if there is a clear meaning inside your expression, it seems trivial and redundant.

5 Your conclusion isn't the conclusion of a syllogism, because it is merely your premise #1.

This 'argument' is a complete disaster, and you provide no evidence to support your 'premise' that there are moral facts. But hey - don't let that give you pause. The crack of doom is a long time coming.

[Sculptor]

Here is my proper argument [.I have done a similar one in another post];

• 1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],
  
  2. As such moral facts are objective.
  
  3. Objective moral facts are imputed as moral standards within a moral system.
  
  4. A moral system represents morality, i.e. the practices of morals in comparing to moral standards.
  
  5. Therefore morality within is FSK is objective.

Show me where my premises are wrong and the whole argument fallacious?

1. There are moral facts relatively objective based on a subjective and arbitrary FSK (whateverthefuckthatis)
2. Moral facts are subject to the conditions of the FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).
3. So-called moral facts are asserted without further justication to a subjective moral system, which complies with objective rules within an FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).
4. Subjective facts are presented as objective.
5. Morality is objective only within an FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).

Show me !
what is wrong here?
Premises and conclusions based on nothing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For those of us who don't know, can you give an example of a moral fact?

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

General Facts to Moral Facts, Political to Moral System
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

An example of a moral fact that must always be qualified within a moral FSK would be;

All humans has the inherent ought_not-to-kill humans embedded within the human brain and mind.

I had to look up FSK. From what you say about that, and the links you kindly provided above, I think you can argue that there are facts of human behaviour; Alice killed Bob, for example. There are facts about human intentions: Alice meant to kill Bob. And facts about human judgements: Charlie doesn't think Alice should have killed Bob. I think those facts can broadly be described as objective.

All the above are not facts and objective until they are verified and justified within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
"Alice killed Bob, for example" would have to be verified and justified within the legal FSK as confirmed by a jury or judge based on evidences presented and argued.

"Charlie doesn't think Alice should have killed Bob" is merely a subjective opinion or belief.
The above opinion can only be factual when referred to moral facts from within a moral FSK.

It's not clear to me whether you are claiming that "All humans has the inherent ought_not-to-kill humans embedded within the human brain and mind." is objective in the same way; or that 'a moral FSK' is a collection of dicta which are taken as true.

Nope the moral FSK I proposed in a collection of dicta as in a God-driven-moral-FSK.

That "All humans has the inherent ought_not-to-kill humans embedded within the human brain and mind." is a fact and objective because it can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my proper argument. (I have done a similar one in another post.)

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],

2. As such moral facts are objective.

3. Objective moral facts are imputed as moral standards within a moral system.

4. A moral system represents morality, i.e. the practices of morals in comparing to moral standards.

5. Therefore morality within is FSK is objective.[/list]

Show me where my premises are wrong and the whole argument fallacious?

Okay. Thanks for this. And here's why your argument is unsound.

1 Your premise #1 merely makes the claim that we're disputing: there are moral facts. It provides neither evidence to support the claim, nor an argument concluding with the claim. And saying that moral facts are 'justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK' - and are therefore objective - also merely makes a claim without providing either evidence or argument. So your premise #1 IS your conclusion, which means your syllogism is a question-begging fallacy.

2 Your premise #2 merely repeats the unsupported claim about objectivity in #1 and is therefore redundant.

You did not state you disagreed with my premise 1, so I presumed you agreed with it.
You should have stated your disagrees with premise 1, then I would not have to waste time explaining to you why your syllogism you invented for me, is wrong.

I have already justified premise 1 a "1000" times, i.e.

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

General Facts to Moral Facts, Political to Moral System
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

Show me where have you countered my argument above convincingly?

3 Your premise #3 merely repeats the unsupported claim in #1 that there are moral facts. So the claim that we adopt these moral facts as standards within a moral system is incoherent. And anyway, the expression 'are imputed as moral standards' is unclear, if not unintelligible.

Do you even understand what is a system and system theory??

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems. A system is a cohesive conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts which can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

It is imperative that a system has its purpose where it manages, process inputs and control processes to achieve its intended purpose.

Since a moral system is a system [you get it?] therefore it require some purpose, objective or standard.
Instead of simply inventing standards, I have identified the justified true moral beliefs or facts are the standard which are imputed via evolution.

4 Your premise #4 is incoherent, because a moral system can't be said to 'represent' morality. But if there is a clear meaning inside your expression, it seems trivial and redundant.

You are ignorant of what is morality.

I have linked the definition of what is morality, but you ignored that.

Note here a is general definition of morality,

• Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

As such what is morality above is most effectively deal within a system, i.e. a moral system within a moral framework that incorporated objective standards [not arbitrary ones].

5 Your conclusion isn't the conclusion of a syllogism, because it is merely your premise #1.

This 'argument' is a complete disaster, and you provide no evidence to support your 'premise' that there are moral facts. But hey - don't let that give you pause. The crack of doom is a long time coming.

From the above I had exposed your ignorance of basic philosophical knowledge.
You can even see all the premises followed to the conclusion.

My premise 1 is sufficient to justify morality is objective.
The rest of the premises are merely to expound the point how the justified objective moral facts are linked to moral system, then to morality [as defined].

Note your knowledge of morality is kindergartenish as inherited from those bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists. Your counter to my arguments is merely one track-minded, i.e. linguistics which are mere words and statements.
You got morality very wrong when you associate 'morality' merely with personal judgments on human behaviors by individual[s].

Note again, open your eyes wider and read more intensely,

• Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is related to a body of standards or principles, not about personal judgments of individual opinions and beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my proper argument [.I have done a similar one in another post];

• 1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],
  
  2. As such moral facts are objective.
  
  3. Objective moral facts are imputed as moral standards within a moral system.
  
  4. A moral system represents morality, i.e. the practices of morals in comparing to moral standards.
  
  5. Therefore morality within is FSK is objective.

Show me where my premises are wrong and the whole argument fallacious?

1. There are moral facts relatively objective based on a subjective and arbitrary FSK (whateverthefuckthatis)
2. Moral facts are subject to the conditions of the FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).
3. So-called moral facts are asserted without further justication to a subjective moral system, which complies with objective rules within an FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).
4. Subjective facts are presented as objective.
5. Morality is objective only within an FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).

Show me !
what is wrong here?
Premises and conclusions based on nothing.

Re you counter, "whatever the fuck is that?"
You counters are merely stupid statements which has no semblance to my premises.

Re my premise 1 I have justified it with the following arguments;

A. There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

B. General Facts to Moral Facts, Political to Moral System
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

Show me what is wrong with the above arguments [A & B]?

[Peter Holmes]

Here is my proper argument. (I have done a similar one in another post.)

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],

2. As such moral facts are objective.

3. Objective moral facts are imputed as moral standards within a moral system.

4. A moral system represents morality, i.e. the practices of morals in comparing to moral standards.

5. Therefore morality within is FSK is objective.[/list]

Show me where my premises are wrong and the whole argument fallacious?

Okay. Thanks for this. And here's why your argument is unsound.

1 Your premise #1 merely makes the claim that we're disputing: there are moral facts. It provides neither evidence to support the claim, nor an argument concluding with the claim. And saying that moral facts are 'justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK' - and are therefore objective - also merely makes a claim without providing either evidence or argument. So your premise #1 IS your conclusion, which means your syllogism is a question-begging fallacy.

2 Your premise #2 merely repeats the unsupported claim about objectivity in #1 and is therefore redundant.

You did not state you disagreed with my premise 1, so I presumed you agreed with it.
You should have stated your disagrees with premise 1, then I would not have to waste time explaining to you why your syllogism you invented for me, is wrong.

I have already justified premise 1 a "1000" times, i.e.

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

General Facts to Moral Facts, Political to Moral System
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

Show me where have you countered my argument above convincingly?

3 Your premise #3 merely repeats the unsupported claim in #1 that there are moral facts. So the claim that we adopt these moral facts as standards within a moral system is incoherent. And anyway, the expression 'are imputed as moral standards' is unclear, if not unintelligible.

Do you even understand what is a system and system theory??

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems. A system is a cohesive conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts which can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

It is imperative that a system has its purpose where it manages, process inputs and control processes to achieve its intended purpose.

Since a moral system is a system [you get it?] therefore it require some purpose, objective or standard.
Instead of simply inventing standards, I have identified the justified true moral beliefs or facts are the standard which are imputed via evolution.

4 Your premise #4 is incoherent, because a moral system can't be said to 'represent' morality. But if there is a clear meaning inside your expression, it seems trivial and redundant.

You are ignorant of what is morality.

I have linked the definition of what is morality, but you ignored that.

Note here a is general definition of morality,

• Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

As such what is morality above is most effectively deal within a system, i.e. a moral system within a moral framework that incorporated objective standards [not arbitrary ones].

5 Your conclusion isn't the conclusion of a syllogism, because it is merely your premise #1.

This 'argument' is a complete disaster, and you provide no evidence to support your 'premise' that there are moral facts. But hey - don't let that give you pause. The crack of doom is a long time coming.

From the above I had exposed your ignorance of basic philosophical knowledge.
You can even see all the premises followed to the conclusion.

My premise 1 is sufficient to justify morality is objective.
The rest of the premises are merely to expound the point how the justified objective moral facts are linked to moral system, then to morality [as defined].

Note your knowledge of morality is kindergartenish as inherited from those bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists. Your counter to my arguments is merely one track-minded, i.e. linguistics which are mere words and statements.
You got morality very wrong when you associate 'morality' merely with personal judgments on human behaviors by individual[s].

Note again, open your eyes wider and read more intensely,

• Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is related to a body of standards or principles, not about personal judgments of individual opinions and beliefs.

Look, here's what you're trying to show:

P1 If there are moral facts, then morality is objective.
P2 There are moral facts.
C Therefore, morality is objective.

This is a valid argument, because the conclusion follows from the premises. So what needs to be demonstrated is its soundness - which means demonstrating that there are, indeed, moral facts (P2).

Neither you nor any moral realist or objectivist has demonstrated the existence of even one moral fact. Here is your best shot:

Humans are 'programmed' not to kill humans; therefore humans killing humans is morally wrong.

And this fails, because the moral conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

If, instead, the moral conclusion is 'therefore humans ought not to kill humans', this makes no difference if 'ought' has a moral meaning. But if 'ought' has a non-moral meaning, then the conclusion is no longer a moral assertion, so it can't express a moral fact.

We often use the modals 'ought' and 'should' in a non-moral way, for example: if we want to extinguish a fire, we ought not to pour petrol on it. This use of 'ought' has no moral implication, but rather refers to goal-consistency. And in 'if humans are'programmed' not to kill humans, then humans ought not to kill humans', 'ought' can also have no moral implication.

Equivocation on the use of 'ought' and 'should' is a common objectivist trick. Or it could just be an example of bewitchment by the devices of our language.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Look, here's what you're trying to show:

P1 If there are moral facts, then morality is objective.
P2 There are moral facts.
C Therefore, morality is objective.

This is a valid argument, because the conclusion follows from the premises. So what needs to be demonstrated is its soundness - which means demonstrating that there are, indeed, moral facts (P2).

You keep ignoring the imperative and necessary Moral Framework and System [FSK].
Thus,

• P1 If there are moral facts justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK, then morality [as defined] is objective.
  
  P2 There are moral facts justified within the moral FSK
  
  C Therefore, morality is objective within the moral FSK.

Morality is objective if and only if when it is conditioned upon a moral FSK.
So why is the above not sound as qualified within a moral FSK.
It is so sound, that we can put the system into action and practice to produce moral results for humanity.

Neither you nor any moral realist or objectivist has demonstrated the existence of even one moral fact. Here is your best shot:

Humans are 'programmed' not to kill humans; therefore humans killing humans is morally wrong.

And this fails, because the moral conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

If, instead, the moral conclusion is 'therefore humans ought not to kill humans', this makes no difference if 'ought' has a moral meaning. But if 'ought' has a non-moral meaning, then the conclusion is no longer a moral assertion, so it can't express a moral fact.

We often use the modals 'ought' and 'should' in a non-moral way, for example: if we want to extinguish a fire, we ought not to pour petrol on it. This use of 'ought' has no moral implication, but rather refers to goal-consistency. And in 'if humans are 'programmed' not to kill humans, then humans ought not to kill humans', 'ought' can also have no moral implication.

Equivocation on the use of 'ought' and 'should' is a common objectivist trick. Or it could just be an example of bewitchment by the devices of our language.

It is impossible for theists and platonic moralist to claim morality is objective because they are unable to justify and verify moral facts empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.

On the other hand, I have justified what is Justified True Moral Facts/beliefs/truth empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.
Thus

• P1 If there are moral facts justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK, then morality is objective.
  
  P2 There are moral facts justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK
  
  C Therefore, morality is objective within the moral FSK.

Note the essential of morality and moral system is that it deals with 'ought' and 'ought-not' as standards and guides within the moral FSK.
As such, that the justified moral fact "humans ought-not to kill humans" is thus necessarily imputed within the moral system imperatively as a standard, else there is no moral system.

Btw, note the hint;
56% of philosophers [not tom, dick or harry] accepts moral realism, thus moral objectivity while only 28% agree with you.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 If there are moral facts justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK, then morality is objective.

P2 There are moral facts justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK

C Therefore, morality is objective within the moral FSK.

This argument is still unsound, because there's been no demonstration of the existence of even one moral fact, 'justified empirically and philosphically within the moral FSK' or not. The condition adds nothing to the claim that there are moral facts, because there's no evidence for the existence of the moral FSK. It's your question-begging invention.

Here's your fallacy: all facts exist within an FSK; therefore moral facts exist within the moral FSK.

Sorry. Nul point. Back to the drawing board.

[Sculptor]

Here is my proper argument [.I have done a similar one in another post];

• 1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],
  
  2. As such moral facts are objective.
  
  3. Objective moral facts are imputed as moral standards within a moral system.
  
  4. A moral system represents morality, i.e. the practices of morals in comparing to moral standards.
  
  5. Therefore morality within is FSK is objective.

Show me where my premises are wrong and the whole argument fallacious?

1. There are moral facts relatively objective based on a subjective and arbitrary FSK (whateverthefuckthatis)
2. Moral facts are subject to the conditions of the FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).
3. So-called moral facts are asserted without further justication to a subjective moral system, which complies with objective rules within an FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).
4. Subjective facts are presented as objective.
5. Morality is objective only within an FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).

Show me !
what is wrong here?
Premises and conclusions based on nothing.

Re you counter, "whatever the fuck is that?"
You counters are merely stupid statements which has no semblance to my premises.

Re my premise 1 I have justified it with the following arguments;

A. There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

B. General Facts to Moral Facts, Political to Moral System
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

Show me what is wrong with the above arguments [A & B]?

They are YOUR chosen subjective moral "facts"

[tillingborn]

Nope the moral FSK I proposed in a collection of dicta as in a God-driven-moral-FSK.

I see. Then perhaps we should wait for God to do a bit of driving.

[Skepdick]

Here's your fallacy: all facts exist within an FSK; therefore moral facts exist within the moral FSK.

It is difficult to figure out what the point of your point is.

You always seem to attack the argument, but you never attack the conclusions. Do you intentionally commit the fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy, which could also be called the "metafallacy", is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the conclusion it was used to support is wrong.

[Skepdick]

For those of us who don't know, can you give an example of a moral fact?

Murder is wrong.

Although, I highly doubt you didn't know this (and needed to be given this example).