PH is Wrong, There are 'Relativistics Facts'

[Impenitent]

PH & gang insist that morality cannot be objective because there are no moral facts independent of human conditions, except there are only moral feelings, opinions and judgments of moral rightness and wrongness.

You've got to hand it to Peter Holmes; he certainly seems to know what he's talking about.

Can anyone join the Peter Holmes gang, I wonder. I've always fancied being an outlaw.

outlaw? no, you'd be a Holmey

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Strawman! I did not discuss preferences.

Most of what you are saying is about preferences. Morality is about preference.

Your insistence on this is making you stupid re philosophy.

Your oughtness-to-breathe as a human being or living thing is not subjective but objective

With every "ought", there is an implied "if". I only ought to breath if I want to live. An alarmingly high number of people decide they don't want to live, in which case their breathing doesn't have any oughtness.

You are very ignorant of human Nature versus Nurture.

It is human nature that ALL [no exceptions] humans have a neural algorithm [organic program] which drives a human to breathe naturally & spontaneously and forces [oughtness] one to breathe where necessary; such an 'oughtness' is a biological fact represented by physical neurons, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks in the brain and body.
Repeat: That physical 'oughtness-to-breathe' program is embedded in ALL [no exceptions] humans.

However, within 'nurture' that 'oughtness-to-breathe' program represented by neuronal connections can be weakened or damaged due to various nurturing conditions.
As such, there it is indisputable the physical 'oughtness-to-breathe' program is still there as long as a human is alive.

Even when a number of people decide not to live, their 'oughtness-to-breathe' program is still exerting its forces and the suicidal often has to suppress their 'oughtness-to-breathe' via asphyxiations.

such can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK.

Will you shut up about "FSK"! It's really getting on my nerves, and I wager I'm not the only one to feel incredibly irritated by it.

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU on the above opinion of ignorance.
You are insulting your own intelligence on this when you are so ignorant of what is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

I have explained what is Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] here;
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

I am done with educating you with objective knowledge you are so ignorant of.
You cannot stop me FSK-ing, so, I suggest your option is to F/Off.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your own example is a shot in your own foot.
Murdering a child is not an objective moral fact, since it would have to be factually "independent" of human cognition. But there is no child independent of human cognition.
QED murder is not objective, since that too is not independent.

Strawman. Where is your loose cannon shooting?
Where did I state "Murdering a child is an objective moral fact"?

"Murdering a child is an objective fact" if the murder is convicted that would be an objective legal fact conditioned upon the specific court and national laws.

It has nothing to do with objectivity.
Objective and subjective and not qualities of the act or objects. They are qualities of relation.
On its own such a statement bears no relationship to the object/subject spectrum.

Note;

• In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

There are two senses of 'what is objectivity', note this thread;
Two senses of 'what is objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

There is the sense of objective [of facts] of the ideological Philosophical Realist which you're adopting here.

• Philosophical realism is about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The above as your sort of objective is not realistic.


My sense of objectivity [of facts] is conditioned upon a specific FSK, e.g. scientific FSK.

• According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsehood of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history, in so much as they are true despite what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

The point "analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history" means they are conditioned upon their respective FSK.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Do you insist scientific facts are NOT objective?

see Scientific Objectivity as conditioned upon the scientific FSK, which is grounded on the collective consensus of subjects [i.e. scientists].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
Scientific [& any other] Objectivity is intersubjectivity.

It is objective because the conviction is independent of any individual's opinion.

No it is not. A "murder" has to be judged unlawful, therefor it cannot be objective, since it requires an opinion.

You have to be very careful with the term 'opinion' within the legal FSK.

When an individual lawyer gives a professional legal 'opinion', it is always based on his reference to established laws and precedents, not based on his unsubstantiated private and personal subjective opinions or views. In this case, it is in a way objectivity, but it is of low degree of objectivity, but will have higher objective if the legal opinion is from a legal FIRM with consensus from many partners.

When a court convict the accused as a 'murderer' that not a private and personal subjective opinion, rather it is a collective judgment conditioned upon the specific political-legal Framework and System.
Since such a judgment by a court is NOT from ONE private-personal individual's views, it is objective philosophically [as defined above], i.e. a legal fact.

If you are convicted of raping, torturing and killing a child in UK, that is an objective legal fact conditioned upon UK Laws independent of any individual's opinion.

Well duh, don't be a fucking moron.
Legal Opinion is the lifeblood of the entire legal system, dipwit.

Note my above explanation that differentiate from 'opinion' [objective judgment] from opinions from a private individual's subjective views.

[Harbal]

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU on the above opinion of ignorance.
You are insulting your own intelligence on this when you are so ignorant of what is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

I have explained what is Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] here;
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

I am done with educating you with objective knowledge you are so ignorant of.
You cannot stop me FSK-ing, so, I suggest your option is to F/Off.

Are you in a bad mood today?

[Iwannaplato]

Are you in a bad mood today?

I'd be in a bad mood if you tried to stop me FSK-ing. At least I think so.

[Agent Smith]

I concur wity the OP, but then this guy, outta nowhere, ran towards me and dropped a dossier in bubble wrap on me lap and then, panting like a dog in the summer heat, walked away, calmly, whistling an old native American tune, between deep breaths. I haven't a clue what to do with a bubble-wrapped dossier!

[alan1000]

Some valuable in-depth critical analysis in this thread, eg, "don't be a fucking moron".