Is morality objective or subjective?

[Belinda]

Regarding the statement " eating animals and their products is wrong:

3 This isn't about the hygiene of eating animals - a factual matter. It's about the morality of eating animals - a non-factual matter.

But it may be claimed that deliberately eating raw eggs when you know the flock is infested with salmonella is morally wrong as well as hygienically wrong.

Some religious laws are dietary laws for sound reasons.

It is a contemporary and popular claim that eating animals and their products is morally wrong because of the fact that animal based foodstuffs are ecologically unsustainable.

[Peter Holmes]

Regarding the statement " eating animals and their products is wrong:

3 This isn't about the hygiene of eating animals - a factual matter. It's about the morality of eating animals - a non-factual matter.

But it may be claimed that deliberately eating raw eggs when you know the flock is infested with salmonella is morally wrong as well as hygienically wrong.

Some religious laws are dietary laws for sound reasons.

It is a contemporary and popular claim that eating animals and their products is morally wrong because of the fact that animal based foodstuffs are ecologically unsustainable.

Even if it's true that eating animals is unhygienic or economically unsustainable, the claim that it's morally wrong to eat animals is a separate matter from the hygiene or sustainability of doing so. There's no necessary connection between facts and moral opinions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You misunderstood my point.

I believe I stated very clearly, it is a fact that she is making a statement [assuming I am facing her and hearing her statement]
The fact is "she is making a statement" which can be any statement.

It is also a fact that a schizophrenic made the statement 'the gnomes in the garden spoke to me'.
But 'the gnomes in the garden spoke to me' is a not a fact, i.e. the gnomes can't be real speakers.

The statement "That's a lovely sunrise" made by an individual is not a fact but merely a personal opinion.
It can only be a fact when her statement is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
A credible FSK entails a community.

Okay, but for it to be a fact that the person had the opinion they did doesn't entail a community, does it?

It does entail a community, i.e. "what is thinking" is grounded to various FSKs. e.g. [mine]

Because thought underlies many human actions and interactions, understanding its physical and metaphysical origins and its effects has been a longstanding goal
of many academic disciplines [FSKs]
including philosophy, linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, biology, sociology and cognitive science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

The principle is, whatever is a fact MUST BE specific to a FSK.
In the above FSKs, I would include the Common-Sense FSK.
I believe the concept of thinking is acceptable by most within the Common-Sense FSK, if not, then we seek consensus within the biology, psychology, or etc. FSK.

Whatever is expressed by an individual or group without reference to any FSK [implied or explicit] is merely an opinion, or belief, i.e. very subjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The statement "That's a lovely sunrise" made by an individual is not a fact but merely a personal opinion.
It can only be a fact when her statement is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

More mantra-mumbling. How could 'that's a lovely sunrise' be verified (which means 'shown to be true') and justified (what does that mean if it's different from 'verified'?) empirically (what experience would that involve - would seeing the sunset do the trick?) and philosophically (what is philosophical verification and justification, when it's at home?)? And within which framework and system of knowledge would this verification and justification be possible, and in what way would it be credible?

What does this amount to? All it means is: [we] call such-and-such things lovely; therefore, this sunset is lovely.

I had explained earlier how the subjective can be quantified objectively.

If that "lovely sunrise" is captured in a media of video, photography or in a painting by an artist,
then the 'loveliness" of that sunrise [empirical confirm by a survey] is a fact within an esthetic FSK [videography, photography, art-world]
represented by the price people are willing to bid and pay for that 'lovely sunrise' within the respective media.

It is credible because the actual value/money exchanged can be easily verified.

As you can see your dogmatic stance of clinging to bastardized ideas is making you ignorant and hindering you from reflecting on knowledge from a range of perspectives which are practical and realized in reality. For you to merely shift perspectives from your dogmatic stance would entail terrible pains or the need for a cold turkey.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you might claim there are also 'physical rational machineries' or 'physical aesthetic machineries'.

Developmental theories of moral development are age related and some adults never attain the fully mature stage.
Do we know of any parallel scientific studies about logical development, and aesthetic development?
In all three cases, the developing child must be exposed to the society of others. Thus we are up against the nature or nurture problem.

Note this analogy of 'Puberty'.
I don't think a child must be exposed to society of others to enable puberty transit a child to adulthood.
The existence and timing of the change of phase is already "programmed" in all humans. The variations are in the degrees of adulthood or in very rare cases puberty never unfold due to the damaged code in the DNA.
Thus the oughtness of puberty is inherent in ALL humans, i.e. it is NATURE.

Just like the inherent physical puberty machineries, there are the inherent physical moral "machineries" that has intrinsic moral oughtness as moral facts qualified to the moral FSK.
The difference with the puberty machineries [unfold with age] is the inherent physical moral "machineries" unfold its inherent potential very slowly with age, social and other conditions.

Example, the inherent physical moral 'machinery' 'no human ought to enslave another' was already programmed within ALL humans from the beginning but it took 100,000s of years to unfold to its current state where all sovereign nations has abolished slavery legally.

[Terrapin Station]

It does entail a community, i.e. "what is thinking" is grounded to various FSKs. e.g. [mine]

Either

(1) It entails a community for it to be a fact that our solely-existing person has the opinion they do, in which case it wouldn't be a fact that they have the opinion they do, as there is no community

Or

(2) It doesn't entail a community for it to be a fact that our solely-existing person has the opinion they do, in which case it can be a fact that they have the opinion they do.

You can't have it both ways.

[Belinda]

Regarding the statement " eating animals and their products is wrong:

3 This isn't about the hygiene of eating animals - a factual matter. It's about the morality of eating animals - a non-factual matter.

But it may be claimed that deliberately eating raw eggs when you know the flock is infested with salmonella is morally wrong as well as hygienically wrong.

Some religious laws are dietary laws for sound reasons.

It is a contemporary and popular claim that eating animals and their products is morally wrong because of the fact that animal based foodstuffs are ecologically unsustainable.

Even if it's true that eating animals is unhygienic or economically unsustainable, the claim that it's morally wrong to eat animals is a separate matter from the hygiene or sustainability of doing so. There's no necessary connection between facts and moral opinions.

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

[Peter Holmes]

Regarding the statement " eating animals and their products is wrong:



But it may be claimed that deliberately eating raw eggs when you know the flock is infested with salmonella is morally wrong as well as hygienically wrong.

Some religious laws are dietary laws for sound reasons.

It is a contemporary and popular claim that eating animals and their products is morally wrong because of the fact that animal based foodstuffs are ecologically unsustainable.

Even if it's true that eating animals is unhygienic or economically unsustainable, the claim that it's morally wrong to eat animals is a separate matter from the hygiene or sustainability of doing so. There's no necessary connection between facts and moral opinions.

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

That we should maintain life, or the life of the tribe, is a matter of opinion, not a fact. You're missing something out and assuming it's there. And that's the delusion of moral realism and objectivism.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Example, the inherent physical moral 'machinery' 'no human ought to enslave another' was already programmed within ALL humans from the beginning but it took 100,000s of years to unfold to its current state where all sovereign nations has abolished slavery legally.

I discuss Kohlberg's theory.

1. Pre-conventional level. Authority figures set the rules. EG Daddy , or God, said slavery is bad.


2 .Conventional level. Authority figures' (Daddy's , or God's, rules abided by for the sake of societal and personal relationships.EG If I enslave Joe he will not like me and play with me. If I enslave other boys I might myself become a slave.


3. Post-Conventional level.
During the conventional level, an individual’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now because they believe that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order.
During the postconventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms of more abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated. EG The good is tied to what is the natural. EG the good is tied to human reason. EG evil is absence of good.
EG Slavery is wrong because the law that allows slavery needs changing. Slavery is wrong because all men are created equal.

[Belinda]

Even if it's true that eating animals is unhygienic or economically unsustainable, the claim that it's morally wrong to eat animals is a separate matter from the hygiene or sustainability of doing so. There's no necessary connection between facts and moral opinions.

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

That we should maintain life, or the life of the tribe, is a matter of opinion, not a fact. You're missing something out and assuming it's there. And that's the delusion of moral realism and objectivism.

If you disembody a person so that their life does not matter to them you have robotic humans such as child soldiers, ultimate terrorist martyrs, Kamikaze pilots, and brutalised policemen and soldiery. Life is a basic instinct for sound reasons of natural selection and is no delusion.

[Peter Holmes]

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

That we should maintain life, or the life of the tribe, is a matter of opinion, not a fact. You're missing something out and assuming it's there. And that's the delusion of moral realism and objectivism.

If you disembody a person so that their life does not matter to them you have robotic humans such as child soldiers, ultimate terrorist martyrs, Kamikaze pilots, and brutalised policemen and soldiery. Life is a basic instinct for sound reasons of natural selection and is no delusion.

Life isn't an instinct of any kind. It may be instinctive to want to maintain 'my' life - to want to live - but that fact has no moral implication. Again, you're leaping from 'here's a fact' to 'here's the moral conclusion'.

[Terrapin Station]

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

That we should maintain life, or the life of the tribe, is a matter of opinion, not a fact. You're missing something out and assuming it's there. And that's the delusion of moral realism and objectivism.

If you disembody a person so that their life does not matter to them you have robotic humans such as child soldiers, ultimate terrorist martyrs, Kamikaze pilots, and brutalised policemen and soldiery. Life is a basic instinct for sound reasons of natural selection and is no delusion.

?? None of that impacts that one has to desire maintaining life.

[Sculptor]

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

How is that the case?

[Sculptor]

That we should maintain life, or the life of the tribe, is a matter of opinion, not a fact. You're missing something out and assuming it's there. And that's the delusion of moral realism and objectivism.

If you disembody a person so that their life does not matter to them you have robotic humans such as child soldiers, ultimate terrorist martyrs, Kamikaze pilots, and brutalised policemen and soldiery. Life is a basic instinct for sound reasons of natural selection and is no delusion.

?? None of that impacts that one has to desire maintaining life.

Probably most humans at any given time are most likley to want to stay alive.

But even if you were to establish an iron clad fact that each of us wants to keep living. That would not be a moral fact.
A selfish urge has nothing to do with morality.
Morality is about the community or it is about nothing. And there is not un breakable connection between the urge to self preservation and thoughts about the community - and in many demonstrable cases it is to the contrary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It does entail a community, i.e. "what is thinking" is grounded to various FSKs. e.g. [mine]

Either

(1) It entails a community for it to be a fact that our solely-existing person has the opinion they do, in which case it wouldn't be a fact that they have the opinion they do, as there is no community

You slided in "solely-existing person" which is an impossibility in reality.

1. It entails a community [FSK] for whatever to be a fact.
In this case it require a community to confirm individual X is expressing an opinion.
Thus it is a fact that individual-X expressed [said out loud] an opinion.

Or

(2) It doesn't entail a community for it to be a fact that our solely-existing person has the opinion they do, in which case it can be a fact that they have the opinion they do.

You can't have it both ways.

Note your sliding and error between "solely-existing person" and "they."

If it doesn't entail a community [FSK] then there is no verified and justified fact that individual-X expressed an opinion.
If there is no community [FSK]in this case, it is merely via common sense that individual-X is making some noises, etc.

Note the general principle, i.e.
whatever is a fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a FSK [of various degrees of credibility].

Your above slidings has introduced the rhetorical wayward terms 'community' and 'solely-existing person.'