What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

But are you cunning?

Is not for me to brag

[uwot]

According to Peter "Why is murder morally wrong?" is not a factual question.

It isn't. Murder being wrongful killing, it's analytic.

According to Peter "Why does Earth orbit the Sun?" is a factual question.

Well, yeah, because there is some reason why the Earth orbits the Sun.

I used to think Peter is just ignorant, but his reluctance to concede his error suggests that he doesn't care to self-correct.
On balance of probabilities and principle of sufficient reason this suggests intent and malice - immorality.

"Peter is immoral" is an objectively true statement.

Well look Skepdick, I know you have a logic for every occasion, but frankly one in which that follows should only be used when your purpose is to look like a twat.

[Immanuel Can]

The police are the most dangerous criminals

Really, RC? Really? Is that what you really think?

More dangerous then Jeffrey Dahmer, more than Charles Manson, more than Jack the Ripper, more than all the rapists, pedophiles and murderers locked in our prisons or the gang members roving on our streets? More than the Crips, the Bloods and MS-13? Worse than Islamic Terrorists? Worse than Jeffrey Epstein and Joel Weinstein? Worse than Jimmy Saville?

Or is the hyperbole just possibly carrying you away?

[Skepdick]

According to Peter "Why is murder morally wrong?" is not a factual question.

It isn't. Murder being wrongful killing, it's analytic.

According to Peter "Why does Earth orbit the Sun?" is a factual question.

Well, yeah, because there is some reason why the Earth orbits the Sun.

Letting slide the fact that "analyticity" is circular (ala Quine), you are interpreting the question in a reference frame in which "Earth orbits the Sun" is true either analytically or axiomatically. In a Barycentric or Ptolemaic reference frame the question is nonsense because it's loaded. But that's neither here, nor there.

If you are going to interpret one question in a "factual" reference frame, but the other question in an "analytic" reference frame without telling us how/why/when you've chosen to switch reference frames - that parallax in perspectives is precisely the source of special pleading I am drawing attention to.

Well look Skepdick, I know you have a logic for every occasion, but frankly one in which that follows should only be used when your purpose is to look like a twat.

I am making somebody look like a twat, alright. Peter is trying to defend two reference frames in one head.

There is a system in which 10 + 10 = 20. There is a system in which 1+1 = 10.

And there is you noticing that I switched from Decimal to Binary between sentences for no good reason.

[RCSaunders]

To anyone on this thread:

Most of the discussion, though interesting, is not getting far because a fundamental question is being ignored. Before and moral and ethical values can even be discussed, what values actually are needs to be identified

To that End, I've posted an article, Values. I'd appreciate any comments, suggestions, criticisms, or questions.

[RCSaunders]

The police are the most dangerous criminals

Really, RC? Really? Is that what you really think?

More dangerous then Jeffrey Dahmer, more than Charles Manson, more than Jack the Ripper, more than all the rapists, pedophiles and murderers locked in our prisons or the gang members roving on our streets? More than the Crips, the Bloods and MS-13? Worse than Islamic Terrorists? Worse than Jeffrey Epstein and Joel Weinstein? Worse than Jimmy Saville?

Or is the hyperbole just possibly carrying you away?

Whether any particular criminal's crimes are worse than any particular police crimes is irrelevant. It is much easier to protect oneself from a criminal's threats than it threats from someone we're supposed to expect them from and have no recourse when they happen. There was only one Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Epstein, Weinstein, and Jimmy Saville; there are thousands of cops, everywhere. Some cops are rapists, pedophiles, and murderers and they don't get locked up because most of their crimes are covered up. I have never met, or even seen any of your gang-members; I see cops everywhere.

All these terrible criminals you mention, I thought the police were supposed to protect us from them. They obviously don't. With the most sophisticated intelligence agencies, most powerful and expensive defense agencies in the world, the United States could not prevent 19 Muslim Nuts form 9/1/1.

It's no hyperbole!

[RCSaunders]

And these are only the reported crimes of the police.
There is an unfortunate tendency to give the police carte-blanche, and let them get away with murder. "I can't breath", no action taken for manslaughter.

Police murdering citizens, especially black ones has been going on a long time. These days we tend to hear about it since the advent of social media and the proliferation of mobile phone cameras.

A tiny percentage of reported crimes. And they are there to, "protect and serve."

My favorite comment on police protection: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

[Immanuel Can]

It's no hyperbole!

I've told you a million times...no, a billion...never use hyperbole!

[Peter Holmes]

To anyone on this thread:

Most of the discussion, though interesting, is not getting far because a fundamental question is being ignored. Before and moral and ethical values can even be discussed, what values actually are needs to be identified

To that End, I've posted an article, Values. I'd appreciate any comments, suggestions, criticisms, or questions.

Thanks. Is there a chance you could boil down your argument to a few premises, and maybe a conclusion?

[Sculptor]

And these are only the reported crimes of the police.
There is an unfortunate tendency to give the police carte-blanche, and let them get away with murder. "I can't breath", no action taken for manslaughter.

Police murdering citizens, especially black ones has been going on a long time. These days we tend to hear about it since the advent of social media and the proliferation of mobile phone cameras.

A tiny percentage of reported crimes. And they are there to, "protect and serve."

My favorite comment on police protection: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Protect and Serve; 1004 shot dead in 2019

14 of those were children.
nearly 200 were mentally ill.

[Peter Holmes]

Okay, let me try another way of showing why morality isn't objective.

And let's use a favourite example - one that everyone I've come across agrees with: slavery (enslaving people) is morally wrong.

Some people here think 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact - a true factual assertion, meaning that it's not a matter of opinion that slavery is morally wrong. It just is morally wrong, whatever anyone thinks.

But here's a question. If you think the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' is true, do you think it could be false? And if so, what would have to be different - what would not be the case - in order for the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' to be false?

[Skepdick]

Okay, let me try another way of showing why ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ facts aren't objective.

And let's use a favourite example - one that everyone I've come across agrees with: ̶s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶(̶e̶n̶s̶l̶a̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶)̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶.̶ Earth orbits the Sun.

Some people here think '̶s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶'̶ Earth orbiting the Sun is a fact - a true factual assertion, meaning that it's not a matter of opinion that ̶s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶.̶ Earth orbits the Sun. It just is m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶ true, whatever anyone thinks.

But here's a question. If you think the assertion ' ̶s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶' 'Earth orbits the Sun' is true, do you think it could be false? And if so, what would have to be different - what would not be the case - in order for the assertion ' ̶s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶' 'Earth orbits the Sun' to be false?

If the above argument shows the "wrongness of moral objectivity" then it shows the wrongness of factual objectivity also e.g a double standard.

If you are willing to ascribe the semantic properties of "objectivity", "truth" and "factuality" to the sentence "Earth orbits the sun", but you are unwilling to ascribe those same semantics to the sentence "Slavery is wrong" - the burden of justifying your semantic double standard is on you.

Given the way that I use my words both are true.

Slavery is wrong and Earth orbits the Sun.

[Peter Holmes]

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

[Skepdick]

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

It doesn't matter.

What would have to be different about reality for Earth to stop orbiting the Sun is what's needed for Earth to NOT orbit the Sun.
What would have to be different about reality for slavery to be right? is what's needed for slavery to NOT be wrong.

[Peter Holmes]

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?