What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Having explained what is reality above, I'll ask again;

So my question is, do you agree with my claim, i.e.

• "You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is]"
  is an empirical fact.

I would add the above is followed with and "backed by critical philosophical reasoning."

The detailed of the above question is raised here;
You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272

1 What we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a true description of a state-of-affairs. And both of those are real things, not unreal or imaginary things. So if by 'empirical' you just mean 'real', the expression 'empirical fact' is a tautology. What other kind of fact could there be?

There is no harm for it to be tautology especially when the terms are so confusing to so many as it has happened with you. So 'empirical fact' is merely a reinforcement.

I have argued there are 'moral facts' economic facts, legal facts, etc.

2 Anything chosen can't be objective, by definition. If we choose moral goals and rules, those goals and rules aren't and can't be objective, by definition. The only fact of the matter would be that we have chosen those goals and rules. So your claim that morality can be objective if we choose goals and rules is patently false.

Where did I say or imply "choose moral goals and rules."

I have always argued, secular moral objectives are justified from empirical evidences supported by philosophical reasoning.

I contended that secular moral objectives are derived from the same principles of the objective scientific truth.
Surely you are not denying scientific truths are objective.
Secular moral objectives however are moral facts not directly empirical facts.

Here is the clue from Hume on how we can dig into secular moral objectives;

SEP wrote:
His [Hume] method in that work differs from that of the Treatise: instead of explicating the nature of virtue and vice and our knowledge of them in terms of underlying features of the human mind,
he proposes to collect all the traits we know from common sense to be virtues and vices,
observe what those in each group have in common,
and from that observation discover the “foundation of ethics.”
(EPM 1.10).

Thus Hume's establishment of the "foundation of ethics" [moral objectives] are inferred [reasoned] from empirical observations. This is like Science's objective truths.

Hume did not present a straight answer to the above in his Treatise and Enquiry, but if one were to read more deeply, one will be able to grasp the above principle.

Most interpreters recognized "utility" as a basis for Hume's moral evaluation, but utility [one man's meat another's poison] is so subjective to individuals and groups, thus cannot be a solid ground for morality.

3 Yes. Reality is all there is. So we are part of reality. Now, please get to your point.

So you agree we [subjects] are part of reality, to be more precise it is 'intricately part and parcel of reality. Note this;

• P1 we [subjects] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  P2 whatever is objective is also part ad parcel of reality.
  C1 Therefore whatever is objective are intertwined with the subjects.
  
  from the above, it follows;
  Objectivity is fundamentally subjectivity [conditioned by subjects]

Since objective is conditioned by subjectivity, such objectivity cannot be absolutely-absolute but relatively [conditionally] objective.
absolutely-absolute = as claimed for God, i.e. totally unconditional existing by itself.

My point:
We can justify secular moral objectives from empirical evidences supported with philosophical reasoning.
These secular moral objectives are relative-objectivity as opposed to absolute-objectivity attributed to the illusory God.

[Peter Holmes]

1 What we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a true description of a state-of-affairs. And both of those are real things, not unreal or imaginary things. So if by 'empirical' you just mean 'real', the expression 'empirical fact' is a tautology. What other kind of fact could there be?

There is no harm for it to be tautology especially when the terms are so confusing to so many as it has happened with you. So 'empirical fact' is merely a reinforcement.

Don't patronise me. You don't seem to understand what the word 'empirical' means: 'based on experience or observation'. A fact is NOT something based on experience or observation - so the expression 'empirical fact' is incoherent. Suck it up. You're misusing the term. And empiricism is a metaphysical epistemological theory - so it's better not to open that can of worms. Move on with 'facts'.

I have argued there are 'moral facts' economic facts, legal facts, etc.

And here's the consequence of thinking an 'empirical fact' is one among other kinds of fact - legal, economic, etc. That's an absurd category error. And we all know you argue there are moral facts - that's your huge mistake.

2 Anything chosen can't be objective, by definition. If we choose moral goals and rules, those goals and rules aren't and can't be objective, by definition. The only fact of the matter would be that we have chosen those goals and rules. So your claim that morality can be objective if we choose goals and rules is patently false.

Where did I say or imply "choose moral goals and rules."

I have always argued, secular moral objectives are justified from empirical evidences supported by philosophical reasoning.

Offs. A choice justified by appeal to evidence and argument is still a f******g choice. What do you think happens when we choose between A and B and go for B - based on evidence and argument? Do you think B becomes a fact? Think, man. If B was a fact, choosing it would be unnecessary, wouldn't it? Think about it. Ffs.

I contended that secular moral objectives are derived from the same principles of the objective scientific truth.
Surely you are not denying scientific truths are objective.
Secular moral objectives however are moral facts not directly empirical facts.

Can you see the kindergarten mistake here? An 'objective' is just a goal - nothing to do with objectivity, which is independence from opinion. Are you really saying that morality is objective because we can have moral objectives? Omg. Has it been as ridicuous as that all along? Ffs.

Here is the clue from Hume on how we can dig into secular moral objectives;

SEP wrote:
His [Hume] method in that work differs from that of the Treatise: instead of explicating the nature of virtue and vice and our knowledge of them in terms of underlying features of the human mind,
he proposes to collect all the traits we know from common sense to be virtues and vices,
observe what those in each group have in common,
and from that observation discover the “foundation of ethics.”
(EPM 1.10).

Thus Hume's establishment of the "foundation of ethics" [moral objectives] are inferred [reasoned] from empirical observations. This is like Science's objective truths.

Hume did not present a straight answer to the above in his Treatise and Enquiry, but if one were to read more deeply, one will be able to grasp the above principle.

Most interpreters recognized "utility" as a basis for Hume's moral evaluation, but utility [one man's meat another's poison] is so subjective to individuals and groups, thus cannot be a solid ground for morality.

You misunderstand Hume's intention, which was not to show that an 'is' can entail an 'ought', but rather to explain where our 'oughts' come from - and that can be explained rationally.

3 Yes. Reality is all there is. So we are part of reality. Now, please get to your point.

So you agree we [subjects] are part of reality, to be more precise it is 'intricately part and parcel of reality. Note this;

• P1 we [subjects] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  P2 whatever is objective is also part ad parcel of reality.
  C1 Therefore whatever is objective are intertwined with the subjects.

This is so wrong it's barely worth trying to rectify it. I don't know where to begin.

from the above, it follows;
Objectivity is fundamentally subjectivity [conditioned by subjects]
[/list]

Since objective is conditioned by subjectivity, such objectivity cannot be absolutely-absolute but relatively [conditionally] objective.
absolutely-absolute = as claimed for God, i.e. totally unconditional existing by itself.

My point:
We can justify secular moral objectives from empirical evidences supported with philosophical reasoning.
These secular moral objectives are relative-objectivity as opposed to absolute-objectivity attributed to the illusory God.

Yes, we can (try to) justify choosing moral goals by appealing to evidence and argument. But, of course, that doesn't make the goals objective - independent from opinion.

[Belinda]

Addressing Veritas Aequitas,above, Peter Holmes wrote:

1 What we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a true description of a state-of-affairs. And both of those are real things, not unreal or imaginary things. So if by 'empirical' you just mean 'real', the expression 'empirical fact' is a tautology. What other kind of fact could there be?

2 Anything chosen can't be objective, by definition. If we choose moral goals and rules, those goals and rules aren't and can't be objective, by definition. The only fact of the matter would be that we have chosen those goals and rules. So your claim that morality can be objective if we choose goals and rules is patently false.

3 Yes. Reality is all there is. So we are part of reality. Now, please get to your point.

1. Not only those you say ,also what we call a fact is that VA said what VA said and said it in a social context. After all it's impossible VA could access any knowledge of facts from outside of VA's social context. Even if VA were some lifelong hermit(if such a person could exist) VA's opinions, beliefs, and choices must necessarily be subjective. To believe one has access to objective reality is a mystical belief.
If VA or anyone hit upon a fact about reality this would be either a) due to random fortune or b) a leaking of objective reality into this world where each thinking being is confined to his own experience . b) is of course the position of those who believe God or Nature can reveal truths to us.

2. See my comment on 1.

3. See my comment on 1.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 What we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a true description of a state-of-affairs. And both of those are real things, not unreal or imaginary things. So if by 'empirical' you just mean 'real', the expression 'empirical fact' is a tautology. What other kind of fact could there be?

There is no harm for it to be tautology especially when the terms are so confusing to so many as it has happened with you. So 'empirical fact' is merely a reinforcement.

Don't patronise me. You don't seem to understand what the word 'empirical' means: 'based on experience or observation'. A fact is NOT something based on experience or observation - so the expression 'empirical fact' is incoherent. Suck it up. You're misusing the term. And empiricism is a metaphysical epistemological theory - so it's better not to open that can of worms. Move on with 'facts'.

What patronize?
It is a fact you were confused as like now.

Note 'what is fact':

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Hey! from the above what is wrong with the term 'empirical fact'?
There is no need to so pedantic and nit-picky.

There is nothing wrong with stating 'moral fact' that can be justified with empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning.

Suggest you stop using direct or indirect vulgar words [they are linguistically violent] which only expose weakness in you subliminally. This is only a discussion with words, why need for lingual violence.

ps. Got to do something else, will address the other points later.

[Peter Holmes]

Addressing Veritas Aequitas,above, Peter Holmes wrote:

1 What we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a true description of a state-of-affairs. And both of those are real things, not unreal or imaginary things. So if by 'empirical' you just mean 'real', the expression 'empirical fact' is a tautology. What other kind of fact could there be?

2 Anything chosen can't be objective, by definition. If we choose moral goals and rules, those goals and rules aren't and can't be objective, by definition. The only fact of the matter would be that we have chosen those goals and rules. So your claim that morality can be objective if we choose goals and rules is patently false.

3 Yes. Reality is all there is. So we are part of reality. Now, please get to your point.

Not only those you say ,also what we call a fact is that VA said what VA said and said it in a social context. After all it's impossible VA could access any knowledge of facts from outside of VA's social context. Even if VA were some lifelong hermit(if such a person could exist) VA's opinions, beliefs, and choices must necessarily be subjective. To believe one has access to objective reality is a mystical belief.
If VA or anyone hit upon a fact about reality this would be either a) due to random fortune or b) a leaking of objective reality into this world where each thinking being is confined to his own experience . b) is of course the position of those who believe God or Nature can reveal truths to us.

Thanks, but this way of thinking is itself mystical and contradictory, in my opinion.

Of course, all each of has is our own experience. But there's no reason to think that what each of us experiences isn't real, including our own bodies and each other. What is this 'objective reality' to which we can't have access? What evidence do you have that it exists? How is it possible to say 'that VA said what VA said and said it in a social context' if those words don't refer to a reality that we share?

Your position boils down to solipsism - even hard solipsism - and that's completely self-defeating.

[Belinda]

Addressing Veritas Aequitas,above, Peter Holmes wrote:

1 What we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a true description of a state-of-affairs. And both of those are real things, not unreal or imaginary things. So if by 'empirical' you just mean 'real', the expression 'empirical fact' is a tautology. What other kind of fact could there be?

2 Anything chosen can't be objective, by definition. If we choose moral goals and rules, those goals and rules aren't and can't be objective, by definition. The only fact of the matter would be that we have chosen those goals and rules. So your claim that morality can be objective if we choose goals and rules is patently false.

3 Yes. Reality is all there is. So we are part of reality. Now, please get to your point.

Not only those you say ,also what we call a fact is that VA said what VA said and said it in a social context. After all it's impossible VA could access any knowledge of facts from outside of VA's social context. Even if VA were some lifelong hermit(if such a person could exist) VA's opinions, beliefs, and choices must necessarily be subjective. To believe one has access to objective reality is a mystical belief.
If VA or anyone hit upon a fact about reality this would be either a) due to random fortune or b) a leaking of objective reality into this world where each thinking being is confined to his own experience . b) is of course the position of those who believe God or Nature can reveal truths to us.

Thanks, but this way of thinking is itself mystical and contradictory, in my opinion.

Of course, all each of has is our own experience. But there's no reason to think that what each of us experiences isn't real, including our own bodies and each other. What is this 'objective reality' to which we can't have access? What evidence do you have that it exists? How is it possible to say 'that VA said what VA said and said it in a social context' if those words don't refer to a reality that we share?

Your position boils down to solipsism - even hard solipsism - and that's completely self-defeating.

I am not a solipsist because I am social. If I were not social I could never have existed nor exist now .
You misunderstand me. Everything that happens is real including all your experiences of moving around i.e. yourself as a physical body, seeing, hearing, feeling emotions,reasoning, everything.

Obviously I have not adequately explained objective reality is a faith stance.It is a faith stance without which it would be impossible to choose even to toss a coin.

I do talk quite a lot about social reality as if it's axiomatic. This is because it is a big part of my personal world view. There are I know many people writing to these forums who believe individual men can live in the libertarian way. I am not one of those.

[Peter Holmes]

Addressing Veritas Aequitas,above, Peter Holmes wrote:



Not only those you say ,also what we call a fact is that VA said what VA said and said it in a social context. After all it's impossible VA could access any knowledge of facts from outside of VA's social context. Even if VA were some lifelong hermit(if such a person could exist) VA's opinions, beliefs, and choices must necessarily be subjective. To believe one has access to objective reality is a mystical belief.
If VA or anyone hit upon a fact about reality this would be either a) due to random fortune or b) a leaking of objective reality into this world where each thinking being is confined to his own experience . b) is of course the position of those who believe God or Nature can reveal truths to us.

Thanks, but this way of thinking is itself mystical and contradictory, in my opinion.

Of course, all each of has is our own experience. But there's no reason to think that what each of us experiences isn't real, including our own bodies and each other. What is this 'objective reality' to which we can't have access? What evidence do you have that it exists? How is it possible to say 'that VA said what VA said and said it in a social context' if those words don't refer to a reality that we share?

Your position boils down to solipsism - even hard solipsism - and that's completely self-defeating.

I am not a solipsist because I am social. If I were not social I could never have existed nor exist now .
You misunderstand me. Everything that happens is real including all your experiences of moving around i.e. yourself as a physical body, seeing, hearing, feeling emotions,reasoning, everything.

Obviously I have not adequately explained objective reality is a faith stance.It is a faith stance without which it would be impossible to choose even to toss a coin.

I do talk quite a lot about social reality as if it's axiomatic. This is because it is a big part of my personal world view. There are I know many people writing to these forums who believe individual men can live in the libertarian way. I am not one of those.

Nor am I. And that's a moral attitude that we share.

But I think the expression 'objective reality' is peculiar. What distinction is it making? What other kind of reality is there apart from the reality that exists independently from any judgements, beliefs or opinions about it, and that would continue existing if there were no judgements, beliefs or opinions about it?

Is it supposed to be different from 'subjective reality''? And if so, how? And how can it make sense to talk about 'a leaking of objective reality into this world where each thinking being is confined to his own experience'? Whence this strange idea of confinement? I think it's a delusion derived from a religious belief in two substances, channelled through Cartesian dualism.

I think your emphasis on the social is absolutely right - and that militates against your strange ontology - again, in my opinion. Social reality is our starting point, our sine qua non. And encompassing that is the only reality there is, which it's strange to describe as either objective or subjective.

[Immanuel Can]

your narrow mindedness in sticking to the wrong

I find ad hominems so boring...I really just can't be bothered with them.

A rational response, I'll happily engage...this sort of thing, not so much. Life is short.

[Immanuel Can]

My computer is down, if I am not mistaken I downloaded the book if not I have surveyed the "contents" and noted the various articles by different authors.

You begin by saying, essentially, "I have no chance of knowing anything about this," and then you go on to talk about it. Amusing.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes. I think you're intellectually dishonest. It hasn't been a pleasure. Again.

Well, you have the reference now, Pete. And the book's worth it, if one is serious about knowing what the best arguments are. It really is the right source.

Perhaps it's dismaying to think that one can't write off Theism with a backhanded wave, and consoling for an Atheist to think he's already got the job done...and then to find out there are really good, articulate, academic arguments that call that into question. But my thought is that perhaps you'll consider yourself worth it. Perhaps you'll be unsatisfied with having dismissed a question without really having investigated it, and in your own best interest will go further. If not, I'm sorry...but I can't make that call for you, and to be blunt, it's not me that's at stake in that decision.

Be well. If the time ever comes when you want to tackle these arguments seriously, you now have a source.

[Peter Holmes]

There is nothing wrong with stating 'moral fact' that can be justified with empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning.

There is everything wrong with the expression 'moral fact'. So let's try again.

Please give an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact - a true factual assertion - because it describes a feature of reality correctly.

(Hint: 'people must breathe to stay alive' is a fact. But 'people should / must be allowed to breathe' is not a fact.)

And then I'll show you why what you offer isn't a fact, but rather the expression of a moral judgement, belief or opinion.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes. I think you're intellectually dishonest. It hasn't been a pleasure. Again.

Well, you have the reference now, Pete. And the book's worth it, if one is serious about knowing what the best arguments are. It really is the right source.

Perhaps it's dismaying to think that one can't write off Theism with a backhanded wave, and consoling for an Atheist to think he's already got the job done...and then to find out there are really good, articulate, academic arguments that call that into question. But my thought is that perhaps you'll consider yourself worth it. Perhaps you'll be unsatisfied with having dismissed a question without really having investigated it, and in your own best interest will go further. If not, I'm sorry...but I can't make that call for you, and to be blunt, it's not me that's at stake in that decision.

Be well. If the time ever comes when you want to tackle these arguments seriously, you now have a source.

Thanks. Patronising prat. I've been around a long time and seen many unjustified claims, and all of the unsound arguments. How dare you say I've dismissed this question without having investigated it? And how snivellingly obsequious to insinuate that there's anything 'at stake' for me. You really are an obnoxious p****.

[Immanuel Can]

I've been around a long time and seen many unjustified claims, and all of the unsound arguments. How dare you say I've dismissed this question without having investigated it?

Well, you haven't even tried to get the book, so far as I know.

You asked for evidence, but wouldn't specify what you wanted. Then you got "natural" arguments, and wouldn't read them. Now you banish them to the realm of the "unjustified claims and unsound arguments" you say you've already seen, even though you don't know what they are.

I don't know what one can make of that.

[Peter Holmes]

I've been around a long time and seen many unjustified claims, and all of the unsound arguments. How dare you say I've dismissed this question without having investigated it?

Well, you haven't even tried to get the book, so far as I know.

You asked for evidence, but wouldn't specify what you wanted. Then you got "natural" arguments, and wouldn't read them. Now you banish them to the realm of the "unjustified claims and unsound arguments" you say you've already seen, even though you don't know what they are.

I don't know what one can make of that.

WOT

[Immanuel Can]

WOT

We'll see. If you're right, neither of us will ever know.

If I'm right, I guess we'll both know.