Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The distinction between so-called brute and constitutional facts is spurious. Since, as you monotonously and needlessly drone (because I agree) - all factual assertions - like all linguistic expressions - are 'conditioned' - dependent on their context - there can be no such thing as a brute or unconditioned fact - true factual assertion. In other words, your own argument here demolishes Searle's claim.

Suggest you research more on what is brute facts and their relation to the degree of veracity for facts.
Brutes facts whilst not constitutional are relative and conditioned upon specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
E.g. The TOE is a brute fact which is conditioned upon the Scientific[ Physics] Framework of System of knowledge and obviously cannot be brute fact within Promises, Beauty, Legal, and the likes.

To repeat and focus: in what way is 'X is Miss Universe 2019' an aesthetic assertion? What aesthetic claim does it make? Try really, really, really hard to think about and answer that question. Please.

I have already given you the justification above.
You need to counter why my justification is not valid.

As I had stated, whatever the fact, it is conditioned upon the criteria established by the Miss World Organization where the judges would have been given certain guidelines to judge to eliminate personal bias_ness.

Or try this example.

1 Factual assertion: that terd came out of something's bottom.
2 Coprophiliac aesthetic assertion: that terd is beautiful.

Do you see the functional difference between those two assertions?

According to evolutionary psychology, human are programmed to what is 'beautiful' and what is not beautiful.
Read this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_aesthetics

Evolutionary aesthetics refers to evolutionary psychology theories in which the basic aesthetic preferences of Homo sapiens are argued to have evolved in order to enhance survival and reproductive success.[1]

Based on this theory, things like color preference, preferred mate body ratios, shapes, emotional ties with objects, and many other aspects of the aesthetic experience can be explained with reference to human evolution.

If anyone were to interpret what is naturally evil as good, that would be opened to a question of perversion which need to be checked by a psychiatrist.
as = edited

[Peter Holmes]

The distinction between so-called brute and constitutional facts is spurious. Since, as you monotonously and needlessly drone (because I agree) - all factual assertions - like all linguistic expressions - are 'conditioned' - dependent on their context - there can be no such thing as a brute or unconditioned fact - true factual assertion. In other words, your own argument here demolishes Searle's claim.

Suggest you research more on what is brute facts and their relation to the degree of veracity for facts.
Brutes facts whilst not constitutional are relative and conditioned upon specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
E.g. The TOE is a brute fact which is conditioned upon the Scientific[ Physics] Framework of System of knowledge and obviously cannot be brute fact within Promises, Beauty, Legal, and the likes.

To repeat and focus: in what way is 'X is Miss Universe 2019' an aesthetic assertion? What aesthetic claim does it make? Try really, really, really hard to think about and answer that question. Please.

I have already given you the justification above.
You need to counter why my justification is not valid.

As I had stated, whatever the fact, it is conditioned upon the criteria established by the Miss World Organization where the judges would have been given certain guidelines to judge to eliminate personal bias_ness.

Or try this example.

1 Factual assertion: that terd came out of something's bottom.
2 Coprophiliac aesthetic assertion: that terd is beautiful.

Do you see the functional difference between those two assertions?

According to evolutionary psychology, human are programmed to what is 'beautiful' and what is not beautiful.
Read this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_aesthetics

Evolutionary aesthetics refers to evolutionary psychology theories in which the basic aesthetic preferences of Homo sapiens are argued to have evolved in order to enhance survival and reproductive success.[1]

Based on this theory, things like color preference, preferred mate body ratios, shapes, emotional ties with objects, and many other aspects of the aesthetic experience can be explained with reference to human evolution.

If anyone were to interpret what is naturally evil and good, that would be opened to a question of perversion which need to be checked by a psychiatrist.

There's no value in explaining your mistakes, because you just don't bother to pay attention, or you just don't understand the issues. In either case -

WAFWOT. NWTB. Note to self. Again.

[Skepdick]

There's no value in explaining your mistakes, because you just don't bother to pay attention, or you just don't understand the issues.

In what framework are you asserting that a "mistake" has been made?
In what framework is that an "issue" and why?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no value in explaining your mistakes, because you just don't bother to pay attention, or you just don't understand the issues. In either case -

WAFWOT. NWTB. Note to self. Again.

Note correction to my earlier post;

• If anyone were to interpret what is naturally evil as good, that would be opened to a question of perversion which need to be checked by a psychiatrist.
  as = edited

The problem is you are stuck in a very tall 'silo' and insist I get into your silo and deal with that confined-reality therein.

I believe I have presented a lot of knowledge to break down the walls of your silo but you keep patching the walls and prefer to be stuck inside your silo.
Note the number of perspectives, links and thread [opened] I have done to expose the issue. Phew, I have learnt a lot from them ..

On the other hand you have not done the above, the only link you provided is your personal one that is totally bankrupt of knowledge relevant to the issue.
In addition you are trapped by the dogmatic ideologies of your philosophical grandfathers, i.e. those of the logical positivists.

Whatever it is your discretion.
In line with the spirit of philosophy, I will respond to whatever the valid arguments provided.

[Peter Holmes]

There's no value in explaining your mistakes, because you just don't bother to pay attention, or you just don't understand the issues. In either case -

WAFWOT. NWTB. Note to self. Again.

Note correction to my earlier post;

• If anyone were to interpret what is naturally evil as good, that would be opened to a question of perversion which need to be checked by a psychiatrist.
  as = edited

The problem is you are stuck in a very tall 'silo' and insist I get into your silo and deal with that confined-reality therein.

I believe I have presented a lot of knowledge to break down the walls of your silo but you keep patching the walls and prefer to be stuck inside your silo.
Note the number of perspectives, links and thread [opened] I have done to expose the issue. Phew, I have learnt a lot from them ..

On the other hand you have not done the above, the only link you provided is your personal one that is totally bankrupt of knowledge relevant to the issue.
In addition you are trapped by the dogmatic ideologies of your philosophical grandfathers, i.e. those of the logical positivists.

Whatever it is your discretion.
In line with the spirit of philosophy, I will respond to whatever the valid arguments provided.

Others following this mammoth discussion can decide for themselves, of course. But I think you haven't truly addressed this problem for moral objectivism:

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To my knowledge, neither you nor any objectivist here has done that. Every attempt has merely assumed the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise, which begs the question.

To me, that's the heart of it. Do that, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's no value in explaining your mistakes, because you just don't bother to pay attention, or you just don't understand the issues. In either case -

WAFWOT. NWTB. Note to self. Again.

Note correction to my earlier post;

• If anyone were to interpret what is naturally evil as good, that would be opened to a question of perversion which need to be checked by a psychiatrist.
  as = edited

The problem is you are stuck in a very tall 'silo' and insist I get into your silo and deal with that confined-reality therein.

I believe I have presented a lot of knowledge to break down the walls of your silo but you keep patching the walls and prefer to be stuck inside your silo.
Note the number of perspectives, links and thread [opened] I have done to expose the issue. Phew, I have learnt a lot from them ..

On the other hand you have not done the above, the only link you provided is your personal one that is totally bankrupt of knowledge relevant to the issue.
In addition you are trapped by the dogmatic ideologies of your philosophical grandfathers, i.e. those of the logical positivists.

Whatever it is your discretion.
In line with the spirit of philosophy, I will respond to whatever the valid arguments provided.

Others following this mammoth discussion can decide for themselves, of course. But I think you haven't truly addressed this problem for moral objectivism:

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To my knowledge, neither you nor any objectivist here has done that. Every attempt has merely assumed the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise, which begs the question.

To me, that's the heart of it. Do that, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

I understand your point and expectation very clearly, i.e.

• P1 - Fact - no moral elements
  P2 - Fact - no moral elements
  C1- Therefore no moral conclusion can follow.

But the above [re definition of fact] is based on your selected specific Framework and System of Knowledge, i.e. from that of ordinary language and worst from the inherited ideology of the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.

In addition, your reliance on Hume's 'No Ought from IS' [NOFI] that is relevant to his time* is too loose to effective for dealing with morality our modern times.
You have to read up the morality and ethics of Hume's predecessors [the dogmatic rationalists and theologians] to understand Hume's point re NOFI.
This NOFI had also been refuted by many modern philosophers since Kant till to date.

The point is your specified framework above is not absolute and there are other FSKs that produce their specific facts,in this case the Moral & Ethics FSK.
Your reliance on one flimsy FSK to justify your point is too weak.
I suggest you do a thorough literature review of Morality and Ethics [..I have done that] to understand where your flimsy point stands in the greater picture.

I have argued in so many posts and threads, empirical moral realism [objectivism]* is tenable from within a Moral Framework and System in generating justified true moral facts to be used as GUIDES only and not enforceable on individuals.
* I am not arguing for moral objectivism of theology/God and those of Platonic forms.

One significant point is 'morality' [the management of good over evil] is very critical to ensure the optimal well being of the individuals and humanity.
Whatever alternatives you have for moral realism [moral relativism] they are not effective to deal with the impending threats emerging against the human species.

To implement moral realism effectively [for future generations, not now], we need to abstract moral facts as justified empirically and philosophically - which I have done.

[Peter Holmes]

Note correction to my earlier post;

• If anyone were to interpret what is naturally evil as good, that would be opened to a question of perversion which need to be checked by a psychiatrist.
  as = edited

The problem is you are stuck in a very tall 'silo' and insist I get into your silo and deal with that confined-reality therein.

I believe I have presented a lot of knowledge to break down the walls of your silo but you keep patching the walls and prefer to be stuck inside your silo.
Note the number of perspectives, links and thread [opened] I have done to expose the issue. Phew, I have learnt a lot from them ..

On the other hand you have not done the above, the only link you provided is your personal one that is totally bankrupt of knowledge relevant to the issue.
In addition you are trapped by the dogmatic ideologies of your philosophical grandfathers, i.e. those of the logical positivists.

Whatever it is your discretion.
In line with the spirit of philosophy, I will respond to whatever the valid arguments provided.

Others following this mammoth discussion can decide for themselves, of course. But I think you haven't truly addressed this problem for moral objectivism:

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To my knowledge, neither you nor any objectivist here has done that. Every attempt has merely assumed the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise, which begs the question.

To me, that's the heart of it. Do that, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

I understand your point and expectation very clearly, i.e.

• P1 - Fact - no moral elements
  P2 - Fact - no moral elements
  C1- Therefore no moral conclusion can follow.

But the above [re definition of fact] is based on your selected specific Framework and System of Knowledge, i.e. from that of ordinary language and worst from the inherited ideology of the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.

In addition, your reliance on Hume's 'No Ought from IS' [NOFI] that is relevant to his time* is too loose to effective for dealing with morality our modern times.
You have to read up the morality and ethics of Hume's predecessors [the dogmatic rationalists and theologians] to understand Hume's point re NOFI.
This NOFI had also been refuted by many modern philosophers since Kant till to date.

The point is your specified framework above is not absolute and there are other FSKs that produce their specific facts,in this case the Moral & Ethics FSK.
Your reliance on one flimsy FSK to justify your point is too weak.
I suggest you do a thorough literature review of Morality and Ethics [..I have done that] to understand where your flimsy point stands in the greater picture.

I have argued in so many posts and threads, empirical moral realism [objectivism]* is tenable from within a Moral Framework and System in generating justified true moral facts to be used as GUIDES only and not enforceable on individuals.
* I am not arguing for moral objectivism of theology/God and those of Platonic forms.

One significant point is 'morality' [the management of good over evil] is very critical to ensure the optimal well being of the individuals and humanity.
Whatever alternatives you have for moral realism [moral relativism] they are not effective to deal with the impending threats emerging against the human species.

To implement moral realism effectively [for future generations, not now], we need to abstract moral facts as justified empirically and philosophically - which I have done.

Blather.

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction. To my knowledge, neither you nor any objectivist here has done that. Every attempt has merely assumed the moral conclusion is, somehow, implied by the factual premise, which begs the question.

To me, that's the heart of it. Produce the goods, in the form of a valid and sound argument, and your case is made. I wait with unbated breath.

And when you find you can't, I suggest you do the rational thing and change your mind - which is an okay thing to do.

[Skepdick]

Blather.

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction.

What?

Contradictions are linguistic/logical artefacts. You keep telling us that facts are not linguistic, but now you want a linguistic demonstration?

Do you even know what you want?

[henry quirk]

Objectivists have to demonstrate how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, so that to negate the moral assertion produces a logical contradiction.

I'm certain I'm gettin' this wrong, but...

Factual assertion: a man belongs to himself

...therefore...

Moral assertion: it's wrong to leash him

If we negate the moral assertion and say it's okay to leash a man does this not produce the logical contradiction?

A man belongs to himself but it's okay to leash him.

I'm guessin' the flaw in my construct lies with the belonging part (does a man really belong to himself? How do I demonstrate this?).

The falsification of a man belongs to himself, it seems to me, is finding a man who doesn't (not because he's leashed against his will but cuz it's his nature or essence to be property).

But then I'm dealin' with how do we differentiate between preference/opinion, which can shift, and essence, which is immutable, which leads to is there really an essence, an immutable component to a man/person?

Pete is right: there's one helluva burden for moral realists, a burden that stretches back and back to a fundamental that is itself unproven (talkin' about God).

I think there's indirect evidence of moral fact (smoke as evidence of an unseen fire), sumthin' I've referenced from time to time, but I haven't the will to ask folks to sniff the air (and I don't think goin' down that road would make a difference to the anti-realists...they'd sniff and say I don't smell nuthin').

So: carry on...

[uwot]

I'm certain I'm gettin' this wrong, but...
Factual assertion: a man belongs to himself
...therefore...
Moral assertion: it's wrong to leash him

Nope, logically that's pretty much on the money. The problem is that some people make different factual assertions. For example:
Factual assertion: A man belongs to god.
...therefore...
Moral assertion: It makes fuck all difference whether you leash him

[henry quirk]

I'm certain I'm gettin' this wrong, but...
Factual assertion: a man belongs to himself
...therefore...
Moral assertion: it's wrong to leash him

Nope, logically that's pretty much on the money. The problem is that some people make different factual assertions. For example:
Factual assertion: A man belongs to god.
...therefore...
Moral assertion: It makes fuck all difference whether you leash him

Which, as I say brings us to: does a man really belong to himself? How do I demonstrate this? and so forth and so on.

[uwot]

Which, as I say brings us to: does a man really belong to himself? How do I demonstrate this? and so forth and so on.

Yup. Fucked if I know, but I'm just gonna live my life as if I'm in charge of it.

[henry quirk]

Which, as I say brings us to: does a man really belong to himself? How do I demonstrate this? and so forth and so on.

Yup. Fucked if I know, but I'm just gonna live my life as if I'm in charge of it.

[RCSaunders]

... I'm just gonna live my life as if I'm in charge of it.

You are in charge of it, uwot. That is the whole answer to the question.

It is your life, you are its only authority, it is totally your responsibility, and yours to make of it all you can and choose to.

[Peter Holmes]

I'm certain I'm gettin' this wrong, but...
Factual assertion: a man belongs to himself
...therefore...
Moral assertion: it's wrong to leash him

Nope, logically that's pretty much on the money. The problem is that some people make different factual assertions. For example:
Factual assertion: A man belongs to god.
...therefore...
Moral assertion: It makes fuck all difference whether you leash him

Sorry, but it's not on the money. The assertion 'a man belongs to himself' doesn't entail 'therefore it's (mroally) wrong to leash him', even if it were true that a man belongs to himself. The conclusion could follow only if it's assumed that it's (morally) right for a man to belong to himself. Otherwise, we're just begging the question.

In other words, if 'a man belongs to himself' has no moral implication, then it can have no moral entailment. But if the premise is a moral assertion - a man should belong to himself - it's no longer factual. Assuming a moral implication for a factual assertion is precisely what VA does all the time, which is why his factual premises don't entail his moral conclusions.

If it were believed that 'belonging to yourself' is morally disastrous, then it could follow that it's morally right to leash you.

But, agreed - change your factual premise and a different moral conclusion seems justified: a man doesn't belong to himself; s it's not morally wrong to leash him. (What the Christian slavers said, but only about African slaves.)