Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:10 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Bollocks. You're just a fucking moronic troll with nothing useful to say on this issue - which is why all you can do is abuse.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:25 pmDumb. Fucking. Idiot.. Nothing I said constitutes "an argument".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:26 pm Ah. Here's the bollocks argument in all its paltry glory.
P1 If we talk about things, they 'take on an ontological existence [?] in social discourse'.
P2 We talk about moral rightness and wrongness.
C Therefore, moral rightness and wrongness 'take on an ontological existence [?} in social discourse'.
What a load of utter tripe.
It was a true observation.
You said there's no objective morality! I am only treating you, and behaving in a manner, as if your premise were true.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:36 pm Bollocks. You're just a fucking moronic troll with nothing useful to say on this issue - which is why all you can do is abuse.
Everything you type is bollocks, as many agree.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:40 pmYou said there's no objective morality! I am only treating you as if your premise were true.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:36 pm Bollocks. You're just a fucking moronic troll with nothing useful to say on this issue - which is why all you can do is abuse.
Why are you protesting, you dumb fucking cunt? It's not like abuse is objectively wrong, or anything.
OK! So do you agree or disagree that abusing people is objectively wrong? If you disagree then I have no issue treating you in a manner befitting.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:54 pmEverything you type is bollocks, as many agree.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:40 pmYou said there's no objective morality! I am only treating you as if your premise were true.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:36 pm Bollocks. You're just a fucking moronic troll with nothing useful to say on this issue - which is why all you can do is abuse.
Why are you protesting, you dumb fucking cunt? It's not like abuse is objectively wrong, or anything.
No, I think "abusing people" is a loaded word and subjective.
It's so objectively wrong that you prefer to do it.See, I know that abusing people is objectively wrong, but this thread is not about me, so I am being respectful to people who think otherwise. As far as you are concerned I am not doing anything objectively wrong by calling you a dumb fucking imbecille philosophers.
I don't give a rat's fuck what you think.
You keep saying so. Are you upset that I believe you?
Oh, ok. Here's some more "loaded words" you good for nothing, air-stealing fucking imbecille.
OK, so is my "so called abuse" good or bad for me? You birth-conttrol dodging, time-thieving cretin.
OK, so you and Peter Holmes need to have a conversation. He seems to feel abused.
So I am, in fact abusing? There's no "it depends" here? It sure seems rather arbitrary when "it depends" and when it doesn't.
You appear to be struggling with basic English comprehension. No surprise there, given that you are a fucking idiot.
Look dude, I've never denied that I am stupid - that's pretty obvious, but if you keep comparing me to you, Peter Holmes and other idiot-philosophers - I am a going to keep seeming like a fucking genius.
Even a child knows you are lying. Why else would you even engage me?
In a bowl full of sinking turds somebody has to show you the way out...
Show me an atom that exists in-itself independent of the science-chemistry FSK and therefrom human conditions.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:42 pmIn your dreams yes.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:24 amWhat sort of sorted critical thinking and logic is that??Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:59 am Before they were known about, there were no atoms.
And therefore, there are moral facts.
Sorted.
All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.There were no crispy candy bars.
There were no fact-in-itself as atoms-in-themselves.Yes, but they are SUBJECT to human cognition.There is now facts of atoms as conditioned upon the science-chemistry-FSK.Yes they do.Atoms do not exist by themselves absolutely.
If I put a bullet through your head, what we like to call atoms of your carcass still persist, regardless of your perception of them.
That our model for "atoms" is an accurate one is a matter of speculation.
But far greater is the matter of morals which is SUBJECT to far more modelling and speculation since they do not even refer to material components of the universe. At least wat we call "atoms" have substance.
This cannot be said of morals.No.The existence of atoms must be predicated explicitly or implicitly to the science-chemistry FSK.
Atoms first then your imaginary "science-chemistryFSK" follows.
Your science-chemistry FSK only describes atoms.

There are no unqualified moral facts-in-themselves; but,There are no moral facts.Similarly there are no unqualified moral facts-in-themselves.
You nearly have that right.
Note I stated 'in-general'.No.One of the critical elements of morality is empathy; empathy is linked to mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are represented by physical elements which can be verified via the scientific FSK and thereupon inputted into the moral FSK enabling objective moral facts.
This is one verification and justification of the existence of objective moral facts, thus in general morality is objective.
The killer does not empathise the same way that the victims does.
QED the reaction to a given event being opposite in this case cannot be objective.
Why no morality proper.There is no morality properIn addition to the above verification and justification, there are loads of other moral elements that can be traceable to its physical correlates via the scientific FSK and therefrom to the moral FSK enabling objective moral facts.
Morality-proper is not about rightness or wrongness of supposedly moral opinions, beliefs and judgment.
Note my point re fundamental atom above. Here's the progress of the model of an atom;Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 2:39 pm Before they were known about, there were no decomposable fundamental particles.
And therefore, there are moral facts.
Sorted. Game over. Moral objectivists win the argument.

Strawman again!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:26 pm Ah. Here's the bollocks argument in all its paltry glory.
P1 If we talk about things, they 'take on an ontological existence [?] in social discourse'.
P2 We talk about moral rightness and wrongness.
C Therefore, moral rightness and wrongness 'take on an ontological existence [?} in social discourse'.
What a load of utter tripe.
An 'empirically based thing' is presumably a thing for the existence of which there's empirical evidence - evidence of the kind that natural scientists seek and rely on. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't wish to straw man your argument.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:44 am
P1 If we talk about things [empirically based], they refer to ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective facts, in social discourse.
P2 We talk about moral things [empirically based].
C. Therefore, moral things are ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective moral facts, in social discourse.
Not 'avoiding evil by doing good'.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:34 amAn 'empirically based thing' is presumably a thing for the existence of which there's empirical evidence - evidence of the kind that natural scientists seek and rely on. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't wish to straw man your argument.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:44 am
P1 If we talk about things [empirically based], they refer to ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective facts, in social discourse.
P2 We talk about moral things [empirically based].
C. Therefore, moral things are ontological FSK-Conditioned entities as objective moral facts, in social discourse.
If so, you claim that there are 'moral things' (P2) for the existence of which there's empirical evidence. Perhaps you mean one or more of the following.
1 Avoiding evil by doing good
2 Mirror neurons
3 Human programming to do A and not to do B
Is one or more of these what you mean by a 'moral thing' for the existence of which there's empirical evidence? If not, please specify an example of such a 'moral thing'.
You are using "existence" in some fucked up non-scientific way. There's no such thing as "evidence for existence".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:34 am An 'empirically based thing' is presumably a thing for the existence of which there's empirical evidence - evidence of the kind that natural scientists seek and rely on. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't wish to straw man your argument.
Your mirror-neuron theory leads to fundamentally unethical behaviour.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:43 am Not 'avoiding evil by doing good'.
Rather it is avoiding evil to enable good.
Yes, it is empirically-based mirror neurons associated with empathy which is a critical element of morality [avoiding evil to enable good] in the social and philosophical discourse; mirror neurons are verified and justified empirically as a scientific fact via the scientific FSK.
This scientific fact in adopted into the moral FSK, thus a moral fact.
Note whilst the existence of mirror neurons is sufficient to link the physical moral elements to objective morality, 'mirror neurons' are not the ONLY empirically based moral thing, there are other empirically based neurons, parts of the brain, that are linked to morality.
Btw, don't ignore the other points re atoms that I responded to your views.
Gosh. What a wanker you are.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:48 amOh, ok. Here's some more "loaded words" you good for nothing, air-stealing fucking imbecille.
OK, so is my "so called abuse" good or bad for me? You birth-conttrol dodging, time-thieving cretin.
OK, so you and Peter Holmes need to have a conversation. He seems to feel abused.
But is the way I am treating you both "actual abuse"? According to Sculptor... "It depends.". He hasn't told us what it depends on, but in order to market himself as having two brain cells capable of intellectual thought he introduces an indefinite into the dialogue. Ah! The intellectually challenged suspense!
So I am, in fact abusing? There's no "it depends" here? It sure seems rather arbitrary when "it depends" and when it doesn't.
You dim-witted oligophren.
You appear to be struggling with basic English comprehension. No surprise there, given that you are a fucking idiot.
My explicit preference is to NOT abuse anyone! I abhor abuse! I have no better way to express how much I abhor abuse except to remind you that it's objectively wrong!
That said I've put my value-system aside so that we can properly explore yours - we are having this conversation entirely on your terms and values!
You keep insisting that it's NOT objectively wrong to abuse you. So despite my abhorement for abuse I am treating you exactly in the way YOU approve of.
Of course, you are such a fucking uncharitable cunt you are even going to use my courtesy against me just to score philosophical points.
Because you are a just a fucking loser who is trying to win a philosophical argument.
So I have absolutely no problem letting you "win the argument" at the cost of your own dignity. Your game - your rules. You fucking cum-guzzling, cock-slurping twat!
Look dude, I've never denied that I am stupid - that's pretty obvious, but if you keep comparing me to you, Peter Holmes and other idiot-philosophers - I am a going to keep seeming like a fucking genius.
I guess... thank you for making me look good.
Even a child knows you are lying. Why else would you even engage me?
In a bowl full of sinking turds somebody has to show you the way out...