What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

I think you have to decide first of all what constitutes an individual or " person".

It's best to think 'centres of consciousness' rather than persons.

No, that does not help. Since the claim for objective morality would not include individuals or groups, but an absence of them.

That is what I keep arguing. Objective morality is literally 'out of this world'. In this world there are individuals, and groups.

Indeed yes.

[Sculptor]

No, that does not help. Since the claim for objective morality would not include individuals or groups, but an absence of them.

That is what I keep arguing. Objective morality is literally 'out of this world'. In this world there are individuals, and groups.

Eskimos designate many types and groupings of snow, however from birth to death each snowflake, unique from all others, shares objective commonalities with each and every other snowflake. For example, when it gets hot enough they all melt.

Is a snowflake a moral?
Does a snowflake have a moral value or moral compass?
Are you not just falling into the error of confusing a literal physical object with a pure idea?

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is another support for Scientific Objectivity;

Dude you gotta read these thigs before you claim them as support.

The first part of this book is of an epistemological nature and develops an original theory of scientific objectivity, understood in a weak sense (as intersubjective agreement among the specialists) and a strong sense (as having precise concrete referents). In both cases it relies upon the adoption of operational criteria designed within the particular perspective under which any single science considers reality. The “object” so attained has a proper ontological status, dependent on the specific character of the criteria of reference (regional ontologies).

This thing doesn't support any FSK theory.

[Skepdick]

Here is another support for Scientific Objectivity;

Dude you gotta read these thigs before you claim them as support.

The first part of this book is of an epistemological nature and develops an original theory of scientific objectivity, understood in a weak sense (as intersubjective agreement among the specialists) and a strong sense (as having precise concrete referents). In both cases it relies upon the adoption of operational criteria designed within the particular perspective under which any single science considers reality. The “object” so attained has a proper ontological status, dependent on the specific character of the criteria of reference (regional ontologies).

This thing doesn't support any FSK theory.

Dude, it doesn't seem like reading these "thigs" is sufficient. You also gotta understand these "thigs" before you claim them as support (to your counter-attack).

Towards the pursuit of the "weak sense" (an intersubjective agreement among the specialists) could you; or PH tell us (in the "strong sense" you have highlighted) - what is the precise concrete referent of "morality"? Help us adopt/design a set of operational criteria for that which we should consider a "moral" reality.

And when you do tell us; and if we agree - then we have ourselves a "regional ontology". An FSK.

It's almost like you don't understand how ontological engineering works.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Calling VA. Consider the following argument:

Premise: It's the intersubjective consensus opinion that water is H2O.
Conclusion: Therefore, (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

Do you understand why this is a non sequitur fallacy - why the premise doesn't entail the conclusion? Oh - silly me. If you did understand, you'd see why your argument is ridiculous.

It's because the chemical constitution of water is a feature of reality - a fact - that it has nothing to do with opinion, intersubjective consensus or not. And there's incontrovertible empirical evidence that this is the case.

The fact that water is H2O isn't something that emerged, and 'realised' - 'entangled with the human conditions' -or whatever other mumbo-jumbo you've made up. It just is H2O.

The fact that a description - and therefore a truth-claim, such as 'water is H2O' - is always contextual and conventional doesn't mean that what is being described is contextual and conventional.

You've been suckered by a postmodernist delusion - perhaps most extremely evident in Derrida's deconstructionism: there is nothing outside the text.

Don't give me the usual 'postmodernist' thingy and crap.
You have to rely on valid and sound arguments to counter my views.

Your
"It's because the chemical constitution of water is a feature of reality - a fact .."
is merely a thought in your head and you are blabbering about it.
As I had argued it is a thought that is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical relative to reality.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Note, you are so blind and ignorant that your point "chemical constitution of water is H20" is imperatively dependent on the science-chemistry framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
Do you deny this point?
There is no way you can start to assert "the chemical constitution of water .." without any reference to the science-chemistry FSK.

The fact that water is H2O isn't something that emerged, and 'realised' - 'entangled with the human conditions' -or whatever other mumbo-jumbo you've made up. It just is H2O.

The point is your sense of reality is so bankrupt that you are not able to realize,
The fact that water is H2O IS something that emerged, and 'realised' - 'entangled with the human conditions'

If, not, WHO SAID SO,
Surely it cannot be "the chemical constitution of water is H20" because my father said so?

Obviously, it has to be
"the chemical constitution of water is H20" because the science-chemistry FSK said so?

A FSK is maintained and sustained by subjects [scientists]
thus, whatever the conclusions or inferences from the science-Chemistry FSK cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, so, that is scientific objectivity.

You have not answered my question,
If you think you are smart,
show me a fact of absolute objectivity without reference to any FSK?

All you did is merely to claim,
The fact is "just-is".
Note "is" is not a predicate.
So, what is your 'is' predicated upon?

If it is not predicated upon something, then it is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical relative to reality, i.e. ending up with metaphysical mysticism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think you have to decide first of all what constitutes an individual or " person".
It's best to think 'centres of consciousness' rather than persons.

No, that does not help. Since the claim for objective morality would not include individuals or groups, but an absence of them.

That is what I keep arguing. Objective morality is literally 'out of this world'. In this world there are individuals, and groups.

Since we are doing philosophy, we have to define 'what is objectivity' in the philosophical sense.

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.

Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.

Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it.[1]
Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through subjectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

As defined, as long as it is not dependent on individual-subjectivity or of a sentient being, philosophical objectivity is not 'out of this world' [independent of sentient human conditions].
Since morality is part of philosophy, 'objective morality' as part of philosophy objectivity cannot be 'out of this world'.

What is an objective fact is conditioned upon a specific framework.
Note the mentioned of 'moral framework' above.
Thus, an objective moral fact is that which is conditioned upon a moral framework.

So, morality is objective, the question is only whether such objectivity is credible or reliable depending on the credibility and reliability of the moral framework.

[Peter Holmes]

Calling VA. Consider the following argument:

Premise: It's the intersubjective consensus opinion that water is H2O.
Conclusion: Therefore, (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

Do you understand why this is a non sequitur fallacy - why the premise doesn't entail the conclusion? Oh - silly me. If you did understand, you'd see why your argument is ridiculous.

It's because the chemical constitution of water is a feature of reality - a fact - that it has nothing to do with opinion, intersubjective consensus or not. And there's incontrovertible empirical evidence that this is the case.

The fact that water is H2O isn't something that emerged, and 'realised' - 'entangled with the human conditions' -or whatever other mumbo-jumbo you've made up. It just is H2O.

The fact that a description - and therefore a truth-claim, such as 'water is H2O' - is always contextual and conventional doesn't mean that what is being described is contextual and conventional.

You've been suckered by a postmodernist delusion - perhaps most extremely evident in Derrida's deconstructionism: there is nothing outside the text.

Don't give me the usual 'postmodernist' thingy and crap.
You have to rely on valid and sound arguments to counter my views.

Your
"It's because the chemical constitution of water is a feature of reality - a fact .."
is merely a thought in your head and you are blabbering about it.
As I had argued it is a thought that is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical relative to reality.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Note, you are so blind and ignorant that your point "chemical constitution of water is H20" is imperatively dependent on the science-chemistry framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
Do you deny this point?
There is no way you can start to assert "the chemical constitution of water .." without any reference to the science-chemistry FSK.

The fact that water is H2O isn't something that emerged, and 'realised' - 'entangled with the human conditions' -or whatever other mumbo-jumbo you've made up. It just is H2O.

The point is your sense of reality is so bankrupt that you are not able to realize,
The fact that water is H2O IS something that emerged, and 'realised' - 'entangled with the human conditions'

If, not, WHO SAID SO,
Surely it cannot be "the chemical constitution of water is H20" because my father said so?

Obviously, it has to be
"the chemical constitution of water is H20" because the science-chemistry FSK said so?

A FSK is maintained and sustained by subjects [scientists]
thus, whatever the conclusions or inferences from the science-Chemistry FSK cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, so, that is scientific objectivity.

You have not answered my question,
If you think you are smart,
show me a fact of absolute objectivity without reference to any FSK?

All you did is merely to claim,
The fact is "just-is".
Note "is" is not a predicate.
So, what is your 'is' predicated upon?

If it is not predicated upon something, then it is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical relative to reality, i.e. ending up with metaphysical mysticism.

I wonder how many times you'll jump back into your hamster wheel without actually thinking.

Of course, the fact that water is H2O has nothing to do with what my father said. And, for exactly the same reason, the fact that water is H2O has nothing to do with what scientists say - with the intersubjective consensus of chemists. Saying or thinking something is so doesn't make it so. You agree that that's a silly idea.

Do you deny that water was H2O before humans appeared and described it as H2O? Do you think water became H2O only when humans appeared and described it as H2O? Is that what you really think? Is your delusion so complete - and so radically unscientific - that you believe this nonsense? This anthropocentric mysticism? Of course you don't. You're not an eejit.

So, have a think. How could this strange denial of the existence of physical reality be cured? Could it be something as simple as the realisation that a description is not the described; that to construct a model of reality is not to construct reality? That knowing and saying 'water is H2O' didn't and doesn't make water H2O?

Oh! Of course! Before English-speaking scientists said 'water is H2O', the description - and the factual knowledge it expresses - didn't exist. What we call water always was, is and will be what it is - what we call H2O - so the only new kid on the block is human knowledge and language.

To repeat for 'the millionth time': a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. So your demand that I show you a fact that isn't contextual and conventional is incoherent. When asked to present a fact, what we have to do is make a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - which is, necessarily, a description which is, necessarily, contextual and conventional.

You and others are so dazzled by this glaringly obvious fact - that you forget the fundamental difference between features of reality that are or were the case, and what we say about them - the ways we can and do describe them. You conflate the two - as deluded philosophers have for millennia - and then proclaim that reality is what we know and say about it. Hence your ridiculous 'entanglement and realisation' nonsense.

Ah, but - you carry on mantra-mumbling and having your mistakes pointed out and ignoring the correction and mumbling the mantra. After all, that's how religions keep going.

[Skepdick]

Oh! Of course! Before English-speaking scientists said 'water is H2O', the description - and the factual knowledge it expresses - didn't exist. What we call water always was, is and will be what it is - what we call H2O - so the only new kid on the block is human knowledge and language.

Dumb. Fucking. Reductionist. Philosopher.

What we call water is part of the whole we call reality; or existence; or the universe. But the whole isn't pre-packaged into "what we call water" and "what we call air" and "what we call Earth".

Without humans/observers to differentiate its different configurations, properties and qualities it's all just matter.

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts—physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on—remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman

To repeat for 'the millionth time': a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. So your demand that I show you a fact that isn't contextual and conventional is incoherent.

Exactly!

There are some contexts in which "water is H2O" is a factual statement; and there are some contexts in which "water is H2O" is not a factual statement.

There are some context in which "H20 is water" is a factual statement, and there are some contexts in which "H2O is water" is not a factual statement.

You know, because context matters.

When asked to present a fact, what we have to do is make a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - which is, necessarily, a description which is, necessarily, contextual and conventional.

Precisely!

So, exactly as you describe it; In the context of what people call "morality" and given social conventions the statement "murder is wrong" is considered a fact.

But since you disagree - maybe you don't understand the convention or the context? After all you aren't very smart.

[Agent Smith]

Batteries sold separately.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fact that water is H2O isn't something that emerged, and 'realised' - 'entangled with the human conditions' -or whatever other mumbo-jumbo you've made up. It just is H2O.

The point is your sense of reality is so bankrupt that you are not able to realize,
The fact that water is H2O IS something that emerged, and 'realised' - 'entangled with the human conditions'

If, not, WHO SAID SO,
Surely it cannot be "the chemical constitution of water is H20" because my father said so?

Obviously, it has to be
"the chemical constitution of water is H20" because the science-chemistry FSK said so?

A FSK is maintained and sustained by subjects [scientists]
thus, whatever the conclusions or inferences from the science-Chemistry FSK cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, so, that is scientific objectivity.

You have not answered my question,
If you think you are smart,
show me a fact of absolute objectivity without reference to any FSK?

All you did is merely to claim,
The fact is "just-is".
Note "is" is not a predicate.
So, what is your 'is' predicated upon?

If it is not predicated upon something, then it is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical relative to reality, i.e. ending up with metaphysical mysticism.

I wonder how many times you'll jump back into your hamster wheel without actually thinking.

Of course, the fact that water is H2O has nothing to do with what my father said. And, for exactly the same reason, the fact that water is H2O has nothing to do with what scientists say - with the intersubjective consensus of chemists. Saying or thinking something is so doesn't make it so. You agree that that's a silly idea.

Strawman again!
I DID NOT state "what scientists say"

I stated because the science-chemistry FSK said so,
Obviously, it has to be
"the chemical constitution of water is H20" because the science-chemistry FSK said so?

That is, 'water is H20' is based on the authority of the science-chemistry FSK emerging from the its realization within reality.
The realization emerging from a FSK is a very complex process wherein 'intersubjective consensus' is merely a part of it.

There is no 'water is H20' without any predication upon the science-chemistry FSK.

Do you deny that water was H2O before humans appeared and described it as H2O? Do you think water became H2O only when humans appeared and described it as H2O? Is that what you really think? Is your delusion so complete - and so radically unscientific - that you believe this nonsense? This anthropocentric mysticism? Of course you don't. You're not an eejit.

Strawman again re 'humans appeared' and 'described it'.

Note this thread which thesis won the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics.
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
It is the same principles for 'water is H20'.

Yes, 'water is H20' is a realization only after humans appeared and upon the establishment of the science-chemistry FSK and related FSKs.

As Popeye had stated, "all is energy" [per science-Physics FSK]; thus, what is reality in the fundamental and most real sense is, reality [all there is] is fundamentally a 'soup' of particles [or wave] conditioned upon observers [subjects] just after the Big Bang - [BB -13 billion years ago]. [per science-Physics FSK]
(note the catch - the BB is a human constructed theory per [per science-Physics FSK]].
Then there is the process of these fundamental particles coalescing into denser and denser mass since 13 billion years ago to very recent, where certain cluster mass of fundamental particles gaining self-awareness [i.e. humans] via evolution.
Therefrom, it is the human-based science-chemistry FSK which enable 'water is H20' to emerge and be realized.

How can you be so ignorant?
The realization and understanding of 'water is H20' is a very complex subject with the basic knowledge of liquids, fluids, chemistry, atoms, hydrogen, oxygen, chemical bondings, electron, fundamental particles, etc. interacting within a 13 billion years history.



The above is merely a pictorial representation.
The idea of 'water-in-itself' is an illusion; as such it is a non-starter to question its existence as real.

There is no 'water is H20' that is independent of the human conditions [via the science-chemistry FSK in this case].

So, have a think. How could this strange denial of the existence of physical reality be cured? Could it be something as simple as the realisation that a description is not the described; that to construct a model of reality is not to construct reality?
That knowing and saying 'water is H2O' didn't and doesn't make water H2O?

Strawman again! I did not agree with "knowing and saying make it so."

It is your denial which should be cured.

To me 'water is H20' is based on justified and verified empirical evidences as realized within the science-chemistry FSK.
I am not denying the existence of 'external' physical reality but its existence CANNOT be independent of the human conditions. There is no reality-in-itself.

Meanwhile you are the one who is speculating what 'water is H20' really is without any grounding at all but merely based on your thinking that there is 'water-in-itself' independent of the human conditions.
This is the mysticism that you are engaging in which need to be cured.

Oh! Of course! Before English-speaking scientists said 'water is H2O', the description - and the factual knowledge it expresses - didn't exist. What we call water always was, is and will be what it is - what we call H2O - so the only new kid on the block is human knowledge and language.

That is the best you can do, "it is and will be what it is" i.e. water-in-itself independent of the human conditions.

How do you know "what we call H2O" really represent that "water-in-itself" you intended to represent, mirrored or pictured?
All you can do is keep blabbering "it is and will be what it is" which is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.
This is the same with Hume's proof that causation is a psychological matter.

To repeat for 'the millionth time': a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. So your demand that I show you a fact that isn't contextual and conventional is incoherent. When asked to present a fact, what we have to do is make a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - which is, necessarily, a description which is, necessarily, contextual and conventional.

A factual assertion, linguistic expression, truth-claim and a description of "what".
What is that 'real' thing /fact out there in-itself that you are trying to represent, mirror and picture with your factual assertion and description.
You deny you adopt the 'corresponding theory of truth' but what you are doing is merely corresponding, representing, mirroring and picturing what you think is real on the other side.

I am asking you to show me the independent-described that-is-described or
the independent-perceived that-is-perceived.
The best you can do is to blabber "it is and will be what it is".

What you are actually doing is merely putting forth factual assertions via linguistic means.
So, your 'fact' is merely a linguistic fact, i.e. conditioned upon a linguistic FSK which is conditioned upon the human conditions.
Linguistic facts are merely empty words.

To make any sense 'water is H20' it has to be conditioned upon the human based science-chemistry FSK, there is no other way; 'water is H20' is a scientific fact.

You and others are so dazzled by this glaringly obvious fact - that you forget the fundamental difference between features of reality that are or were the case, and what we say about them - the ways we can and do describe them. You conflate the two - as deluded philosophers have for millennia - and then proclaim that reality is what we know and say about it. Hence your ridiculous 'entanglement and realisation' nonsense.
Ah, but - you carry on mantra-mumbling and having your mistakes pointed out and ignoring the correction and mumbling the mantra. After all, that's how religions keep going.

Strawman again!
How many times must I tell you, the realization of reality is not "is what we know and say about it."
There is the complex interactions, entanglement and coalescing of fundamental particles /waves within the reality 'soup' we all are in.
As such, ultimately* there is no fact that is independent of the human conditions.

When I asked you show me that "features of reality that are or were the case"
The best you can do is to blabber "it is and will be what it is" which is merely based on your thinking, speculations and thoughts without any solid foundations.

* note, I stated there is a perspective of independent objective reality but that is only via the kindergarten common sense and conventional perspective. But in a more realistic perspective there are no things independent of the human conditions.

[Peter Holmes]

VA: 'there is no fact that is independent of the [sic] human conditions'.

So, there was no universe until the evolution of homo sapiens, and there will be no universe when we're gone.

Of course, what VA actually means is that we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - including what we call facts - in a human way. Which is true.

But VA wants there to be moral facts - which there aren't. Hence the elaborately confected delusion that we create or produce reality - so we can just as well be said to create or produce moral facts. But - on the other hand - the empirically verified existence of mirror neurons in the brain is, somehow, a genuine scientific fact.

I and others have explained VA's mistakes and invalid arguments 'a million times'. And all VA can do is waste time and effort saying how stupid we are and repeating the nonsense, instead of devoting time and effort to understanding and addressing our critique.

If there is one, observe the response to this post. It will be a QED.

[Skepdick]

So, there was no universe until the evolution of homo sapiens, and there will be no universe when we're gone.

What or where is the universe? Show it to me. Not parts of it - the whole thing.

When you figure out that the word "universe" has no actual referent, then you might come to realise that "universe" is just a collective noun - and collective nouns exist only in a social context.

Dumb. Fucking. Philosopher. Has no fucking idea what he's talking about; or how he's using words.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA: 'there is no fact that is independent of the [sic] human conditions'.

So, there was no universe until the evolution of homo sapiens, and there will be no universe when we're gone.

I have repeated this ad nauseam;

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
I have stated the thesis of the 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics is based on the above principles.

Have you submitted your counter to the Nobel Prize Committee that the above Prize was awarded on false principles and that what you claim is true?

Note here is a clue leading to the truth of my point;
Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

If you are right, then Professor Jim Al-Khalili is stupid with the above?

Of course, what VA actually means is that we humans have to perceive, know and describe reality - including what we call facts - in a human way. Which is true.

This is a strawman re what I actually claim re the realization of reality and facts.

But VA wants there to be moral facts - which there aren't. Hence the elaborately confected delusion that we create or produce reality - so we can just as well be said to create or produce moral facts. But - on the other hand - the empirically verified existence of mirror neurons in the brain is, somehow, a genuine scientific fact.

What is morality to you is merely based on judgments, beliefs and opinions of rightness and wrongness. Based on this perspective I agree there can be no moral facts based on feelings and sentiments per se.
However the actual physical mechanisms that trigger these feelings and sentiments, i.e. the underlying physical neural algorithms are scientific facts which grounds moral facts via a moral FSK.

The existence of mirror neurons is a scientific fact.
Mirror neurons has many functions of which one [e.g. empathy] is related to morality.
When this scientific fact is imputed into the moral FSK, it contribute to an objective moral fact, e.g. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans as a mora fact is heavily driven by empathy with other scientific facts -neurosciences.

I and others have explained VA's mistakes and invalid arguments 'a million times'. And all VA can do is waste time and effort saying how stupid we are and repeating the nonsense, instead of devoting time and effort to understanding and addressing our critique.

If there is one, observe the response to this post. It will be a QED.

'I and others' [in this forum] -whoever agree with you are in the same boat of morality-proper ignoramus. It is very intellectual immature to rely on majority view in this case instead of relying on valid and sound arguments.

As a clue, note,
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275

instead of devoting time and effort to understanding and addressing our critique.

Most of your counter to my claims are strawman[s].
Note, I have raised >200 threads re morality in countering your shallow and narrow understanding of morality in alignment with human nature.

[Peter Holmes]

Questions for VA.

Do you think the universe didn't exist before the evolution of human beings, and won't exist after we're gone?

If so, do you have any scientific, empirical evidence for this claim?

Never mind the bollocks about emergence, entanglement and intersubjective consensus opinion - just answer those damn questions.

And if you can't - or can't afford to - answer them simply and honestly, how about trying a little deep and sincere thinking about your argument?

[Skepdick]

Do you think the universe didn't exist before the evolution of human beings, and won't exist after we're gone?

Idiot philosopher doesn't even understand what he's asking.

"Universe", "existence", "reality", "nature" etc. etc. etc are all terms with identical semantic content - they mean EXACTLY the same thing!

So when you ask "Does the universe exist?" you might as well be asking:
* Does existence exist?
* Does the universe uiverse?
* Does reality real?
* Does nature nature?

Does a noun verb?
What's the difference between a noun that verbs and a noun that doesn't verb?

It's safe to conclude that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Becasue you are a dumb fucking philosopher.