What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

In no way does it claim that there is no mind-independent objective reality.

You are the one claiming that, pumpkin pie. Why do you think there's only one? I am just rejecting you claim.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Who knows?

If you know - tell us how you know.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Maybe someone with 90-95 IQ thinks that "I can't have absolute certainty about X" is the same as "there can be no X".

The Wiki reference was a quickie and not specific.
You have not read his book, I have.

Here are some notes therein which imply there is no absolutely mind-independent objective reality;

-the universe itself has no single history, nor even an independent existence. C1
-There is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Chap 3
-Quantum physics is a new model of reality that gives us a picture of the universe.
-We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. pg 8
-There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own. 8
-As in our universe, in the Game of Life your reality depends on the model you employ. 8

From the above, it is clearly stated, there is no mind-independent objective reality.

There are more points from the book to support that there is no mind-independent objective reality.

If you don't agree, read the book to counter the above.

Bulllshit. The above is a model-dependent / instrumentalist approach to indirect realism.

In no way does it claim that there is no mind-independent objective reality. You really like the experience of shooting yourself in the leg, dont you? You do it every day..

Here are some obvious point staring at you and you still deny it;

• We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. pg 8
  -There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own. 8

what do they imply?
they don't support your point at all!

[Atla]

Here are some obvious point staring at you and you still deny it;

• We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. pg 8
  -There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own. 8

what do they imply?
they don't support your point at all!

Of course they support my point. Whatever models we create / are trapped in, and wherever these models lead us, has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of objective reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are some obvious point staring at you and you still deny it;

• We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. pg 8
  -There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own. 8

what do they imply?
they don't support your point at all!

Of course they support my point. Whatever models we create / are trapped in, and wherever these models lead us, has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of objective reality.

I suggest you read the book to get the point else you are standing on quicksand.

Here are more points to support my stance;

Hawking rejecting objective reality;

Physics and Goedel
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strin ... c/hawking/
Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover.
Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon.
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles.
I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.

From the book;

3. If a goldfish formulated such a theory, we would have to admit the goldfish’s view as a valid picture of reality. C3

4. So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.

5. These examples bring us to a conclusion that will be important in this book: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. C1

Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.


Realism difficult to defend.

6. But his act did illustrate the view of philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), who wrote that although we have no rational grounds for believing in an objective reality, we also have no choice but to act as if it is true.

7. But this wave/particle duality—the idea that an object could be described as either a particle or a wave—is as foreign to everyday experience as is the idea that you can drink a chunk of sandstone.
8. In that view, the universe does not have just a single existence or history, but rather every possible version of the universe exists simultaneously in what is called a quantum superposition.

9. Quantum physics provides a framework for understanding how nature operates on atomic and subatomic scales, but as we’ll see in more detail later, it dictates a completely different conceptual schema, one in which an object’s position, path, and even its past and future are not precisely determined.
- Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can. Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes.
Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
- But quantum physics agrees with observation. It has never failed a test, and it has been tested more than any other theory in science. Chap 4
-That is, quantum physics recognizes that to make an observation, you must interact with the object you are observing. Chap 4

The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole. In this picture space-time has no boundary—the same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. C6
The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don’t have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us. C6
The idea that the universe does not have a unique observer-independent history might seem to conflict with certain facts we know. C6

-Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can. c8
-Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. c8



- M-theory is the most general super-symmetric theory of gravity.
For these reasons M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe.
-Free will: Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.
-In the case of people, since we cannot solve the equations that determine our behavior, we use the effective theory that people have free will.
-Some people claim that self-awareness is something unique to humans.
It gives them free will, the ability to choose between different courses of action.
How can one tell if a being has free will? We would therefore have to say that any complex being has free will—not as a fundamental feature, but as an effective theory, an admission of our inability to do the calculations that would enable us to predict its actions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are more views of Hawking [Final Theory] rejecting an absolute mind-independent objective reality;

viewtopic.php?p=635831#p635831

[Atla]

Here are some obvious point staring at you and you still deny it;

• We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. pg 8
  -There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own. 8

what do they imply?
they don't support your point at all!

Of course they support my point. Whatever models we create / are trapped in, and wherever these models lead us, has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of objective reality.

I suggest you read the book to get the point else you are standing on quicksand.

Here are more points to support my stance;

Hawking rejecting objective reality;

Physics and Goedel
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strin ... c/hawking/
Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover.
Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon.
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles.
I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.

From the book;

3. If a goldfish formulated such a theory, we would have to admit the goldfish’s view as a valid picture of reality. C3

4. So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.

5. These examples bring us to a conclusion that will be important in this book: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. C1

Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.


Realism difficult to defend.

6. But his act did illustrate the view of philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), who wrote that although we have no rational grounds for believing in an objective reality, we also have no choice but to act as if it is true.

7. But this wave/particle duality—the idea that an object could be described as either a particle or a wave—is as foreign to everyday experience as is the idea that you can drink a chunk of sandstone.
8. In that view, the universe does not have just a single existence or history, but rather every possible version of the universe exists simultaneously in what is called a quantum superposition.

9. Quantum physics provides a framework for understanding how nature operates on atomic and subatomic scales, but as we’ll see in more detail later, it dictates a completely different conceptual schema, one in which an object’s position, path, and even its past and future are not precisely determined.
- Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can. Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes.
Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
- But quantum physics agrees with observation. It has never failed a test, and it has been tested more than any other theory in science. Chap 4
-That is, quantum physics recognizes that to make an observation, you must interact with the object you are observing. Chap 4

The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole. In this picture space-time has no boundary—the same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. C6
The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don’t have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us. C6
The idea that the universe does not have a unique observer-independent history might seem to conflict with certain facts we know. C6

-Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can. c8
-Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. c8



- M-theory is the most general super-symmetric theory of gravity.
For these reasons M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe.
-Free will: Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.
-In the case of people, since we cannot solve the equations that determine our behavior, we use the effective theory that people have free will.
-Some people claim that self-awareness is something unique to humans.
It gives them free will, the ability to choose between different courses of action.
How can one tell if a being has free will? We would therefore have to say that any complex being has free will—not as a fundamental feature, but as an effective theory, an admission of our inability to do the calculations that would enable us to predict its actions.

Nothing here that would show that there can't be any objective reality.

Not being able to discover an ultimate theory has nothing to do with it.

Different pictures of reality has nothing to do with it either, as I already said above.

I flat out disagree with the spontaneous creation of the universe out of nothing, but even if we grant it, that still has nothing to do with objective reality.

And let's just ignore the QM part, one can interpret it any way one wants, and even many of the observer-dependent interpretations are compatible with objective reality.

[Skepdick]

Nothing here that would show that there can't be any objective reality.

Not being able to discover an ultimate theory has nothing to do with it.

Contradiction.

There can be infinitely many objective realities/universes/multiverses.

Theory tells you which reality you are NOT in.
It doesn't tell you which reality you are in.

Theory is exclusive, not inclusive.

[Magnus Anderson]

I don't understand your argument.

That's more than obvious. But when you don't understand something, you're supposed to make an effort to understand it, e.g. by asking questions, long before you respond to it. Have you done that? I don't think so. You have a lazy, dismissive attitude. "I am right and you're wrong, and if I don't understand what you're saying, you're most likely wrong. I am not gonna sit here and waste my time trying to understand what my interlocutors are saying. After all, I am smarter than everyone else."

And I don't think you understand my argument about the difference between factual and non-factual assertions, which is to do with having truth-value independent from opinion.

There is no such thing as a statement the truth value of which is NOT independent from what anyone thinks.

Even the truth value of statements such as "I like cake" is independent from what anyone thinks. You either like eating cake or you don't. What you say or think about it makes no difference. He who enjoys eating cake enjoys eating cake even if he's not aware of it.

What you're trying to push here and elsewhere on this forum is the idea that moral propositions are propositions of this sort, i.e. that they describe personal preferences and / or opinions. That's simply not true. "Rape is wrong" is not a statement about what someone personally believes nor a statement about what someone prefers. It's not the same as "I think that rape is wrong", "I don't enjoy raping other people" and "I don't want people to rape each other".

[A]n opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

That's true but it's banal and it does not strike me as relevant in any way.

[Skepdick]

[A]n opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

That's true but it's banal and it does not strike me as relevant in any way.

Ehhh, this is not true. The entire infinite chasm of the symbol-grounding problem appears before you when you make this claim.

The symbol is not the meaning and the meaning is not the symbol. Syntax is NOT semantics.

So suppose some super-skillful troll preserved the syntax (True, False) but switched the semantics.
Your True is their False
Your False is their True.

Suppose you didn't know that they have made this switch in their head.

How do you respond to such a troll when they say: It's false that 1+1=2; and it's true that 0 >1.
How would your own behaviour change with the knowledge that they had made the switch?

And so if everyone in the world held the opinion that this color is blue, then is it; or isn't it a fact that this color is blue?

[LuckyR]

I don't understand your argument.

That's more than obvious. But when you don't understand something, you're supposed to make an effort to understand it, e.g. by asking questions, long before you respond to it. Have you done that? I don't think so. You have a lazy, dismissive attitude. "I am right and you're wrong, and if I don't understand what you're saying, you're most likely wrong. I am not gonna sit here and waste my time trying to understand what my interlocutors are saying. After all, I am smarter than everyone else."

And I don't think you understand my argument about the difference between factual and non-factual assertions, which is to do with having truth-value independent from opinion.

There is no such thing as a statement the truth value of which is NOT independent from what anyone thinks.

Even the truth value of statements such as "I like cake" is independent from what anyone thinks. You either like eating cake or you don't. What you say or think about it makes no difference. He who enjoys eating cake enjoys eating cake even if he's not aware of it.

What you're trying to push here and elsewhere on this forum is the idea that moral propositions are propositions of this sort, i.e. that they describe personal preferences and / or opinions. That's simply not true. "Rape is wrong" is not a statement about what someone personally believes nor a statement about what someone prefers. It's not the same as "I think that rape is wrong", "I don't enjoy raping other people" and "I don't want people to rape each other".

[A]n opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

That's true but it's banal and it does not strike me as relevant in any way.

Well yes and mostly no. True, when an individual declares: "rape is wrong", that is describing a situation well beyond one's personal opinion. BUT, it is backed, ultimately by a set of opinions (typically personal) that carry no more philosophical weight than those backing up a different individual who declares "rape is acceptable".

[Skepdick]

Well yes and mostly no. True, when an individual declares: "rape is wrong", that is describing a situation well beyond one's personal opinion. BUT, it is backed, ultimately by a set of opinions (typically personal) that carry no more philosophical weight than those backing up a different individual who declares "rape is acceptable".

This is a self-defeating position. If philosophy pursues Truth then who's to say that Falsehood isn't of greater philosophical worth and weight?

After all, for the purposes of philosophical persuasion it seems lying could serve a useful purpose.

You poison the well with moral skepticism and we can gaslight each other for eternity on whether it's even possible to tell a lie without objective moral standards.

[LuckyR]

Well yes and mostly no. True, when an individual declares: "rape is wrong", that is describing a situation well beyond one's personal opinion. BUT, it is backed, ultimately by a set of opinions (typically personal) that carry no more philosophical weight than those backing up a different individual who declares "rape is acceptable".

This is a self-defeating position. If philosophy pursues Truth then who's to say that Falsehood doesn't carry more philosophical weight?

What sort of philosophical discourse do you think can be conducted when lying is held to highest esteem?

The entirety of language, after all, is just opinions about the world. And we also opine about which linguistic expressions are factual.

If in your post you are equating "Truth" with "rape is wrong" and "Falsehood" with "rape is acceptable", then you're missing the point that over various time periods in various communities, both opinions have occupied the "Truth" position. It is merely hubris that awards philosophical superiority to what is currently and locally popular.

As to your reference to "lying", I am not describing those who believe rape is wrong yet declare it to be acceptable, I'm speaking of those who believe it is acceptable.

[Skepdick]

If in your post you are equating "Truth" with "rape is wrong" and "Falsehood" with "rape is acceptable", then you're missing the point that over various time periods in various communities, both opinions have occupied the "Truth" position. It is merely hubris that awards philosophical superiority to what is currently and locally popular.

I am not missing the point at all. Your entire line of reasoning rests on the presupposition that Truth is good, Truth is great (so everybody tries to steal the banner of Truth because it carries brand recognition) while philosophers try to protect it.

Truth is locally popular in philosophy.

If you are going to pretend to be a moral skeptic - burn the banner; scrap the very idea that we should strive for Truth and protect it. Worship Falsehood instead.

Lets do the experiment. See how many moral skeptics are left after that. Moral skepticism is a bullshit position. The only reason it exists is because of contrarianism. Nobody actually believes it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And I don't think you understand my argument about the difference between factual and non-factual assertions, which is to do with having truth-value independent from opinion.

There is no such thing as a statement the truth value of which is NOT independent from what anyone thinks.

Even the truth value of statements such as "I like cake" is independent from what anyone thinks. You either like eating cake or you don't. What you say or think about it makes no difference. He who enjoys eating cake enjoys eating cake even if he's not aware of it.

What you're trying to push here and elsewhere on this forum is the idea that moral propositions are propositions of this sort, i.e. that they describe personal preferences and / or opinions.
That's simply not true. "Rape is wrong" is not a statement about what someone personally believes nor a statement about what someone prefers. It's not the same as "I think that rape is wrong", "I don't enjoy raping other people" and "I don't want people to rape each other".

I agree with you on the above issue [specifically].

Morality cannot not be based on 'rightness' or 'wrongness' which are very loose terms. What is 'right' to one person can be 'wrong' to another.
It is obvious 'rightness' or 'wrongness' are based on opinions, beliefs and judgment of individual[s] or a loose group of people.

It is likely you do not agree with my following views;

I define 'morality' as the strategic management of evil [as defined] to enable its related good to emerge.
I defined 'what is evil' as those acts and thoughts that are net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

In this case we have to have a taxonomy that is exhaustive of all that is evil[as defined], the most obvious being 'killing of another human' torture, violent rapes, etc. with different degrees of evilness and immorality.

However it must be objective and verified why a moral element is evil and why each moral element specifically is immoral.
This verification of objectivity is done via a human-based moral FSR-FSK just like science [as the standard of objectivity] is done via a science FSR-FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

I don't understand your argument.

That's more than obvious. But when you don't understand something, you're supposed to make an effort to understand it, e.g. by asking questions, long before you respond to it. Have you done that? I don't think so. You have a lazy, dismissive attitude. "I am right and you're wrong, and if I don't understand what you're saying, you're most likely wrong. I am not gonna sit here and waste my time trying to understand what my interlocutors are saying. After all, I am smarter than everyone else."

And I don't think you understand my argument about the difference between factual and non-factual assertions, which is to do with having truth-value independent from opinion.

There is no such thing as a statement the truth value of which is NOT independent from what anyone thinks.

But not all statements have truth-value.

Even the truth value of statements such as "I like cake" is independent from what anyone thinks. You either like eating cake or you don't. What you say or think about it makes no difference. He who enjoys eating cake enjoys eating cake even if he's not aware of it.

What you're trying to push here and elsewhere on this forum is the idea that moral propositions are propositions of this sort, i.e. that they describe personal preferences and / or opinions. That's simply not true. "Rape is wrong" is not a statement about what someone personally believes nor a statement about what someone prefers. It's not the same as "I think that rape is wrong", "I don't enjoy raping other people" and "I don't want people to rape each other".

Your analysis is incorrect. The factual assertion 'I like cake' does indeed, if only trivially, have a truth-value. But the assertion 'cake is delicious' doesn't - and that's why the assertion 'rape is wrong' also has no truth-value. It expresses an opinion. And see the following comment.

[A]n opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

That's true but it's banal and it does not strike me as relevant in any way.

Dismiss away. I'll pay attention when you try to put forward a valid and sound argument for moral objectivity. Nothing so far except whining and unsupported assertion.