What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As to moral objectivism, let's say there is a moral question that has 5 possible choices on how to address it.
Five moral skeptics say, "there is no better nor worse, choose whatever fits your fancy" and the five each choose one of the five possible options.
Five moral objectivists look at the question and each put forth a logical and well referenced argument to support one of the choices as clearly superior to the other 4... except that each has made this argument in favor of a different choice, such that one objectivist is supporting each of the choices. What is the practical difference between the two scenarios?

You don't seem to understand what is moral objectivism.

For moral objectivism there is no choices for each moral element.
Say, the moral principle 'no human ought to kill another human' period!
In moral objectivism there is no choice to the above, otherwise that would be moral relativism.
The question to the above is, to what degree of objectivity is the above grounded upon.

Within the Christian moral FSK, the above universal principle [thou shall not kill, period!] is grounded on the existence of God, which I claim is illusory.
As such while the Christian moral FSK is based on moral objectivism, its degree of objectivity is negligible.

In my case, my moral FSK is based on a physical ought-not-ness to kill humans which is supported by its neural correlates which is justifiable by the science-biology FSK.
Since this moral elements is grounded on scientific facts, it has a higher degree of objectivity.

There are other nuances, but the above is sufficient to represent what is moral objectivism.

So you acknowledge that by using different FSKs, objectivists can come to opposite conclusions.

There is no question of 'opposite'.
There is no absolute objectivity i.e. an absolute objectivity that is mind-independent which is not realistic nor tenable.

The only realistic approach to what is objectivity [real, truths, knowledge, facts] is grounded on a specific human-based FSR-FSK, i.e. a framework & system, model, paradigm, and the like.
There is no other way.
Tell me if there are other ways?

What I am saying here is,
we arrive at different degrees of objectivity based on the different FSKs with different degrees of objectivity of which the scientific-FSK is the most objective, credible and reliable which is the standard all other FSKs can be rated.

[Magnus Anderson]

Is the value of a vase the property of the vase that is being valued or of the man that is valuing it?

It's a property of the vase. The answer lies in the language itself. We say "The value of a vase".

But note that this is entirely an issue of convention. We could have said that it belongs to those to whom it is of value. But we didn't.

Value denotes how useful something is to someone. It consists of two sides, that which is valuable ( the object ) and those to whom it is of value ( the subjects. ) It's not entirely about the object but it's also not entirely about the subject(s). However, we have decided, by convention, to set the center, or the origin, of this phenomenon to be inside the object rather than any one of the subjects. We did so because we found it to be more convenient, more useful, than the alternative -- and not because it's true.

Also note that the verb "to value" means "to perceive something as valuable". We perceive value. Value is out there, up to us to discover it. We don't just arbitrarily assign it to objects. Water is of value to us, not because we decided that it is valuable, but because it is.

Is this some sort of secondary property equivalent to rocks that reflect a certain wavelength of light being the sort of thing that a normal person with standard issue eyes would come to call "ruby red" and thus the rock can be considered to hold a secondary property of redness? Or is the value just projected onto the object?

Yes, it is. But that's an easier case because color describes the physical object it is associated with and nothing else. Namely, it describes its surface. Value is a bit more complicated because it goes beyond the object itself.

There is no projection taking place. Neither colors nor values are projected into physical objects. They literally belong to them. The idea that they are projections is merely a confusion that is typical for people influenced by philosophers such as Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer and others who can be put into the category of "recovering naive realists", i.e. thinkers who struggle to accept the full implications of indirect perception.

It's super important to understand that language precedes observation and that you cannot observe anything without employing some sort of language. To observe means to construct a map of some portion of reality, and since maps of reality are made out of symbols, you need a set of symbols with which to construct a map. You need to make a bunch of symbols first. A set of symbols, together with a set of rules that establish how these symbols can be combined to construct symbols that can express things that cannot be expressed with the symbols we already have, is called a language. We can't describe reality without using some sort of language. Your mind has its own intrapersonal language it uses to facilitate communication between different parts of your brain. Everything you see with your own eyes is a message sent to you by the lower chambers of your mind to your conscious mind. That message is expressed in certain intrapersonal language that your brain is using. There is an infinite number of such languages and one and the same message can be accurately expressed in many of these languages. There are no true and no false languages. There are, at best, more useful and less useful languages.

Your language decides what a tree can be. Your language decides what properties it has. Your language decides what these properties reflect. And there is no prohibition saying that these properties must reflect the object and nothing but the object itself. They are free to reflect anything you want them to reflect, e.g. how the objects they belong to relate to other things.

Every physical object at every single point in time has a property called "speed". This property does not describe anything about the object itself. It says NOTHING about its physical constitution. One and the same speed can be possessed by every conceivable physical object. Instead, it is describing the extent to which the object's position will change after certain period of time. Does that mean we project speed into physical objects? Of course not.

[Skepdick]

Five moral skeptics say... Five moral objectivists...

Except that you haven't pointed to a practical difference between two skeptics who say slavery=no slavery with one selecting each randomly and two objectivists who argue (with logic and references), one with slavery<not slavery and the other slavery>not slavery.

If I hadn't pointed out the practical difference, you wouldn't have moved the goal posts.

... so you can't /won't address my question. Says a lot.

I can and did answer your question. The goalpost shifting + baiting tells me all I need to know

You aren’t a moral skeptic but you want to be one, so no amount of reason on my part can sway your motives.

Good luck to you on your spelunking expedition.

[Skepdick]

It's super important to understand that language precedes observation and that you cannot observe anything without employing some sort of language.

Holy shit, that is some ass-backwards axiom that leads to all sorts of pathologies. As a phenomenologist I can observe absolutely anything and everything that makes itself available to my senses.

I only need language for reduction/isolating phenomena from the whole

[Skepdick]

Is the value of a vase the property of the vase that is being valued or of the man that is valuing it?

It's a property of the vase. The answer lies in the language itself. We say "The value of a vase".

But note that this is entirely an issue of convention. We could have said that it belongs to those to whom it is of value. But we didn't.

It is an issue of convention, but you aren't getting to the essence of the problem. There's some clarity and insight available in Programming Language Theory.

When using linguistic labels to call things (give them specified names) there is a distinction between call-by-value and call-by-reference.

We can talk about the number 8. I am directly invoking/calling its value.
We can talk about the number after 7. I am only indirectly referencing/calling it.

We can talk about that thing in the picture (call by reference).
We can talk about the rose in the picture (call by value).

The expression "that thing in the picture" is the sort of language I'd expect from a person who doesn't know the value of the expression "red rose" when attempting to communicate meaning.

[LuckyR]

You don't seem to understand what is moral objectivism.

For moral objectivism there is no choices for each moral element.
Say, the moral principle 'no human ought to kill another human' period!
In moral objectivism there is no choice to the above, otherwise that would be moral relativism.
The question to the above is, to what degree of objectivity is the above grounded upon.

Within the Christian moral FSK, the above universal principle [thou shall not kill, period!] is grounded on the existence of God, which I claim is illusory.
As such while the Christian moral FSK is based on moral objectivism, its degree of objectivity is negligible.

In my case, my moral FSK is based on a physical ought-not-ness to kill humans which is supported by its neural correlates which is justifiable by the science-biology FSK.
Since this moral elements is grounded on scientific facts, it has a higher degree of objectivity.

There are other nuances, but the above is sufficient to represent what is moral objectivism.

So you acknowledge that by using different FSKs, objectivists can come to opposite conclusions.

There is no question of 'opposite'.
There is no absolute objectivity i.e. an absolute objectivity that is mind-independent which is not realistic nor tenable.

The only realistic approach to what is objectivity [real, truths, knowledge, facts] is grounded on a specific human-based FSR-FSK, i.e. a framework & system, model, paradigm, and the like.
There is no other way.
Tell me if there are other ways?

What I am saying here is,
we arrive at different degrees of objectivity based on the different FSKs with different degrees of objectivity of which the scientific-FSK is the most objective, credible and reliable which is the standard all other FSKs can be rated.

So scientists (using scientific FSKs) will always come to the same objective conclusion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you acknowledge that by using different FSKs, objectivists can come to opposite conclusions.

There is no question of 'opposite'.
There is no absolute objectivity i.e. an absolute objectivity that is mind-independent which is not realistic nor tenable.

The only realistic approach to what is objectivity [real, truths, knowledge, facts] is grounded on a specific human-based FSR-FSK, i.e. a framework & system, model, paradigm, and the like.
There is no other way.
Tell me if there are other ways?

What I am saying here is,
we arrive at different degrees of objectivity based on the different FSKs with different degrees of objectivity of which the scientific-FSK is the most objective, credible and reliable which is the standard all other FSKs can be rated.

So scientists (using scientific FSKs) will always come to the same objective conclusion?

Nope, not in terms of degrees of objectivity.

Comparing on the best of each the main category of FSKs, the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective with its basic principles. In general the science-FSK is more credible and objective than the theological FSK [lowest and negligible], and the economics, political, linguistics, legal, history, etc. somewhere in between.

However, within the main scientific categories, there are difference in degrees of objectivity within the subsets of science. For example, the natural science FSKs are more reliable than the social sciences and the speculative aspects of science.
As such a thorough understanding of the main and other specific conditions of each subset FSK of science must be understood to make as assessment of its credibility and comparative degrees of objectivity.

[Skepdick]

So scientists (using scientific FSKs) will always come to the same objective conclusion?

In theory - yes. There is no reason for disagreement; so disagreements themselves become the subject-matter which necessitates an explanation.

Why do scientists disagree?

In practice - figuring out the answer to that question is the path to re-establishing agreement. This is basic game theory stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem

[Atla]

Is the value of a vase the property of the vase that is being valued or of the man that is valuing it?

It's a property of the vase. The answer lies in the language itself. We say "The value of a vase".

But note that this is entirely an issue of convention. We could have said that it belongs to those to whom it is of value. But we didn't.

Value denotes how useful something is to someone. It consists of two sides, that which is valuable ( the object ) and those to whom it is of value ( the subjects. ) It's not entirely about the object but it's also not entirely about the subject(s). However, we have decided, by convention, to set the center, or the origin, of this phenomenon to be inside the object rather than any one of the subjects. We did so because we found it to be more convenient, more useful, than the alternative -- and not because it's true.

Also note that the verb "to value" means "to perceive something as valuable". We perceive value. Value is out there, up to us to discover it. We don't just arbitrarily assign it to objects. Water is of value to us, not because we decided that it is valuable, but because it is.

Is this some sort of secondary property equivalent to rocks that reflect a certain wavelength of light being the sort of thing that a normal person with standard issue eyes would come to call "ruby red" and thus the rock can be considered to hold a secondary property of redness? Or is the value just projected onto the object?

Yes, it is. But that's an easier case because color describes the physical object it is associated with and nothing else. Namely, it describes its surface. Value is a bit more complicated because it goes beyond the object itself.

There is no projection taking place. Neither colors nor values are projected into physical objects. They literally belong to them. The idea that they are projections is merely a confusion that is typical for people influenced by philosophers such as Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer and others who can be put into the category of "recovering naive realists", i.e. thinkers who struggle to accept the full implications of indirect perception.

It's super important to understand that language precedes observation and that you cannot observe anything without employing some sort of language. To observe means to construct a map of some portion of reality, and since maps of reality are made out of symbols, you need a set of symbols with which to construct a map. You need to make a bunch of symbols first. A set of symbols, together with a set of rules that establish how these symbols can be combined to construct symbols that can express things that cannot be expressed with the symbols we already have, is called a language. We can't describe reality without using some sort of language. Your mind has its own intrapersonal language it uses to facilitate communication between different parts of your brain. Everything you see with your own eyes is a message sent to you by the lower chambers of your mind to your conscious mind. That message is expressed in certain intrapersonal language that your brain is using. There is an infinite number of such languages and one and the same message can be accurately expressed in many of these languages. There are no true and no false languages. There are, at best, more useful and less useful languages.

Your language decides what a tree can be. Your language decides what properties it has. Your language decides what these properties reflect. And there is no prohibition saying that these properties must reflect the object and nothing but the object itself. They are free to reflect anything you want them to reflect, e.g. how the objects they belong to relate to other things.

Every physical object at every single point in time has a property called "speed". This property does not describe anything about the object itself. It says NOTHING about its physical constitution. One and the same speed can be possessed by every conceivable physical object. Instead, it is describing the extent to which the object's position will change after certain period of time. Does that mean we project speed into physical objects? Of course not.

Are you making the argument that since indirect perception is the case (which is correct), everything we experience must have an indirect referent in the external world? So you treat the "value" of an object basically the same way you treat the "speed" of an object?

[Skepdick]

Are you making the argument that since indirect perception is the case (which is correct), everything we experience must have an indirect referent in the external world? So you treat the "value" of an object basically the same way you treat the "speed" of an object?

Look! Some clarity ensues!

Values are objective. The "value" of a noumenon/phenomenon (lets get rid of this stupid distinction already) is its identity.

The entire postmodern paradigm of self-identification is bullshit. Your identity is determined by who and what you are, not who and what you say you are.

[Atla]

Are you making the argument that since indirect perception is the case (which is correct), everything we experience must have an indirect referent in the external world? So you treat the "value" of an object basically the same way you treat the "speed" of an object?

Look! Some clarity ensues!

Values are objective. The "value" of a noumenon is its identity.

The entire postmodern paradigm of self-identification is bullshit. Your identity is determined by who and what you are, not who and what you say you are.

Word salad, the whole point is that values aren't objective the same way speeds are

[Skepdick]

Word salad, the whole point is that values aren't objective the same way speeds are

Yes, they are.

The value we assign to the speed of light is exactly what we assign it to be.

The value we assign to the identity of this object is exactly what we assign it to be.

[Atla]

Word salad, the whole point is that values aren't objective the same way speeds are

Yes, they are.

The value we assign to the speed of light is exactly what we assign it to be.

That's not what the word "value" means here. You are merely unable to grasp the meaning/context here

[Skepdick]

That's not what the word "value" means here. You are merely unable to grasp the meaning/context here

That you don't understand what anything means is most definitely a you-problem.

The meaning of the word "meaning" comes from the fact that meaning is meaningful.
The value of the word "value" comes from the fact that values are valuable.

Meaning is valuable; and value is meaningful.

And if you don't understand the objective value/meaning of the term "rose" then you are definitely the idiot in this conversation.

[Atla]

That's not what the word "value" means here. You are merely unable to grasp the meaning/context here

That you don't understand what anything means is most definitely a you-problem.

The value of the word "value" comes from the fact that values are valuable; and so the word "value" is valuable.
The meaning of the word "meaning" comes from the fact that meaning is meaningful; and so the word "meaning" is meaningful.

Meaning is valuable; and value is meaningful.

And if you don't understand the objective value/meaning of the term "rose" then you are definitely the idiot in this conversation.

Word salad. Look this conversation is relying heavily on our use of meaning/context, so you cannot participate.