The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

[Terrapin Station]

So what are you arguing is objective?

I am arguing that what IS is a priori the objective/subjective distinction.

And how does that amount to arguing that something is objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

When one person issues a statement such as "I know that this dog has fleas" and another person says "I know that this dog has no fleas" these claims are contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other must be false.

When one measurement apparatus issues a statement "The particle has left-spin" and another measurement apparatus issues the statement "The particle has right-spin" these claims are contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other one must be false.

That is part of what it means to have knowledge of whether or not a dog is flea ridden.

That's part of what it means to have knowledge of a particle's left or right spin.

If your claim to moral knowledge is so weak that you can tell us you know drowning kittens to be wrong,

If your claim to objective knowledge is so weak that you can tell us that the particle has left-spin.

but you cannot say that someone else who says it is right is thereby mistaken, then you are failing to meet the most basic requirements for knowing stuff.

but you cannot say that some other apparatus that says it is right is thereby mistaken, then you are failing to meet the most basic requirements of knowing stuff.

Philosophicus Retardicus.

If you are using a ruler to measure the table, you are also using the table to measure the ruler....

Are those spin claims even mutually exclusive in the field of particle physics? There's a lot of weird stuff in that game. But if they are, then there is some way to resolve the matter, and one of the claims is necessarily mistaken, even if the answer of which is not currently known.

That's fundamentally different from just saying killing kittens is both morally right and morally wrong and these both true facts.

[Skepdick]

And how does that amount to arguing that something is objective?

I am arguing that it's measurable.

If some measurements are subjective, and some measurements are objective, I leave the ball in your court to account for the special pleading.

[Skepdick]

Are those spin claims even mutually exclusive in the field of particle physics?
There's a lot of weird stuff in that game. But if they are, then there is some way to resolve the matter, and one of the claims is necessarily mistaken, even if the answer of which is not currently known.

The notion of "mutual exclusivity" is incoherent on observation. Things are what they are observed to be. What we say thereafter is a matter of convention.

Two measurement devices. One question (Does the particle have left-spin?).One device measures "yes" the other one measures "no".
If these answers are "mutually exclusive" how do you determine which apparatus is in error?

Who determines which device needs "fixing" when the "left" and "right" designations are arbitrary and no convention exists?

As best as you can "determine a mistake" if you simply switched "left" and "right" on either device the "mutual exclusivity" problem disappears.

That's fundamentally different from just saying killing kittens is both morally right and morally wrong and these both true facts.

Fundamentally different how? We label one state of the world as "left" and we measure another state of the world as "right"

[bahman]

The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.
I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality]. This is an objective fact that is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus objective.

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
100% of all normal people will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

Note my definitions;

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  A fact is that which is specific to its Framework and System of Knowledge and Reality.
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Who is arguing 'survival' and 'well being' are matters of opinion and not matters of fact?

Have you ever thought of commit suicide? There are people who live with it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Are those spin claims even mutually exclusive in the field of particle physics?
There's a lot of weird stuff in that game. But if they are, then there is some way to resolve the matter, and one of the claims is necessarily mistaken, even if the answer of which is not currently known.

The notion of "mutual exclusivity" is incoherent on observation. Things are what they are observed to be. What we say thereafter is a matter of convention.

Two measurement devices. One question (Does the particle have left-spin?).One device measures "yes" the other one measures "no".
If these answers are "mutually exclusive" how do you determine which apparatus is in error?

Who determines which device needs "fixing" when the "left" and "right" designations are arbitrary and no convention exists?

As best as you can "determine a mistake" if you simply switched "left" and "right" on either device the "mutual exclusivity" problem disappears.

That's fundamentally different from just saying killing kittens is both morally right and morally wrong and these both true facts.

Fundamentally different how? We label one state of the world as "left" and we measure another state of the world as "right"

So there is functionally zero difference between there being moral fact and there being no moral fact. Why bother with the distinction?

[Terrapin Station]

And how does that amount to arguing that something is objective?

I am arguing that it's measurable.

If some measurements are subjective, and some measurements are objective, I leave the ball in your court to account for the special pleading.

"Measurable" to you would be the case if someone is just saying "yes" or "no" to "Is x morally permissible" for example, right?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The reason why scientific knowledge progresses by means of 'intersubjective consensus' is precisely the need for objectivity: 'dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations'.

The consensus theory of truth - an assertion is true because that's the consensus opinion - is obviously incorrect. That's not how we use the word 'truth' and its cognates. And words can mean only what we use them to mean.

So you will not accept any scientific truths, facts and knowledge at all because to you they are obviously incorrect??
How can you be so dumb when it is so evident scientific knowledge despite its limitations and lack of precision has contributed so much positives to humanity.

What is critical is not "And words can mean only what we use them to mean." This is the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivist and classical analytical philosophy.

You are onto to rhetoric again. Consensus is not the critical factor for credibility of any claim, note the flat-Earth theory, or God exists.
What you deliberate ignored is my regular claim, whatever is truth, facts and knowledge must be verified and justified empirically & philosophically within a credible FSK.
Whatever consensus in the case of the scientific FSK must be grounded to the above bolded.
At present the scientific FSK is the most credible even at best scientific truths are merely polished conjectures.

However scientific knowledge is most reliable and credible based on the following;

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060

• 1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness
  9. Predictability.

The addition feature is testability and repeatability where Science assured the results will be consistent upon the same tests done by anyone.

But here's why some moral objectivists like consensus theory: if an assertion is true because that's the consensus opinion, then a moral assertion can be true if that's the consensus opinion.

It's a lovely con.

You are building straw_men.
As I had stated, you are onto to the fallacy of hasty generalization and branding all 'moral objectivists' or moral realists the same.
My approach is that of moral empirical realists which rely heavily on inputs from Science and the moral FSK is as near-credible as the scientific FSK.

Your determination to misunderstand my argument is a wonder to behold. I agree with you about the success of scientific methods, and the importance of objectivity and empirical testability. And I agree with you that any truth-claim depends on a descriptive context.

But you have invented 'the moral FSK', and vainly repeat your mantra that moral facts exist within that fiction - for which you've never produced evidence - let alone the empirically testable evidence you rightly demand.

Note my explanation of what is a Moral FSK.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603
and response to you counter therein
viewtopic.php?p=487739#p487739

[Veritas Aequitas]

So the first problem here is that statements can't be objective. They can be about objective things, but the statement itself can't be objective.

Principle of Charity?

I stated whatever is claimed [concluded] within a FSK which obviously have to presented in a statement conditioned upon the FSK and not of the individual's opinion.

Hence why we shouldn't be too "charitable" here and say, "Oh, well, surely he meant that statements can be about objective things, but the statement itself isn't objective." Because the looseness is leading you to conclude that what counts as well-being, as well as striving to survive as opposed to alternatives, are objectively determined somehow rather than being "opinions."

What is objective generally is;
: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

And there is nothing that counts as "well-being" where that's not "distorted" by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations. Hence this isn't something objective.

You are too hasty due to your narrow perspectives of human nature, note the below at the minimum re clinical psychology;

Scientific approaches to Well-Being
Three subdisciplines in psychology are critical for the study of psychological well-being:[15]

Developmental psychology, in which psychological well-being may be analyzed in terms of a pattern of growth across the lifespan.

Personality psychology, in which it is possible to apply Maslow's concept of self-actualization, Rogers' concept of the fully functioning person, Jung's concept of individuation, and Allport's concept of maturity to account for psychological well-being.[16]

Clinical psychology, in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.

There are two approaches typically taken to understand psychological well-being:

Distinguishing positive and negative effects and defining optimal psychological well-being and happiness as a balance between the two.[17]
Emphasizes life satisfaction as the key indicator of psychological well-being.[16]
According to Guttman and Levy (1982) well-being is "...a special case of attitude".[18] This approach serves two purposes in the study of well-being: "developing and testing a [systematic] theory for the structure of [interrelationships] among varieties of well-being, and integration of well-being theory with the ongoing[when?] cumulative theory[clarification needed] development in the fields of attitude of related research".[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-bein ... approaches

Note also [ibid]:

• Models and components of well-being
  3.1 Causal Network Models of Well-being (and Ill-being)
  3.2 Diener: tripartite model of subjective well-being
  3.3 Six-factor Model of Psychological Well-being
  3.4 Corey Keyes: flourishing
  3.5 Seligman: positive psychology
  .......3.5.1PERMA-theory
  3.6 Biopsychosocial model of wellbeing
  3.7 UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) definition

So how you deny well-being within the above perspectives are not objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.
I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality]. This is an objective fact that is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus objective.

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
100% of all normal people will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

Note my definitions;

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  A fact is that which is specific to its Framework and System of Knowledge and Reality.
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Who is arguing 'survival' and 'well being' are matters of opinion and not matters of fact?

Have you ever thought of commit suicide? There are people who live with it.

I stated the fundamental of well-being is to survive well - note 3 below,

Scientific approaches to well being
Three subdisciplines in psychology are critical for the study of psychological well-being:[15]

1. Developmental psychology, in which psychological well-being may be analyzed in terms of a pattern of growth across the lifespan.
2. Personality psychology, in which it is possible to apply Maslow's concept of self-actualization, Rogers' concept of the fully functioning person, Jung's concept of individuation, and Allport's concept of maturity to account for psychological well-being.[16]
3. Clinical psychology, in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.

All human beings are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality.

Those who are prone to suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

IYO

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.

People chose to die. People face the inevitable.

Note my point above, repeat,

All human beings are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality.

Those who are prone to suicide and has committed suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality].

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
100% of all normal people will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

Please cite evidence

Note 'will'.
It is an inference from the above, i.e. DNA wise and generically ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality].

Those who are prone to suicide and has committed suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

[Skepdick]

So there is functionally zero difference between there being moral fact and there being no moral fact. Why bother with the distinction?

There's functionally zero difference between there being facts and there being no facts.

And yet you bother with the difference. Unless... you are mistaken about the function of facts.

[Skepdick]

"Measurable" to you would be the case if someone is just saying "yes" or "no" to "Is x morally permissible" for example, right?

It would be to anybody who knows what a Shannon is, and who thinks their questions are coherent/well-formulated such that they can be assigned a yes/no answer.

Is question X coherent?
Is measurement X objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

So there is functionally zero difference between there being moral fact and there being no moral fact. Why bother with the distinction?

There's functionally zero difference between there being facts and there being no facts.

And yet you bother with the difference. Unless... you are mistaken about the function of facts.

What would a 'mistake' of that sort even look like? It can't be a mistake if it's backed by a measurement of 1 bit of information, such as an opinion.

There is probably no internally consistent way to describe your position in this matter using human languages. Is it time for you tell us that this is our failing for not being computers or something? Dribbling meatware is never really adequate for any of your robot overlord demands.

[Skepdick]

What would a 'mistake' of that sort even look like? It can't be a mistake if it's backed by a measurement of 1 bit of information, such as an opinion.

That's what I am asking you.

As long as it coheres with my axioms it's not a "mistake". We are just using different measurement standards.

So how do you decide which measurement system is "wrong" ?

There is probably no internally consistent way to describe your position in this matter using human languages.

That's the part you keep failing to grok. If my position was "internally consistent" I wouldn't be able to communicate it to you in any interactive manner.

An internally consistent system would have NO detectable side-effects.

Communication necessitates change. Change is inconsistency.