What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

When I pat my dog or cook an egg

When you pat your dog; or cook an egg there's a reason why you do those things.

It's the same when you use language. There's a reason why you are using it.

A reason you never seem to want to talk about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA reformulates his false main premise by alluding to Wittgenstein, as follows.

1. The only way to 'the way things are' is via language games.
2. Language games are played by humans.
3. There is no way 'the way things are' can be separated from the human factor.

When I pat my dog or cook an egg, neither feature of 'the way things are' has anything to do with a language game. Language games involve language, which we use to talk about the way things are - or were.

This language game detour is another dead end.

When you state "When I pat my dog or cook an egg" each colored elements in that sentence belongs to a specific language game.

For example each element or 'patting a dog' can be described in millions of ways but you chose to do it in your own specific way within a language game.
There are many layers [in a hierarchy] to what is reality.
The manner you use an element within the a language game will influence your realization of reality.

Note how different people from different environments, cultures, background are influenced by their exposure to the language games they participate-in in their realization of reality.
E.g. Some from different cultures will realize the females merely as an object rather than a person. There is no absolute reality that dictates a female [or a thing] must be this or that specifically, so what is realized as a reality is conditioned upon the language games used or FSRC conditioned upon.

For example 'patting a dog' in different language games, it could be;
- touching furs, meat and bone
- pat a pet
- testing whether the dog is meaty enough to be eaten, etc.
- hundreds of FSRC will realize hundred of reality of it.
- also note the psychological conditions of the subject in each case.
- etc. etc.

Each of the above will have a critical impact on your realization of reality of patting, dog and patting a dog. [note the nuances from crude to refine]

Your problem is you are stuck with a dogmatic and constipated definition of 'what is reality' of the primordial sense, but note;
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
Your sense of reality is the illusory kind, not the realistic one.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think we should very quickly review this conversation to confirm that Pete was right and VA admits it.

First, Pete raises the matter in hand, but then notes that VA will always respond in a certain way....

I can't be bothered to keep showing you why you're wrong. You just ignore the explanations and repeat the falsehoods.

VA responds... he says he has never seen a convincing counter, and now he would like an example.

So far you have not given any convincing counter to my arguments.
If so, just give me one example why I am wrong.

FDP arrives to remember old arguments that got easily torn up for being shit.

You got toasted on your oughtness-to-breathe argument

Then VA revives that argument more or less word for word in a new thread
viewtopic.php?t=41901


VA ... "how is it circular?"

How it is circular?

VA ... yes it is circular

If you are able to use AI to tell you that the argument shown in this thread isn't circular, you have failed to do your due diligence and you have misused the AI. That is the end of the matter.

Yes, AI did point 1 and 3 is circular.
I admit it was a clumsy arrangement, I did it off the cuff without rigor.
However, to get to the argument proper is merely to rearrange the premises to avoid circularity [ensure validity] and define the terms used more precisely.

While ensuring validity, I will also have to ensure soundness.

VA ... The argument wasn't valid and I can correct the circularity... (he can't fix the circularity but learning that issue will take the rest of his natural life I expect)

Not that your talent can determine. I think we've more or less exhausted that resource though.

It is circular, it has been explained, even an AI bot explained as much apparently. But you just don't get it and that's the way things always seem to go.

I did go through my abandoned argument [not valid] as in the OP and made suggestions to avoid circularity and AI suggested how it can be revised to be valid but not necessary sound.

As far as I am concerned I got the substance in the OP except the form was invalid.
Your concern is only with the form [technical] but ignorant of the substance.
But now I have already corrected it without circularity.

So ... when Pete wrote....

I can't be bothered to keep showing you why you're wrong. You just ignore the explanations and repeat the falsehoods.

He was right on both counts. VA's old argument that he had never accepted has any difficulties before was by his current accounf of the matter actually invalid and circular. But he ignored the counter arguments for years, and he's back to ignoring them again instantly. All he is going to do is re-order the premises and then he will be re-using the argument with the circular structure. Which seems like repeating the falsehoods to me.

Has he learned any lessons of humility fromthis? No.

Has he even really noticed that all of us could see that argument was faulty on day 1 and he took years to catch up? No.

[Skepdick]

I think we should very quickly review this conversation to confirm that Pete was right and VA admits it.

And thus morality is objective.

Q.E.D

Has he even really noticed that all of us could see that argument was faulty on day 1 and he took years to catch up? No.

His arguments were exactly as faulty as the question in the OP.

How many of you could see that? When will you actually catch up?

He was right on both counts.

Yeah! Once you ignore that his question was wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think we should very quickly review this conversation to confirm that Pete was right and VA admits it.

First, Pete raises the matter in hand, but then notes that VA will always respond in a certain way....

I can't be bothered to keep showing you why you're wrong. You just ignore the explanations and repeat the falsehoods.

VA responds... he says he has never seen a convincing counter, and now he would like an example.

So far you have not given any convincing counter to my arguments.
If so, just give me one example why I am wrong.

FDP arrives to remember old arguments that got easily torn up for being shit.

You got toasted on your oughtness-to-breathe argument

Then VA revives that argument more or less word for word in a new thread
viewtopic.php?t=41901


VA ... "how is it circular?"

How it is circular?

VA ... yes it is circular

If you are able to use AI to tell you that the argument shown in this thread isn't circular, you have failed to do your due diligence and you have misused the AI. That is the end of the matter.

Yes, AI did point 1 and 3 is circular.
I admit it was a clumsy arrangement, I did it off the cuff without rigor.
However, to get to the argument proper is merely to rearrange the premises to avoid circularity [ensure validity] and define the terms used more precisely.

While ensuring validity, I will also have to ensure soundness.

VA ... The argument wasn't valid and I can correct the circularity... (he can't fix the circularity but learning that issue will take the rest of his natural life I expect)

Not that your talent can determine. I think we've more or less exhausted that resource though.

It is circular, it has been explained, even an AI bot explained as much apparently. But you just don't get it and that's the way things always seem to go.

I did go through my abandoned argument [not valid] as in the OP and made suggestions to avoid circularity and AI suggested how it can be revised to be valid but not necessary sound.

As far as I am concerned I got the substance in the OP except the form was invalid.
Your concern is only with the form [technical] but ignorant of the substance.
But now I have already corrected it without circularity.

So ... when Pete wrote....

I can't be bothered to keep showing you why you're wrong. You just ignore the explanations and repeat the falsehoods.

He was right on both counts. VA's old argument that he had never accepted has any difficulties before was by his current accounf of the matter actually invalid and circular. Has he learned any lessons of humility fromthis? No.

Has he even really noticed that all of us could see that argument was faulty on day 1 and he took years to catch up? No.

Strawman.

Peter was not referring to my argument as in the OP but rather on the question of 'what is fact'.

I had countered Peter's what is fact is grounded on an illusion but he did not counter this effectively.

PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

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

Btw, I know you have stated it many times, but it is tedious for me to search, what is your definition of "what is fact".
I will post it to the FDP Philosophical Stance thread so I don't have to ask you again.

[Iwannaplato]

Or, perhaps, the thread is often

What could make objective be applicable to morality?

Which might or might not be the same as the thread title.

[Skepdick]

Or, perhaps, the thread is often

What could make objective be applicable to morality?

Which might or might not be the same as the thread title.

If you insist on asking such biased questions then I am morally obliged to balance the scales!

What could preclude "objective" from being applicable to morality?

[Peter Holmes]

Some time ago, I agreed that a better title would have been 'Are there moral facts?' - because the existence of moral facts is the only thing that would make morality objective. And, of course, there aren't any.

[Skepdick]

Some time ago, I agreed that a better title would have been 'Are there moral facts?' - because the existence of moral facts is the only thing that would make morality objective.

fact
/fakt/
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

You don't know that murder is wrong?!?
You don't know that the English expression "Murder is wrong" is considered true?!?

You don't accept my proof via the identity axiom?!? A thing implies itself.

If you exist then you exist.
If murder is wrong then murder is wrong.

P. Murder is wrong.
C. Murder is wrong.

It is impossible for the premise to be true while the conclusion to be false. Therefore the argument is valid. By definition!
The premise is true. Therefore the conclusion is true. Therefore the argument is sound.

It is known that murder is wrong; and the statement is proven true - thus it satisfies the definition of "fact". Only an idiot would deny that.

Enter Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes

[FlashDangerpants]

Strawman.

Peter was not referring to my argument as in the OP but rather on the question of 'what is fact'.

Much the same principle applies to everything you do. You are the master of circularising any argument.

Btw, I know you have stated it many times, but it is tedious for me to search, what is your definition of "what is fact".
I will post it to the FDP Philosophical Stance thread so I don't have to ask you again.

I reject hyper-formal approaches to the question. There is something in all the approaches to it that we want. JTB would be great if it were plausible, and obviously something of that order is what we seek when we are dealing with the actual question of what am I sufficiently justified in believing. There are contexts to that quesiton and we work within them, attempts to formalise knowledge are inherently attempts to escape those contexts, and thus they fail.

[Skepdick]

Much the same principle applies to everything you do. You are the master of circularising any argument.

In Mathematics that's called a tautology. It means "true in all possible interpretations".

That's a feature, not a bug.

There are contexts to that quesiton and we work within them, attempts to formalise knowledge are inherently attempts to escape those contexts, and thus they fail.

This is so peculiar for somebody who claims to support OLP. The way to escape ALL contextually is to leverage semantic closures and frame everything as an impredicative yes/no question.

In the most informal, casual and ordinary language possible: Is it objectively wrong to say that morality is objective?

Answer "No" and I see absolutely no reason to veto myself when I say it out loud: Morality is objective!

Unless you want to veto me and say "Yes"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I reject hyper-formal approaches to the question. There is something in all the approaches to it that we want. JTB would be great if it were plausible, and obviously something of that order is what we seek when we are dealing with the actual question of what am I sufficiently justified in believing. There are contexts to that question and we work within them, attempts to formalise knowledge are inherently attempts to escape those contexts, and thus they fail.

You are supporting my FSRC?

I stated whatever is reality, truth, fact ....... is contingent [conditioned, qualified, grounded] upon an embodied human-based FSRC which dictates a specific context.

I agree with JTB as contingent [conditioned, qualified, grounded] upon an embodied human-based FSRC which dictates a specific context.

If I am not mistaken your what is fact is grounded upon OLP i.e. the OLP FSRC, i.e.

• viewtopic.php?p=700384#p700384
  As a theory about the world, Linguistic Philosophy runs like this:
  The world is what it is, and not another thing.
  Everything in the world is what it is, and not another thing.

Kant had argued 'is' [exist] is not a real predicate but rather merely an empty logical predicate.
A fact must have a real predicate which is contingent [conditioned, qualified, grounded] upon an embodied human-based FSRC which dictates a specific context.
No fact can standalone as 'is' without being contingent upon a specific FSRC as its real predicate.

Can you counter the above?

[FlashDangerpants]

I reject hyper-formal approaches to the question. There is something in all the approaches to it that we want. JTB would be great if it were plausible, and obviously something of that order is what we seek when we are dealing with the actual question of what am I sufficiently justified in believing. There are contexts to that question and we work within them, attempts to formalise knowledge are inherently attempts to escape those contexts, and thus they fail.

You are supporting my FSRC?

No. Among other major failings it it's excessively formalised which is exactly what I warn against trying to do. An example being ... You make up nonsensical numbers to represent unquantifiable things like "crediblity" and then you imagine you have measured something. That is a formula for the manufacture of pure bullshit.

You also routinely expect to be able to list everything there is in some category. Like you think you can make a list of all the moral things there are and then make up the afore mentioned numbers to fake a measurement of their badnesses and then .... well I don't even know what rubbish happens after that. Another ridiculous formalised listing game you recommend is to create a giant list of all the different KFC things there could possibly be in order to sort them into some sort of "credibility" chart. Not only is that hyper-formalised, but it is absolutely totally insane and would be a pointless waste of effort even if you could hope to complete such an unending task.

So no, all that hyper-formalised self indulgence leaves me entirely cold. Your KFC theory is madness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I reject hyper-formal approaches to the question. There is something in all the approaches to it that we want. JTB would be great if it were plausible, and obviously something of that order is what we seek when we are dealing with the actual question of what am I sufficiently justified in believing. There are contexts to that question and we work within them, attempts to formalise knowledge are inherently attempts to escape those contexts, and thus they fail.

You are supporting my FSRC?

No. Among other major failings it it's excessively formalised which is exactly what I warn against trying to do. An example being ... You make up nonsensical numbers to represent unquantifiable things like "crediblity" and then you imagine you have measured something. That is a formula for the manufacture of pure bullshit.

You also routinely expect to be able to list everything there is in some category. Like you think you can make a list of all the moral things there are and then make up the afore mentioned numbers to fake a measurement of their badnesses and then .... well I don't even know what rubbish happens after that. Another ridiculous formalised listing game you recommend is to create a giant list of all the different KFC things there could possibly be in order to sort them into some sort of "credibility" chart. Not only is that hyper-formalised, but it is absolutely totally insane and would be a pointless waste of effort even if you could hope to complete such an unending task.

So no, all that hyper-formalised self indulgence leaves me entirely cold. Your KFC theory is madness.

Your insistence upon 'contexts' leads to FSRC.
You cannot ground something on context without reference a FSRC.

Whatever the reality in the contexts of science, it has to be grounded, verified and justified within a Framework and System of Science [comprising the scientific method, peer review and all other necessary conditions].

How else can you establish credibility and objectivity to the conclusions in relation to some context?

[FlashDangerpants]

You are supporting my FSRC?

No. Among other major failings it it's excessively formalised which is exactly what I warn against trying to do. An example being ... You make up nonsensical numbers to represent unquantifiable things like "crediblity" and then you imagine you have measured something. That is a formula for the manufacture of pure bullshit.

You also routinely expect to be able to list everything there is in some category. Like you think you can make a list of all the moral things there are and then make up the afore mentioned numbers to fake a measurement of their badnesses and then .... well I don't even know what rubbish happens after that. Another ridiculous formalised listing game you recommend is to create a giant list of all the different KFC things there could possibly be in order to sort them into some sort of "credibility" chart. Not only is that hyper-formalised, but it is absolutely totally insane and would be a pointless waste of effort even if you could hope to complete such an unending task.

So no, all that hyper-formalised self indulgence leaves me entirely cold. Your KFC theory is madness.

Your insistence upon 'contexts' leads to FSRC.

Like you invented context. Get over yourself you maniac.

How else can you establish credibility and objectivity to the conclusions in relation to some context?

Don't. You don't need to do any such thing, or least not scientifically. So don't make up a lunatic bullshit pseudo-scientific sorting game to sort things that don't need to be, and can't actually be, formally sorted.