The Philosophy Discussion Forum

PH's "Morality is NOT Objective" is False.

PH's argument that "Morality is NOT Objective" is as follows;

• P1 Facts are absolutely independent of human conditions.
  P2 Moral assertions of morality are dependent on human conditions.
  C1 Moral assertions of morality cannot be facts.
  
  P3 What is objective is represented by facts[P1]
  P4 Morality is not represented by facts. [C1]
  C2 Morality is NOT objective

I disagree with the above argument;
PH's "Morality is NOT Objective" is False, i.e.

There are two senses of 'what is fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
A. Facts as feature of reality = illusory, fiction, nonsensical
B: FSK Conditioned Facts = realistic, e.g. scientific facts.

Since PH adopts sense A in P1, PH's facts are illusory - P1 cannot be real.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

There are two senses of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense - illusory
2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense - realistic
Since PH adopts sense 1, his sense of Objectivity is illusory, not real and false.

Since PH's P1 is illusory, not real and false,
the conclusion C2 that follows from P1 is false.

So, PH's C2 "Morality is NOT Objective" is False.
QED

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:05 am PH's P1 is illusory, not real and false

Did you outsource the authoring of this argument to Age?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 4:56 pm Elsewhere, VA has kindly offered a travesty of my argument against moral objectivism.
So here's VA's own argument for moral objectivism.

P1 A fact exists only within a 'framework and system of knowledge'.
P2 There is a morality 'framework and system of knowledge'.
C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

Agree in general.

P1 is false, because the facts we discover and describe existed before we discovered and described them, and would exist even had we not discovered and described them. (After all, there was a universe before humans turned up, would be one had we not turned up, and will be one after we're gone.)

As this premise is false, the argument is unsound.

What you are ignorant of is there are perspectives and their precisions in the consideration of reality.
Within the vulgar crude common sense, convention sense [Newtonian, Einsteinian] it is relative and necessarily true, the universe existed [emerging from the Big Bang] before there were humans.
But this is the crude sense of reality while there a more precise sense of reality.

Within the more precise sense of reality, whatever exist, they are intertwined and entangled with the human conditions.

Note this thread;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
implying the existence of reality is intertwined and entangled with the human conditions.
which contain the principles of the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics.
If you disagree with P1, that reflects your ignorance.

P2 begs the question, because it assumes the conclusion: that there are moral facts which can therefore be known within a framework and system of knowledge. (After all, there is an astrology 'framework and system of knowledge', so there should be astrology facts and astrology should be objective. But there aren't, and it isn't.)

As this premise assumes the conclusion, the argument is fallacious.

The most credible and reliable Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] is the scientific FSK which has a high degree of objectivity.
All moral facts from the moral FSK are reducible to the scientific-biology FSK and other sub-scientific FSKs, thus has near equivalence of objectivity to the scientific FSK.

On the other hand, whatever facts as claimed from the astrology FSK or the theistic FSK cannot be reducible to scientific facts, thus has low or zero degree of objectivity.

Btw, your linguistic-fact-FSK by itself cannot be reduced to scientific facts or its near equivalent, therefore its objectivity is negligible.

Note "There Are No Such Things As Facts"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39806
as claimed by Lawrence Johnson;

Lawrence Johnson wrote:Also, Facts are often said to have something to do with the story, in some way or another.
Facts have a way of intruding into truth theory as well as into practical affairs, and in each case we must come to terms with them.
Even so, I believe that while a practical concern for the facts is usually of benefit, truth theory has very often suffered as a result of a preoccupation with facts.
This is because truth theorists have too often taken facts as if they were entities of some sort.
Rather, I maintain, fact-language is a means we have for talking about things, with facts being merely linguistic substantives.
They [Facts] are not entities of any sort, not even propositional entities.
(There are no propositional entities.)

What you claimed as 'facts' are merely linguistic-FSK substantives or things, i.e. intelligible things aka noumena that has no sense of reality.
Your facts as features of reality which is just-is, state of affairs, that is/was the case, are merely illusory linguistic substantives /things only for the purpose of talking about things within the linguistic FSK.

Lawrence Johnson wrote:Fact-language is very complex, following a number of related but different patterns.
I shall argue that we can, at least normally, identify a performative-like factor, wherein our use of the term fact serves to express certification of the adequacy of the evidence for some directly verifiable empirical statement.

When you use the phrase 'it is a fact that' [within the linguistic FSK] you are merely alluding to some degrees of the adequacy of the evidence for some directly verifiable empirical statement [that necessitate the authority of the scientific or other verification FSKs].


Note,
It is the fact that [linguistic fact] 'water is H20' [science chemistry' conflates two FSKs, i.e. the linguistic FSK and the science-chemistry FSK.
this statement cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions because the FSKs inevitably entangle with the human conditions.

What I claimed as "facts" are human-based-FSK facts which can be reduced to scientific facts.