Philosophy Now Forum

VA: There are moral facts, and morality is objective.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:57 am VA's argument.

P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

P2 Morality is part of reality.

C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

This argument remains invalid, despite VA's convoluted version of P1. And as for soundness?

Edited P1:
So my argument is this;

• P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK which dictates objectivity.
  P2 Morality [FSK-ed] is part of reality [FSK-ed].
  C Therefore, there are moral facts [FSK-ed], and morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].

A more brief argument is as follows;

• 1. Whatever variable of reality is FSK-ed, it dictates Objectivity.
  2. Morality [FSK-ed] is a variable of reality [FSK-ed]
  3. Morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].

Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its truth.
To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

ETA:
Due to the critique of my use of "enables" I have changed it to dictates to give it more logical force.

Notes: KIV

.................................
Note 1.
Why my P1 as it is to avoid dragging the combersome long list of very relevant sub-premises attached to it every time I refer to my first P1.

P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK, which dictates objectivity.

My P1 can be analyzed into the various sub-premises with its own supported argument [done in various threads and posts.

P1a There are two senses of objectivity i.e. [1] Realist and [2] Anti-Realist or FSK-ed

P1b Whatever exists as conditioned [predicated] upon a human-based FSK, is Objective [FSK-ed].

P1c Whatever things emerged and realized as real is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.

P1d Whatever is reality is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.

P1e Whatever is a real fact is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.

P1f Whatever is real factual truth is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
P1fi Whatever is true or false regarding reality is conditioned upon a human based FSK.

P1g Whatever is perception is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.

P1h Whatever is Knowledge is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.

P1i Whatever is description of all the above is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.

Each of the above premises are supported by an argument [posted in various threads].

I insist they are valid and to avoid the dragging of the above cumbersome points, the combinations of them into one premise P1 is valid.
-------------------------------------------

Notes: KIV

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

The human-based science FSK points outside of itself, to objective reality. When will you stop abusing science?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

Because it's conditioned. If it wasn't conditioned, then it could be really real. But given it is dependent on an FSK it's just real or perhaps 'real'.
What we look for in philosophy is the really real. We can't be realists about our ideas any more than about supposed things in themselves.

Something conditioned on an FSK is only real if the FSK is good at its job. So, we don't know if it's really real.
Like everything else it's just real as experienced through the FSK, so far, if that.
Really real, that's FSK independent and we know there's no such thing.

One thing that should have been noted long ago: FSKs create expectations and thus bias. While they are very useful, once you go into experience with an FSK, you find the FSK: confimation bias and all that.

I am not saying one can go without an FSK, but it needs to be noted that believing in FSKs will color your experience, even create it whole cloth.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:57 am P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.
To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

P1 in that state isn't even a premise. It's a rambling preamble with a non-sequitur about "enabling objectivity" tacked on at the end. But crucially, the argument can never be valid unless that is "entailing" or "creating". Mere enabling is insufficient to the logical task.

I don't see much reason to bother fixing P1 though if that's what you are relying on for a P2.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:57 am P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.
To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

P1 in that state isn't even a premise. It's a rambling preamble with a non-sequitur about "enabling objectivity" tacked on at the end. But crucially, the argument can never be valid unless that is "entailing" or "creating". Mere enabling is insufficient to the logical task.

I don't see much reason to bother fixing P1 though if that's what you are relying on for a P2.

Agreed. But knocking VA's P1 into shape may help to show why it's false or at least not shown to be true. Here are some suggestions.

P1 There are no facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and our ways of describing them.

P1 Facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and the ways we describe them are illusions.

P1 Facts of reality exist only 'within' a 'framework and system of knowledge'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am VA: There are moral facts, and morality is objective.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:57 am VA's argument.

P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

P2 Morality is part of reality.

C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

This argument remains invalid, despite VA's convoluted version of P1. And as for soundness?

Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.

That makes it relative to the FSK at best, but subjective to you personally.
QED not objective.

To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

P1 is wrong because that which is truly objective must stand alone regardless of your opinion (FSK)

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 12:14 pm that which is truly objective must stand alone regardless of your opinion

Why do you opine so?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 11:06 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am
Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.
To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

P1 in that state isn't even a premise. It's a rambling preamble with a non-sequitur about "enabling objectivity" tacked on at the end. But crucially, the argument can never be valid unless that is "entailing" or "creating". Mere enabling is insufficient to the logical task.

I don't see much reason to bother fixing P1 though if that's what you are relying on for a P2.

Agreed. But knocking VA's P1 into shape may help to show why it's false or at least not shown to be true. Here are some suggestions.

P1 There are no facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and our ways of describing them.

P1 Facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and the ways we describe them are illusions.

P1 Facts of reality exist only 'within' a 'framework and system of knowledge'.

To stand any chance, it will have to be converted from a premise to a prior argument. So I guess that would be something like.
P1. What we know as 'Objectivity' is a psychological phenomenon triggered by sharing of belief among many persons.
P2. These FSK/FSR things are the method by which we construct the form of consensus knows as 'objectivity'
Therefore: If we can construct an FSK, we can construct a corresponding 'objective' viewpoint.

Then he can drop that stupid "Morality is part of reality" shit show and just try to make the question of whether we can construct a morality FSK thing an inductive question (answer: sure, why not?) and then he can move to the conclusion that under the assumptions that come with three nested levels of this FSK stuff: Therefore a self supporting FSK of morality can meaningfully assert factual moral claims.

It's not actually a question of whether he can ever put together an argument that is valid, and if he is willing to claim that the circularity is virtuous (which in other threads looks like his direction) then it can be valid and sound as well so long as all the compromises that entails are accepted.

But at the end of the journey the result is a statement of ineffective fact. An actual objective statement has a quality such that the contradiction of that statement is erroneous. VA's best possible outcome is an objective fact that is nonetheless clearly false.

The root cause of his error is easy to spot. There is a difference not of magnitude, but of type, between objective information and subjective stuff. It comes down to how we test whether they are true and false, do we point to an external object or a psychological one. He has been encouraged in this failing by everybody talking about "truth conditions" too much. He has been fuzzing the edges of that concept which gives him the feeling he is making progress without him actually making any. If he stops trying to convert opinion polls into measurements he will have no choice but to stop this parade of bullshit.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am VA: There are moral facts, and morality is objective.

Well, if only theoretically. Objective morality defined and deduced into existence "philosophically".

And all I can do is to request of those who believe this to bring their "technical" arguments here -- viewforum.php?f=7 -- and explore them in regard to a particular set of circumstances.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

Because it's conditioned. If it wasn't conditioned, then it could be really real. But given it is dependent on an FSK it's just real or perhaps 'real'.
What we look for in philosophy is the really real. We can't be realists about our ideas any more than about supposed things in themselves.

Something conditioned on an FSK is only real if the FSK is good at its job. So, we don't know if it's really real.
Like everything else it's just real as experienced through the FSK, so far, if that.
Really real, that's FSK independent and we know there's no such thing.

Per definition above, whatever is conditioned upon a FSR-FSK is considered real and objective.
The question is to what degrees of realness and objectivity it is, taking into account the credibility of the FSR-FSK.
Thus whatever emerged from the Scientific FSK has high degrees of realness and objectivity while that, say, the theistic FSK has negligible degrees of realness and objectivity.

Because it's conditioned. If it wasn't conditioned, then it could be really real. But given it is dependent on an FSK it's just real or perhaps 'real'.

The 'realness' per se is not fully dependent on the said FSR-FSK.
There is already a prior 'realness' within humanity interaction with reality, the considered FSR-FSK merely reinforced additional degrees of realness and objectivity to what is prior, i.e. a priori real.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

One thing that should have been noted long ago: FSKs create expectations and thus bias. While they are very useful, once you go into experience with an FSK, you find the FSK: confirmation bias and all that.

I am not saying one can go without an FSK, but it needs to be noted that believing in FSKs will color your experience, even create it whole cloth.

P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

The whole purpose of a human-based FSK is to enable 'objectivity' i.e. independent of an individual [or a loose group of people] opinions, beliefs and judgment.

All variables within reality [all there is] is conditioned upon a FSR-FSK - there is no exceptions. [note this is based on Kant's Copernican Revolution].

Since it is conditioned upon a FSK, it is obviously 'bias' to the FSK. Adopting a specific human-based FSK will definitely "color your experience, even create its whole cloth." This is not a problem as long as we know what FSK we are conditioned upon.
This is so obvious with say the human-based theological-FSK which will "color theists' experience, even create its whole cloth."
It is the same with any other FSK.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:57 am P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.
To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

P1 in that state isn't even a premise. It's a rambling preamble with a non-sequitur about "enabling objectivity" tacked on at the end. But crucially, the argument can never be valid unless that is "entailing" or "creating". Mere enabling is insufficient to the logical task.

I don't see much reason to bother fixing P1 though if that's what you are relying on for a P2.

My P1 is a convenience, actually it is culmination of many sub-arguments for all the variables within P1 enabling or sustaining a state of objectivity.
I don't want to drag all these sub-arguments along, thus I have combined them into one premise P1.

I have gone through P1 in much details with PH which he understood and agreed is valid but do not agree the whole of it is sound.

"Entailing" or "creating" is a matter of semantic re logic. I have no issue if one want to use it. However I believe the use,
"enabling: give (someone) the authority or means to do something; make it possible for"
is still applicable.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 11:06 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am
Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.
To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

P1 in that state isn't even a premise. It's a rambling preamble with a non-sequitur about "enabling objectivity" tacked on at the end. But crucially, the argument can never be valid unless that is "entailing" or "creating". Mere enabling is insufficient to the logical task.

I don't see much reason to bother fixing P1 though if that's what you are relying on for a P2.

Agreed. But knocking VA's P1 into shape may help to show why it's false or at least not shown to be true. Here are some suggestions.

P1 There are no facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and our ways of describing them.

P1 Facts of reality 'outside' or 'beyond' what we know and the ways we describe them are illusions.

P1 Facts of reality exist only 'within' a 'framework and system of knowledge'.

You did agree to the above P1 is valid but not do not accept it is sound.
Note the trail of the discussion we went through to arrive at the above P1.

The problem is, it would be too cumbersome for me to be precise meaning having to drag along all the sub-arguments for all the relevant variables I claimed to be objective as conditioned upon the human-based FSK.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 12:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:12 am VA: There are moral facts, and morality is objective.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:57 am VA's argument.

P1 What emerged and realized as facts of reality therefrom our perception and knowledge of those facts, i.e. truths, thence our ways of describing them - must be conditioned upon a human-based fsr-fsk, enabling objectivity.

P2 Morality is part of reality.

C Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

This argument remains invalid, despite VA's convoluted version of P1. And as for soundness?

Obviously to me, my P1 is sound based on its FSK-ed truth.

That makes it relative to the FSK at best, but subjective to you personally.
QED not objective.

To establish soundness, you have to understand [not agree...yet] my P1 which you have not bothered to, but simply waved it off due to your fundamentalist dogmatism.
Give one strong reason why my P1 cannot be really real as conditioned to its relevant human-based FSK, i.e. the human-based scientific FSK.

P1 is wrong because that which is truly objective must stand alone regardless of your opinion (FSK)

There is more to it than your above.

Note this;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

P1 is wrong because that which is truly objective must stand alone regardless of your opinion (FSK)

We have gone through this many times.

A scientific fact from a human-based FSK is objective because it stand alone regardless of yours, mine, or any one scientist opinion.
But because the science FSK has a human-based grounding, it is not absolutely objective but rather intersubjective, i.e. subjectivity prevails within objectivity.