What could make morality objective?

[phyllo]

It's evaluative, that's all there is to the matter. Your best isn't necessarily my best and God's best is nothing but his preference.

An omnibenevolent god wants to maximize human benefit. That's its preference.

There's nothing objective about dryness being good.

In certain situations it is.

Thinness of the egg shell is a porperty that inheres to the shell, it is an actual objective property. Desirability of the egg is a subjective property, it is a part of you, not of the egg. Now you should understand why multiple persons subjectively liking something is not the same as that thing having an inherent property of goodness.

Yeah, I understand that you are looking for an inherent property of goodness and I'm not surprised that you can't find it.

I will give you another example.

Animals have certain characteristics and behaviors and they live in a particular environment. All objective facts.

If the characteristics and behaviors are well adapted to the environment, then they thrive. If not ...

But there is no inherent property of adaptivity in the universe.

And the animal behaviors are not subjective.

Furthermore, animals with the same or only slightly different characteristics but who live in a different environment can have other behaviors. This is also not subjective.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's evaluative, that's all there is to the matter. Your best isn't necessarily my best and God's best is nothing but his preference.

An omnibenevolent god wants to maximize human benefit. That's its preference.

And? That's still evaluative, God evaluates what counts as benefit and does so in terms that at least some other entity would disagree with, and the only reason why God is right is that he is bigger than they are?

According to Immanuel Can, God holds the belief that homosexuality is wrong, if that turns out to be true I will just disagree with him. If He says I have to agree because God is Omnibnevolent I will just say that nevertheless he is wrong. If he says I have to change my mind becuase otherwise devils will poke my rump with a stick for eternity I will do as I am told but might doesn't make right, so I shouldn't.

There's nothing objective about dryness being good.

In certain situations it is.

If it's dependent upon circumstance that's a fairly bad start. But much worse is that the relevant circumstances are defined by the subjective evaluative desires for comfort of some experiencing being. That's not objective.

Thinness of the egg shell is a porperty that inheres to the shell, it is an actual objective property. Desirability of the egg is a subjective property, it is a part of you, not of the egg. Now you should understand why multiple persons subjectively liking something is not the same as that thing having an inherent property of goodness.

Yeah, I understand that you are looking for an inherent property of goodness and I'm not surprised that you can't find it.

Well, any objective property will do, inherence is the obvious relation to look for. If it doesn't inhere then it can supervene or whatever. Whether directly or otherwise, the natural properties of the thing must support some moral predicate. The point is that there has to be a truth-tracking quality to it, something where we can detect that there is an error when an error is made. Settling for "things which are generally agreed to by all sensible gentlemen" won't meet that requirement.

I will give you another example.

Animals have certain characteristics and behaviors and they live in a particular environment. All objective facts.

If the characteristics and behaviors are well adapted to the environment, then they thrive. If not ...

But there is no inherent property of adaptivity in the universe.

And the animal behaviors are not subjective.

Furthermore, animals with the same or only slightly different characteristics but who live in a different environment can have other behaviors. This is also not subjective.

Ok. That doesn't make any difference though. If I look at an object and I project my thoughts about that object onto it, those thoughts don't become a property of the object itself, they are properties of my thinking.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Animals have certain characteristics and behaviors and they live in a particular environment. All objective facts.
And the animal behaviors are not subjective.
Furthermore, animals with the same or only slightly different characteristics but who live in a different environment can have other behaviors. This is also not subjective.

That is a very good point.

To discuss on 'objectivity vs subjective' it is necessary to get the bearing right, see this thread;
There are Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?t=39326
1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
2. Objectivity in the FSR-FSK Sense

The behaviors of All animals [non-humans] are obviously objective in this sense, but it must be qualified to a Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
In this case, all animal behaviors are 'objective' within the science-biology-FSR-FSK.

We can also study human [are also animals] behavior as with other animals.
In that case, all human [animals] behaviors are objective within the science-biology-FSK, the science-psychology-FSK and moral[science]-FSK.

What is critical is you MUST qualify 'objectivity' to a FSR-FSK [scientific FSK the most credible and objective], else you will find poison-arrows [of the primitive tribes] raining on you from mind-independent PH, FDP & gang.

If the characteristics and behaviors are well adapted to the environment, then they thrive. If not ...
But there is no inherent property of adaptivity in the universe.

From the science-biology-evolution FSK "adaptivity" is an inherent objective property, else there would be no humans at present.
This is represented by physical DNA codes and a neural algorithm [physical neurons].

• Evolutionary adaptation, or simply adaptation, is the adjustment of organisms to their environment in order to improve their chances at survival in that environment.
  https://education.nationalgeographic.or ... daptation/

[FlashDangerpants]

That's gotta suck. You think you're doing fine, but then VA comes along and says you are doing great, and you know that can only mean you've fucked up.

[phyllo]

And? That's still evaluative, God evaluates what counts as benefit and does so in terms that at least some other entity would disagree with, and the only reason why God is right is that he is bigger than they are?

The reason he is right is that he knows more than anyone and has better judgement than anyone.

According to Immanuel Can, God holds the belief that homosexuality is wrong, if that turns out to be true I will just disagree with him. If He says I have to agree because God is Omnibnevolent I will just say that nevertheless he is wrong. If he says I have to change my mind becuase otherwise devils will poke my rump with a stick for eternity I will do as I am told but might doesn't make right, so I shouldn't.

If a chess grandmaster or chess computer tells you the best move in a position, you don't have to play it.

In terms of morality, you have a lot of flexibility. You risk being chastised or punished by society. You may lose out in the end. But maybe you think the gain outweighs the risk or loss. And maybe you will win in the end.

Morality is about benefiting many individuals within a society. You may wish to tip the scale in your favor.

At the extreme, you can choose to fuck over everyone else and look out for numero uno.

[FlashDangerpants]

And? That's still evaluative, God evaluates what counts as benefit and does so in terms that at least some other entity would disagree with, and the only reason why God is right is that he is bigger than they are?

The reason he is right is that he knows more than anyone and has better judgement than anyone.

That's absurdly circular.

According to Immanuel Can, God holds the belief that homosexuality is wrong, if that turns out to be true I will just disagree with him. If He says I have to agree because God is Omnibnevolent I will just say that nevertheless he is wrong. If he says I have to change my mind becuase otherwise devils will poke my rump with a stick for eternity I will do as I am told but might doesn't make right, so I shouldn't.

If a chess grandmaster or chess computer tells you the best move in a position, you don't have to play it.

In terms of morality, you have a lot of flexibility. You risk being chastised or punished by society. You may lose out in the end. But maybe you think the gain outweighs the risk or loss. And maybe you will win in the end.

Morality is about benefiting many individuals within a society. You may wish to tip the scale in your favor.

At the extreme, you can choose to fuck over everyone else and look out for numero uno.

It's only "best" under hypothecation. There is nothing rational about winning games or even playing them, the imperative is hypothecated upon a desire to succeed at a thing. Other hypothetical imperatives derive from wishing to not get scolded, or wanting to tip some scales. The assumption that these are "good" outcomes is question begging.

Your examples all fall foul of the issue I already mentioned. The better ones are still only the product of colloquial reason - the reasonable man wants to stay dry even when it rains, the man who wants to play chess badly makes no particular sense to us. This isn't reason as derived from universal law, it's just cultural norms and generic expectations. You can't get from the one level to the other naturally.

[Iwannaplato]

Morality is about benefiting many individuals within a society. You may wish to tip the scale in your favor.

That's consequentialism. Are you saying God is a consequentialist and not a deontologist and how do we know that?
Evolutionary thriving is practical - and very complicated. In the long run it might be good for humans to cull children. We're early days in evolution. Morality is often distinguished precisely from the practical. It often has to do with doing what doesn't make one thrive. And often, even, what doesn't seem at least, to make anyone thrive, in the evolutionary sense. You don't do the wrong thing because of what it is not what it does.

And if we look at life on earth: if God was omnibenevolent when he made us, he put us on a dangerous, ultimately resource low planet, with avalanches, diseases, and large predators.

It seems like God thought early culling of humans was best for humans.

But then, interestingly, allowed us to elminate some of these threats with technology.

[phyllo]

It's only "best" under hypothecation. There is nothing rational about winning games or even playing them, the imperative is hypothecated upon a desire to succeed at a thing. Other hypothetical imperatives derive from wishing to not get scolded, or wanting to tip some scales. The assumption that these are "good" outcomes is question begging.

Your examples all fall foul of the issue I already mentioned. The better ones are still only the product of colloquial reason - the reasonable man wants to stay dry even when it rains, the man who wants to play chess badly makes no particular sense to us. This isn't reason as derived from universal law, it's just cultural norms and generic expectations. You can't get from the one level to the other naturally.

Colloquial reason? Cultural norms and generic expectations don't come from universal laws?

Let me finish off with another example. Iambiguous, take notes ... this is a down to earth example, out of the philosophical clouds.

The morality of ice cream

You live with your parents, siblings, grandparents.

There is a tub of ice cream in the freezer.

Benevolent god says that you ought to take one scoop so that everyone can have some.

But you want 3 scoops.

What the hell, you eat the entire tub.

The rest of the family is pissed off to various degrees.

Over time, they probably forgive and forget. You got away with something at others expense.

But if you keep doing that, people are going to get more and more annoyed. Your parents are going to stop buying ice cream because it's nothing but a source of conflict.

You ate a lot of ice cream for a short period of time. You wreaked your relationships with your family.

You could have had a steady supply of one scoop. Your brothers, sisters, mom, dad, granny could have enjoyed the ice cream as well. It could have produced good times and memories with your family.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's only "best" under hypothecation. There is nothing rational about winning games or even playing them, the imperative is hypothecated upon a desire to succeed at a thing. Other hypothetical imperatives derive from wishing to not get scolded, or wanting to tip some scales. The assumption that these are "good" outcomes is question begging.

Your examples all fall foul of the issue I already mentioned. The better ones are still only the product of colloquial reason - the reasonable man wants to stay dry even when it rains, the man who wants to play chess badly makes no particular sense to us. This isn't reason as derived from universal law, it's just cultural norms and generic expectations. You can't get from the one level to the other naturally.

Colloquial reason? Cultural norms and generic expectations don't come from universal laws?

Indeed. There's two basic types of reasonable. One is the colloquial: that which is considered measured and sensible by persons who we consider reasonable. The other is the product of strict reasoning.

Consider the famous words of Hume: "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". He's not talking about the colloquial maon on the Clapham omnibus version of reasonable there, he's talking about strict universal reason.

If we restriict ourselves to the strict reason necessary for universal truths, we would note that expctations might come from any sort of law at all, but the real question is whether they can ground a universal law. Which they cannot.

Let me finish off with another example. Iambiguous, take notes ... this is a down to earth example, out of the philosophical clouds.

The morality of ice cream

You live with your parents, siblings, grandparents.

There is a tub of ice cream in the freezer.

Benevolent god says that you ought to take one scoop so that everyone can have some.

But you want 3 scoops.

What the hell, you eat the entire tub.

The rest of the family is pissed off to various degrees.

Over time, they probably forgive and forget. You got away with something at others expense.

But if you keep doing that, people are going to get more and more annoyed. Your parents are going to stop buying ice cream because it's nothing but a source of conflict.

You ate a lot of ice cream for a short period of time. You wreaked your relationships with your family.

You could have had a steady supply of one scoop. Your brothers, sisters, mom, dad, granny could have enjoyed the ice cream as well. It could have produced good times and memories with your family.

That was hypothecatal imperatives from top to bottom. Sharing is nice, being shouted at by your mum is not nice. But we aren't about to commit the naturalistic fallacy by naturalising the good to the desirable just out of customary association are we?

[iambiguous]

Colloquial reason? Cultural norms and generic expectations don't come from universal laws?

Let me finish off with another example. Iambiguous, take notes ... this is a down to earth example, out of the philosophical clouds.

The morality of ice cream

You live with your parents, siblings, grandparents.

There is a tub of ice cream in the freezer.

Benevolent god says that you ought to take one scoop so that everyone can have some.

But you want 3 scoops.

What the hell, you eat the entire tub.

The rest of the family is pissed off to various degrees.

Over time, they probably forgive and forget. You got away with something at others expense.

But if you keep doing that, people are going to get more and more annoyed. Your parents are going to stop buying ice cream because it's nothing but a source of conflict.

You ate a lot of ice cream for a short period of time. You wreaked your relationships with your family.

You could have had a steady supply of one scoop. Your brothers, sisters, mom, dad, granny could have enjoyed the ice cream as well. It could have produced good times and memories with your family.

Right!!

Like comparing "doing the right thing" with a tub of ice cream in one family given their judgment day, comes anywhere near to "doing the right thing" in regard to the behaviors you choose given God's Judgment Day.

Really, if you suspected that God might send you to Hell because eating the whole tub Himself is not what Jesus would do...?

And there was absolutely no doubt that He existed and could do it...?

Look, if some here wish to muddy the waters between human morality in a God and in a No God world, fine, whatever works.

But I'm with IC here if in fact the True Christian God does exist. He is the font for moral Commandments. And I'm born again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH had challenged me on the below a '1000' times within this thread. But despite my explanation, PH could never get it due to his child-liked thinking on this issue.

Yes, VA, if there were no humans, then there would be no human perception, belief, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality.
But do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist?
Have a go at answering that question without repeating your FSR and FSK claim.

Even any kindi kid can answer the above, i.e. there are things out there awaiting to be seen by humans.

But we are not in kindergarten but rather we are in a philosophy forum that warrant rational philosophical thoughts from critical thinking.

Here is one answer to the issue;
There is an Emergence & Realization of Reality [the described] within the Individual Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing [the description].

Here is an indication [re Kuhn and changes in paradigm] to the concept of emergence and realization prior to description;

The changes in perception, conceptualization, and language that Kuhn associated with changes in paradigm also fuelled his notion of world change, which further extends the contrast of the historicist approach with realism.
There is an important sense, Kuhn maintained, in which after a scientific revolution, scientists live in a different world.
This is a famously cryptic remark in Structure ([1962] 1970: 111, 121, 150), but he (2000: 264) later gives it a neo-Kantian spin: paradigms function so as to create the reality of scientific phenomena, thereby allowing scientists to engage with this reality.
On such a view, it would seem that not only the meanings but also the referents of terms are constrained by paradigmatic boundaries.

And thus, reflecting an interesting parallel with neo-Kantian logical empiricism, the idea of a paradigm-transcendent world which is investigated by scientists, and about which one might have knowledge, has no obvious cognitive content.
On this picture, empirical reality is structured by scientific paradigms, and this conflicts with the commitment of realism to knowledge of a mind-independent world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... lism/#Hist

The term “social construction” refers to any knowledge-generating process in which what counts as a fact is substantively determined by social factors, and in which different social factors would likely generate facts that are inconsistent with what is actually produced.

By making social factors an inextricable, substantive determinant of what counts as true or false in the realm of the sciences (and elsewhere), social constructivism stands opposed to the realist contention that theories can be understood as furnishing knowledge of a mind-independent world.
And as in the historicist approach, notions such as truth, reference, and ontology are here relative to particular contexts; they have no context-transcendent significance.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... /#SociCons

The main point above is this 3 points;
1. Kuhn maintained, in which after a scientific revolution, scientists live in a different world.
2. paradigms function so as to create the reality of scientific phenomena, thereby allowing scientists to engage with this reality.
3. In the historicist approach, notions such as truth, reference, and ontology are here relative to particular contexts; they have no context-transcendent significance.

The term paradigm is equivalent to my FSR-FSK.
While the above use "construct" and "create" [which can be mistaken literally] the more appropriate term should be 'emergence'.
Re point 3, the supposed referent and ontology emerged from the respective FSR-FSK, thus are human correlated; therefore there is no uncorrelated mind-independent reality awaiting to be discovered and therefrom described.

The above described the current ever-changing scientific facts and general facts are correlated with their respective human-based FSK; however this FSR-FSK process had been going on since the first one-celled emerged from abiogenesis 3.5 billion years ago to the present humans.

Discuss?? Views??

[phyllo]

Indeed. There's two basic types of reasonable. One is the colloquial: that which is considered measured and sensible by persons who we consider reasonable. The other is the product of strict reasoning.

Consider the famous words of Hume: "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". He's not talking about the colloquial maon on the Clapham omnibus version of reasonable there, he's talking about strict universal reason.

If we restriict ourselves to the strict reason necessary for universal truths, we would note that expctations might come from any sort of law at all, but the real question is whether they can ground a universal law. Which they cannot.

There is the problem.

Consider the famous words of Hume: "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger".

Humans beings will tell you that's just crazy.

If you're looking for that sort of universal reasoning, then you're never going to find moral facts or objective human morality or even general human morality. Because you have removed the human element ... human life and experience.
Morality has to be "colloquial".

You're going to have the same issue if you are looking for human morality which is delivered by a god. Unless the god understands human morality better than humans and it prioritizes human interests over its own or other creatures. The god really needs to be an Uberhuman to deliver human morality.

[FlashDangerpants]

Indeed. There's two basic types of reasonable. One is the colloquial: that which is considered measured and sensible by persons who we consider reasonable. The other is the product of strict reasoning.

Consider the famous words of Hume: "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". He's not talking about the colloquial maon on the Clapham omnibus version of reasonable there, he's talking about strict universal reason.

If we restriict ourselves to the strict reason necessary for universal truths, we would note that expctations might come from any sort of law at all, but the real question is whether they can ground a universal law. Which they cannot.

There is the problem.

Consider the famous words of Hume: "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger".

Humans beings will tell you that's just crazy.

If you're looking for that sort of universal reasoning, then you're never going to find moral facts or objective human morality or even general human morality. Because you have removed the human element ... human life and experience.
Morality has to be "colloquial".

You're going to have the same issue if you are looking for human morality which is delivered by a god. Unless the god understands human morality better than humans and it prioritizes human interests over its own or other creatures. The god really needs to be an Uberhuman to deliver human morality.

I'm a moral skeptic, so none of that seems like a problem for me.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes, VA, if there were no humans, then there would be no human perception, belief, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality.
But do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist?
Have a go at answering that question without repeating your FSR and FSK claim.

Even any kindi kid can answer the above, i.e. there are things out there awaiting to be seen by humans.

Well, stone me.

So, the thing we call reality would exist if there were no humans. It would have 'emerged' and 'realised' since the universe began.

Here are some questions to chew on.

1 From what perspective can scientific paradigm shifts be described?

2 What is the truth-value of the claim that there's no such thing as classical truth-value?

3 How can a non-classical logic be described? Non-classically?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, VA, if there were no humans, then there would be no human perception, belief, knowledge and descriptions of what we humans call reality.
But do you think that, if there were no humans, then there would be no reality - that the thing we call reality would not exist?
Have a go at answering that question without repeating your FSR and FSK claim.

Even any kindi kid can answer the above, i.e. there are things out there awaiting to be seen by humans.

Well, stone me.

So, the thing we call reality would exist if there were no humans. It would have 'emerged' and 'realised' since the universe began.

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

The "since the universe began" itself is an emergent and realization as conditioned a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.
Without humans the "since the universe began' is a non-starter.

There is very compulsive a natural instinct [force] an evolutionary default to ascertain "since the universe began" as an ideological certainty of a mind-independent reality which is illusory;
whenever this impulse is triggered [naturally] the philosophical-rational approach is to resort to Pyrrhonian Skepticism as a therapeutic diversion to avoid being delusional.

Here are some questions to chew on.
1 From what perspective can scientific paradigm shifts be described?

From the philosophical FSK, sociology FSK and linguistic FSK.

2 What is the truth-value of the claim that there's no such thing as classical truth-value?

From the philosophy-FSK and Analytical-critical-thinking FSK.

There is only a truth-value [PH's] when one believe there is an absolutely mind independent reality out there to be mirrored, corresponded or obtained.
If the claim is not mirrored, corresponded or obtained with anything out there, then it is false, else it is true.
The above is grounded on philosophical realism.

Based on analytical-critical thinking, philosophical realism is not tenable.

3 How can a non-classical logic be described? Non-classically?

In any description we rely upon the human-based linguistic FSK.
In this case, we rely on 'meaning is use' i.e. how "non-classical logic" is used then defined by members who agree with it within a human-based linguistic FSK.

PH, I am researching in depth into "Semantic Realism" [a subset of philosophical-realism] which I believe most of your philosophical views are grounded upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_realism
Suggest you look into it and more deeper besides the above.