What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

I can't be bothered to keep showing you why you're wrong.

Where does a subjective moralist get the idea of "wrongness" from?

Is he "wrong" or is he showing you an alternative way to be right?

This explanation will make absolutely no difference to you, because you aren't in the business of finding the truth.

What could a subjective moralist possibly mean by the expression "THE truth" ?!?

If subjective moralism is true then there's no such thing as THE truth. There is just your subjective truth and his subjective truth.

Everybody eventually finds their subjective truth. What else could they find?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed. VA's go-to quotation above is correct. So the FSRK theory is incorrect.

Why do you ignore the other points?
If you are intellectually honest, you would have justified why you omit those points therein.

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

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

Don't forget what we discussed are VERY contentious issues that has gone on since philosophy first emerged.
To think you are right and I am wrong amidst these VERY contentious issues without solid argument is too childish.
I have argued 'what you thing is right' is grounded on an illusion.
You have not even understood [not agree with] my argument, thus you are shooting at strawmen.

FSK-ed facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s] but conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects.

1 Now, let this sink in: 'FSK-ed facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s]...'
From now on, you must never claim that the object (reality/fact) exists only in interaction with the subject. If you do, your intellectual dishonesty will be glaringly evident.

2 There is no substantial difference between the beliefs, knowledge and opinions of one subject - and those of many or even all subjects - which is why you write 'subject[s]' in your admission above. And introducing conditioning 'upon [sic] a collective-of-subjects' makes no difference, because you've DEFINED FSK-ed facts as independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s].

This explanation will make absolutely no difference to you, because you aren't in the business of finding the truth. You just want to peddle your wretched theory.

Don't you understand how Science works and how scientific facts are generated?

FSRK-ed Scientific Facts are independent of the individual scientist[s] but are conditioned upon a collective of scientists [subjective].
Therefore it follows, FSRK-ed are grounded on subjectivity within a collective of subjects.
Since FSRK-ed Scientific Facts are objective, then objectivity must also be grounded on subjectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity.
There cannot be objective FSRK-ed facts without the human[subject] factor.

Your counter to my above argument is based on your own 'what is fact' which is grounded on an illusion.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

You have not countered my above arguments intellectually and sufficiently.

This is a critical point.
There is a difference between
"subject[s]" which are a loose unorganized group of subjects and
FSRK collective-of-subjects who are organized within an institution with its specific constitution, rules and other necessary conditions that define its specificity.
You are ignorant of this.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why do you ignore the other points?
If you are intellectually honest, you would have justified why you omit those points therein.

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

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

You got toasted on your oughtness-to-breathe argument, and you've been wrong on every argument since. Pete defintely was one of the persons who identified correctly that you were elevating a prudential, hypothecated ought to a moral truth without justification. That's the oldest of your arguments that I can remember, but whatever you had before that will have suffered much the same problem. So just go back to the actual beginning, that will be the locus of your first great mistake.

You just didn't notice you weren't doing well beause you rely on extravangant psychological excuses for why people don't agree with you, blaming it on dumb shit like fear of death, instead of following the logic of a logical argument, which is a skill you sadly never picked up.

[Peter Holmes]

Why do you ignore the other points?
If you are intellectually honest, you would have justified why you omit those points therein.

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

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

Don't forget what we discussed are VERY contentious issues that has gone on since philosophy first emerged.
To think you are right and I am wrong amidst these VERY contentious issues without solid argument is too childish.
I have argued 'what you thing is right' is grounded on an illusion.
You have not even understood [not agree with] my argument, thus you are shooting at strawmen.

FSK-ed facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s] but conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects.

1 Now, let this sink in: 'FSK-ed facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s]...'
From now on, you must never claim that the object (reality/fact) exists only in interaction with the subject. If you do, your intellectual dishonesty will be glaringly evident.

2 There is no substantial difference between the beliefs, knowledge and opinions of one subject - and those of many or even all subjects - which is why you write 'subject[s]' in your admission above. And introducing conditioning 'upon [sic] a collective-of-subjects' makes no difference, because you've DEFINED FSK-ed facts as independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion of subject[s].

This explanation will make absolutely no difference to you, because you aren't in the business of finding the truth. You just want to peddle your wretched theory.

Don't you understand how Science works and how scientific facts are generated?

FSRK-ed Scientific Facts are independent of the individual scientist[s] but are conditioned upon a collective of scientists [subjective].
Therefore it follows, FSRK-ed are grounded on subjectivity within a collective of subjects.
Since FSRK-ed Scientific Facts are objective, then objectivity must also be grounded on subjectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity.
There cannot be objective FSRK-ed facts without the human[subject] factor.

Your counter to my above argument is based on your own 'what is fact' which is grounded on an illusion.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

You have not countered my above arguments intellectually and sufficiently.

This is a critical point.
There is a difference between
"subject[s]" which are a loose unorganized group of subjects and
FSRK collective-of-subjects who are organized within an institution with its specific constitution, rules and other necessary conditions that define its specificity.
You are ignorant of this.

Keep wriggling, dodging and weaving.

Here are two things that VA believes - things entailed by his silly theory.

1 Outside, or independent from, or unconditioned by, the practice and discourse of history, historical events, such as the Battle of Trafalgar, didn't occur.

2 Outside, or independent from, or unconditioned by, the practice and discourse of chemistry, the chemical constitution of substances, such as water, does not exist.

VA has absolutely no evidence to support these claims. And, of course, his is the burden of proof.

But all he does is repeat his claim that facts - and therefore objectivity - are nothing more than products of collective-of-subjects, or intersubjective, consensus. That, if historians agree that the Battle of Trafalgar didn't occur, then it didn't occur. That, if chemists agree that water isn't H2O, then water isn't H2O.

The mind-boggling stupidity of these conclusions can't be allowed to impinge on the theory that produces them.

[Skepdick]

The mind-boggling stupidity of these conclusions can't be allowed to impinge on the theory that produces them.

There's probably no such thing as mind as a separate substance from body or matter - and certainly no good evidence for its existence. So talk of mind dependence or independence is incoherent, along with talk of knowledge or knowing being something that goes on in the fictional mind.

It really boggles the mind how Peter Holmes' non-existing mind is perpetually boggled.

[Skepdick]

The mind-boggling stupidity of these conclusions can't be allowed to impinge on the theory that produces them.

There's probably no such thing as mind as a separate substance from body or matter - and certainly no good evidence for its existence. So talk of mind dependence or independence is incoherent, along with talk of knowledge or knowing being something that goes on in the fictional mind.

It really boggles the mind how the non-existing mind of Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is perpetually boggled.

[Peter Holmes]

Premise: What we call the mind and mental things and events, such as what we call thinking, are not abstract or non-physical things.

Moronic conclusion: Therefore we can't coherently use 'mentalist' expressions, such as mind-boggling and mindless moron. Or fuckwit.

[Skepdick]

Premise: What we call the mind and mental things and events, such as what we call thinking, are not abstract or non-physical things.

Why are you premising such a moronic premise? Can't you strawman without it?

Moronic conclusion: Therefore we can't coherently use 'mentalist' expressions, such as mind-boggling and mindless moron. Or fuckwit.

It seems Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes has succeeded in making mentalist expressions to cohere with his non-existing mind.

In his next magic trick I'm sure he'll make his incoherence cohere. Somehow.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

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

You got toasted on your oughtness-to-breathe argument, and you've been wrong on every argument since. Pete defintely was one of the persons who identified correctly that you were elevating a prudential, hypothecated ought to a moral truth without justification. That's the oldest of your arguments that I can remember, but whatever you had before that will have suffered much the same problem. So just go back to the actual beginning, that will be the locus of your first great mistake.

You just didn't notice you weren't doing well beause you rely on extravangant psychological excuses for why people don't agree with you, blaming it on dumb shit like fear of death, instead of following the logic of a logical argument, which is a skill you sadly never picked up.

Nah, just attempting to counter do not necessary meant you and Peter has proven my argument is false.
Perhaps you and Peter should start a thread to summarize your argument that I am wrong.

1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRK [thus objective].
2. This is critical to ensure survival till the inevitable.
3. To ensure no harm to ensure survival is a moral issue within the morality-proper FSRK.
4. To kill humans is to suppress their "oughtness-to-breathe" thus terminate survival.
5. Humans are programmed with an inherent moral function "oughtnotness-to-kill humans"
6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.
7. Whatever is conditioned within an embodied human-based FSRK is objective.
8. Therefore morality is objective [6, 7]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Keep wriggling, dodging and weaving.

Here are two things that VA believes - things entailed by his silly theory.

1 Outside, or independent from, or unconditioned by, the practice and discourse of history, historical events, such as the Battle of Trafalgar, didn't occur.

2 Outside, or independent from, or unconditioned by, the practice and discourse of chemistry, the chemical constitution of substances, such as water, does not exist.

VA has absolutely no evidence to support these claims. And, of course, his is the burden of proof.

But all he does is repeat his claim that facts - and therefore objectivity - are nothing more than products of collective-of-subjects, or intersubjective, consensus. That, if historians agree that the Battle of Trafalgar didn't occur, then it didn't occur. That, if chemists agree that water isn't H2O, then water isn't H2O.

The mind-boggling stupidity of these conclusions can't be allowed to impinge on the theory that produces them.

Strawman!! again and again a "million" times.

I have linked this many times .. in [mine]:

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic [FSRK-ed] fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical [FSRK-ed] fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical [FSRK-ed]facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

I did not claim "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" did not occur.
But their occurrence is conditioned upon an embodied human-based historical FSRK.

So I would not claim "the Battle of Trafalgar, didn't occur".

That, if chemists agree that water isn't H2O, then water isn't H2O.

Within another subset of the science-chemistry, scientist did conclude,
Water is not H20
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

My argument is
whatever the claim of reality [past, present and future] must be conditioned upon an embodied human-based FSRK.
There is no other way, no such claim can stand by itself without contingent to an implicit or explicit FSRK.
I have made this argument a "million" times.

please .... please .... just read what people write and argue.

[Peter Holmes]

Keep wriggling, dodging and weaving.

Here are two things that VA believes - things entailed by his silly theory.

1 Outside, or independent from, or unconditioned by, the practice and discourse of history, historical events, such as the Battle of Trafalgar, didn't occur.

2 Outside, or independent from, or unconditioned by, the practice and discourse of chemistry, the chemical constitution of substances, such as water, does not exist.

VA has absolutely no evidence to support these claims. And, of course, his is the burden of proof.

But all he does is repeat his claim that facts - and therefore objectivity - are nothing more than products of collective-of-subjects, or intersubjective, consensus. That, if historians agree that the Battle of Trafalgar didn't occur, then it didn't occur. That, if chemists agree that water isn't H2O, then water isn't H2O.

The mind-boggling stupidity of these conclusions can't be allowed to impinge on the theory that produces them.

Strawman!! again and again a "million" times.

I have linked this many times .. in [mine]:

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic [FSRK-ed] fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical [FSRK-ed] fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical [FSRK-ed]facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

I did not claim "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" did not occur.
But their occurrence is conditioned upon an embodied human-based historical FSRK.

So I would not claim "the Battle of Trafalgar, didn't occur".

That, if chemists agree that water isn't H2O, then water isn't H2O.

Within another subset of the science-chemistry, scientist did conclude,
Water is not H20
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

My argument is
whatever the claim of reality [past, present and future] must be conditioned upon an embodied human-based FSRK.
There is no other way, no such claim can stand by itself without contingent to an implicit or explicit FSRK.
I have made this argument a "million" times.

please .... please .... just read what people write and argue.

Ah. So. All along, you've been agreeing that reality-in-itself - that things-in-themselves - that what we call facts - did and do exist. So your position is ontologically or metaphysically or philosophically realist. What we call the facts of reality are not illusions. They're real things.

And you've been agreeing with me all along that we humans have to perceive, know and describe that independently existing reality in human ways. That a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. That in one context 'water is H2O' is true, but that in another context, it may not be. The actually existing thing doesn't change, but only the description.

Perhaps we can pack up camp and go home.

Oh, wait. We're supposed to be arguing about morality.

[Peter Holmes]

I did not claim "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" did not occur.

But their occurrence is conditioned upon an embodied human-based historical FSRK.
please .... please .... just read what people write and argue.

Please, please pay attention to what others say about your claims and argument.

Your claim about conditioning is very obviously false. The historical 'occurrences' (ie, facts) about Lincoln are not conditioned upon anything whatsoever. They just occurred, and had nothing to do with the practice and discourse of history. And you agree that this is the case.

Just as the chemical constitution of water is what it is, and has nothing to do with the practice and discourse of chemistry. And you agree that this is the case.

Your FSRK theory is just wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Keep wriggling, dodging and weaving.

Here are two things that VA believes - things entailed by his silly theory.

1 Outside, or independent from, or unconditioned by, the practice and discourse of history, historical events, such as the Battle of Trafalgar, didn't occur.

2 Outside, or independent from, or unconditioned by, the practice and discourse of chemistry, the chemical constitution of substances, such as water, does not exist.

VA has absolutely no evidence to support these claims. And, of course, his is the burden of proof.

But all he does is repeat his claim that facts - and therefore objectivity - are nothing more than products of collective-of-subjects, or intersubjective, consensus. That, if historians agree that the Battle of Trafalgar didn't occur, then it didn't occur. That, if chemists agree that water isn't H2O, then water isn't H2O.

The mind-boggling stupidity of these conclusions can't be allowed to impinge on the theory that produces them.

Strawman!! again and again a "million" times.

I have linked this many times .. in [mine]:

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic [FSRK-ed] fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical [FSRK-ed] fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical [FSRK-ed]facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

I did not claim "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" did not occur.
But their occurrence is conditioned upon an embodied human-based historical FSRK.

So I would not claim "the Battle of Trafalgar, didn't occur".

That, if chemists agree that water isn't H2O, then water isn't H2O.

Within another subset of the science-chemistry, scientist did conclude,
Water is not H20
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

My argument is
whatever the claim of reality [past, present and future] must be conditioned upon an embodied human-based FSRK.
There is no other way, no such claim can stand by itself without contingent to an implicit or explicit FSRK.
I have made this argument a "million" times.

Ah. So. All along, you've been agreeing that reality-in-itself - that things-in-themselves - that what we call facts - did and do exist. So your position is ontologically or metaphysically or philosophically realist. What we call the facts of reality are not illusions. They're real things.

You got is wrong!
I never claim "reality-in-itself that things-in-themselves - that what we call facts - did and do exist as real."
At best, they only exists as thoughts.

please .... please .... just read what people write and argue.

As mentioned many times,
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
and
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

You have not justified how you facts are the real thing?
All you did was to refer to science.
But science is FSRC based, thus do not agree with your 'what is fact'.

And you've been agreeing with me all along that we humans have to perceive, know and describe that independently existing reality in human ways. That a description - and therefore a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional. That in one context 'water is H2O' is true, but that in another context, it may not be. The actually existing thing doesn't change, but only the description.

Perhaps we can pack up camp and go home.

If not H20, what is that actually existing thing we call water?
You can if it is not H20, then it is merely a cluster of molecules, atom, quarks and particles.
But molecules, atom, quarks and particles are human-based re the scientific-Physics-FSRC.
They cannot be your human independent facts.

Oh, wait. We're supposed to be arguing about morality.

1. Whatever is reality, truth, factual, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon an embodied, human-based FSRC of which the scientific FSRC is the Standard.
2. Moral elements are conditioned upon the morality-proper FSRC.
3. Therefore, morality is objective.

Thus my the verification and justification of the existence of the FSRC [imply objectivity] will confirm morality is objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not claim "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" did not occur.

But their occurrence is conditioned upon an embodied human-based historical FSRK.
please .... please .... just read what people write and argue.

Please, please pay attention to what others say about your claims and argument.

Your claim about conditioning is very obviously false. The historical 'occurrences' (ie, facts) about Lincoln are not conditioned upon anything whatsoever. They just occurred, and had nothing to do with the practice and discourse of history. And you agree that this is the case.

Just as the chemical constitution of water is what it is, and has nothing to do with the practice and discourse of chemistry. And you agree that this is the case.

Your FSRK theory is just wrong.

Your thinking is too immature.

There is no way, there is absolute truth or reality with history.
Haven't you heard, "history is written by Victors".
As such, the reality of whatever is historical must be qualified to 'who' and the conditions [thus the specific historical FSRC is conditioned or contingent upon.

Also that "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" is conditioned upon the US Constitution and US political FSRC.
That "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" is also contingent by human observations and the medical FSRC.

Whatever is Chemistry is conditioned and contingent upon the embodied human-based science-chemistry FSRC. [Framework and System of Emergence, Realization of Reality and Cognition]

There is no way things just occurred or exists without being contingent and conditioned some sort of FSRC.
Justify to me your claim, it just occurred without being contingent to some elements of human influence?

[Peter Holmes]

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.