What could make morality objective?

[Age]

Your response is too shallow and narrow.

How can reality be experienced, realized and known if there are no humans?
Note whatever the answer you provide can only be answered by humans.
Therefore, logically and deductively, it follows, whatever the resultant reality it cannot be independent of the human conditions.

This is staggeringly stupid. Suppose there were no humans, but there was an alien (ie non-human) species somewhere in the universe. Those aliens would experience and know reality. Would reality then be 'not independent' from the 'alien conditions'?

Or suppose there were no life, sentient or otherwise, in the universe - nothing to experience and know reality. Would there then be no universe?

My response is not too shallow. I'm showing why your claim and argument are ridiculous.

Who is supposing here.
It is humans who are supposing the above.
Whatever is supposed [assumed] cannot be real.

So, is your presupposition (assumption or presumption) that, 'whatever is supposed (assumed) cannot be real', real or not real?

Also, one happens if one supposes (assumes) that, 'reality cannot be independent of the human condition', then is this 'real', or 'not real'?

Can you "yourself" "veritas aequitas" have things both ways here? That is; that what you suppose (assume) is real, but what other's suppose (assume) cannot be real?

Whichever way, you cannot escape the deduction that it is humans that follow all the way.

This sentence and claim does not even make sense, by itself.

I am not stating your narrow view is not correct, but it is based in the limited human common sense view.

Yet, you seemed to have agreed to 'that, narrow, view' and backed 'it' up, completely, by proposing, and then asking, 'the theoretical question', 'How can reality be experienced, realized and known if there are no humans?

It is you who seems to have the belief that 'reality' cannot be experienced, realized, and known by absolutely any other thing, other than you human beings only.

Which, some are seeing and would say is about one of the 'narrowest views' one could have, or hold.

As I had argued your dogmatic and restricted view is due to desperate psychology driven by an evolutionary default and not epistemology in this case.
Socrates' "Know Thyself" is very applicable here.

So, once more, if someone does not have nor hold 'the view' that "veritas aequitas" does, then it is 'the other' with some so-called 'desperate psychology', driven by some so-called 'evolutionary default'.

Also, how could there even be a so-called evolutionary 'default'. Absolutely every thing evolves, to 'fit in best' with 'the world', 'the Universe', or with everything else 'around it'. If it does not 'fit in', then it just stops living/existing.

A so-called 'evolutionary default' implies that there is something like a God, with a plan already, for how things are to 'evolve', or 'not evolve'.

To you, is there a God like Thing, that has planned things here, which all things are meant to 'evolve', in a particular way, and by 'default'?

To be more nuanced and rigorous, there is no thing that can exist as a thing-in-itself.

So, what does the Universe, Itself, exist relative to, exactly?

you seem to have a more 'God-like belief/view' than some 'theological religious people' have.

Or, are you putting you human beings on a 'God-like scale' here, in that with your view and belief there is absolutely no thing that could exist with you human beings?

Such a view is critical to deal with a more complex world and dealing with more greater threats to humanity.

Some might say, such a view is just another attempt of distraction by you because you cannot back up and support your beliefs and claims here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is staggeringly stupid. Suppose there were no humans, but there was an alien (ie non-human) species somewhere in the universe. Those aliens would experience and know reality. Would reality then be 'not independent' from the 'alien conditions'?

Or suppose there were no life, sentient or otherwise, in the universe - nothing to experience and know reality. Would there then be no universe?

My response is not too shallow. I'm showing why your claim and argument are ridiculous.

Who is supposing here.
It is humans who are supposing the above.
Whatever is supposed [assumed] cannot be real.
Whichever way, you cannot escape the deduction that it is humans that follow all the way.

I am not stating your narrow view is not correct, but it is based in the limited human common sense view.

As I had argued your dogmatic and restricted view is due to desperate psychology driven by an evolutionary default and not epistemology in this case.
Socrates' "Know Thyself" is very applicable here.

To be more nuanced and rigorous, there is no thing that can exist as a thing-in-itself.
Such a view is critical to deal with a more complex world and dealing with more greater threats to humanity.

Here's your silly argument.

P The claim ' If there were no humans, then there would be no universe' can't be independent from 'the human conditions', because it's a human claim.

C Therefore, if there were no humans, then there would be no universe.

Strawman again:

Should be;

• P1 What is a real universe is contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
  P2 Since it is contingent, a real universe cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
  C Therefore, if there were no humans, then there would be no [absolute independent] universe.

Re the real Universe, I have presented;

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

• 1. FSERC sense of reality
  2. Realist's absolute independence sense of reality, i.e. illusory.

You have not provided valid proofs or justification for the existence of a real absolutely independent universe.

The most you can offer is;

Science has justified and confirm the existence of a real universe.
Your 'science' is grounded on scientific realism which is 2 [realist] and I have argued it grounded on an illusion.

Science-proper is contingent upon a human-based scientific FSERC, therefore whatever is concluded it, i.e. scientific facts cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 What is a real universe is contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
P2 Since it is contingent, a real universe cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
C Therefore, if there were no humans, then there would be no [absolute independent] universe.

P1 is false. The universe does not depend on a human framework and system of evolved/emergent reality and cognition. Cutting the crap: the universe does not depend on humans. It existed for billions of years before humans evolved. It would have existed had there been no humans. And when we're gone, it will still exist.

So the argument is unsound. And here's the non sequitur fallacy.

P We humans have to perceive, know and describe the universe in human ways.
C1 Therefore, the universe can't be absolutely independent from humans. Or
C2 Therefore, the universe is only relatively independent from humans.

Here, P1 is true. But neither conclusion follows from the premise. A description is not the described. And the described is not in any way dependent on the description. The universe (the described) is not in any way dependent on the ways we humans (perceive, know and) describe it.

VA also makes a different but related argument, as follows.

P Humans are part of reality.
C1 Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans. Or
C2 Therefore, reality is only relatively independent from humans.

But this rubbish deserves no attention.

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 What is a real universe is contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
P2 Since it is contingent, a real universe cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
C Therefore, if there were no humans, then there would be no [absolute independent] universe.

P1 is false. The universe does not depend on a human framework and system of evolved/emergent reality and cognition. Cutting the crap: the universe does not depend on humans. It existed for billions of years before humans evolved. It would have existed had there been no humans. And when we're gone, it will still exist.

So the argument is unsound. And here's the non sequitur fallacy.

P We humans have to perceive, know and describe the universe in human ways.
C1 Therefore, the universe can't be absolutely independent from humans. Or
C2 Therefore, the universe is only relatively independent from humans.

Here, P1 is true. But neither conclusion follows from the premise. A description is not the described. And the described is not in any way dependent on the description. The universe (the described) is not in any way dependent on the ways we humans (perceive, know and) describe it.

VA also makes a different but related argument, as follows.

P Humans are part of reality.
C1 Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans. Or
C2 Therefore, reality is only relatively independent from humans.

But this rubbish deserves no attention.

All your above are strawman[s].

I have already explained a million times re how reality emerges;

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

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

On your side, you have not justify how
absolutely independent facts or universe can be real.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 What is a real universe is contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
P2 Since it is contingent, a real universe cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
C Therefore, if there were no humans, then there would be no [absolute independent] universe.

P1 is false. The universe does not depend on a human framework and system of evolved/emergent reality and cognition. Cutting the crap: the universe does not depend on humans. It existed for billions of years before humans evolved. It would have existed had there been no humans. And when we're gone, it will still exist.

So the argument is unsound. And here's the non sequitur fallacy.

P We humans have to perceive, know and describe the universe in human ways.
C1 Therefore, the universe can't be absolutely independent from humans. Or
C2 Therefore, the universe is only relatively independent from humans.

Here, P1 is true. But neither conclusion follows from the premise. A description is not the described. And the described is not in any way dependent on the description. The universe (the described) is not in any way dependent on the ways we humans (perceive, know and) describe it.

VA also makes a different but related argument, as follows.

P Humans are part of reality.
C1 Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans. Or
C2 Therefore, reality is only relatively independent from humans.

But this rubbish deserves no attention.

All your above are strawman[s].

I have already explained a million times re how reality emerges;

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

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

On your side, you have not justify how
absolutely independent facts or universe can be real.

Here's the justification once again. ('The universe' is synonymous with 'reality'.)

1 The universe existed before there were humans, would have existed had there been no humans, and will exist when humans have gone. So the universe was not, is not, and will not be dependent on humans.

2 Human knowledge that the universe existed, exists and will exist - and human descriptions of that universe - are, of course, dependent on humans.

3 The described (here, the universe) is not in any way dependent on the description or the describer. Analogy: the sitter for a portrait is not in any way dependent on the portrait, or the painter.

VA will refuse to actually address these assertions. So can anyone else here explain my point differently, in a way that VA can't ignore? Or - by all means - can anyone else explain what VA says in a way that I must accept as correct or true?

[Peter Holmes]

How to be suckered by Kant

To say there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself (Kant's noumenon) is to fantasise that there could be such a thing, but that it happens not to exist - and then to castigate philosophical realists for claiming that it does.

This is the fashionable straw windmill tilted at by philosophical anti-realists.

[Peter Holmes]

Arguments against moral objectivism

3 The subjectivity of goals

That a goal for our actions is morally right or good is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

Our choice of goal – such as well-being, happiness, pleasure, fulfilment, or pleasing my team’s god - is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

The nature of a goal – what constitutes well-being, happiness, pleasure, and so on – is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

The scope of our moral concerns – whose well-being, happiness, and so on, we should promote – is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

The fact that we think or say X is morally right or wrong does not make it a fact that X is morally right or wrong. Thinking or saying something is so does not make it so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 is false. The universe does not depend on a human framework and system of evolved/emergent reality and cognition. Cutting the crap: the universe does not depend on humans. It existed for billions of years before humans evolved. It would have existed had there been no humans. And when we're gone, it will still exist.

So the argument is unsound. And here's the non sequitur fallacy.

P We humans have to perceive, know and describe the universe in human ways.
C1 Therefore, the universe can't be absolutely independent from humans. Or
C2 Therefore, the universe is only relatively independent from humans.

Here, P1 is true. But neither conclusion follows from the premise. A description is not the described. And the described is not in any way dependent on the description. The universe (the described) is not in any way dependent on the ways we humans (perceive, know and) describe it.

VA also makes a different but related argument, as follows.

P Humans are part of reality.
C1 Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans. Or
C2 Therefore, reality is only relatively independent from humans.

But this rubbish deserves no attention.

All your above are strawman[s].

I have already explained a million times re how reality emerges;

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

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

On your side, you have not justify how
absolutely independent facts or universe can be real.

Here's the justification once again. ('The universe' is synonymous with 'reality'.)

1 The universe existed before there were humans, would have existed had there been no humans, and will exist when humans have gone. So the universe was not, is not, and will not be dependent on humans.

2 Human knowledge that the universe existed, exists and will exist - and human descriptions of that universe - are, of course, dependent on humans.

3 The described (here, the universe) is not in any way dependent on the description or the describer. Analogy: the sitter for a portrait is not in any way dependent on the portrait, or the painter.

VA will refuse to actually address these assertions. So can anyone else here explain my point differently, in a way that VA can't ignore? Or - by all means - can anyone else explain what VA says in a way that I must accept as correct or true?

You are begging the question.

1 The universe existed before there were humans, ..
You merely assumed this but did not prove nor justify the truth of your premise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How to be suckered by Kant

To say there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself (Kant's noumenon) is to fantasise that there could be such a thing, but that it happens not to exist - and then to castigate philosophical realists for claiming that it does.

This is the fashionable straw windmill tilted at by philosophical anti-realists.

What??

It is same as;

Theists insist there is God-in-itself
Non-theists insist there no such thing as God-in-itself.
Non-theists castigate theists for claiming it does.

which is the same as;

philosophical realists insists there is a thing-in-itself
antirealists insist there is no such thing as thing-in-itself
antirealists castigate realist for claiming a thing-in-itself.

Btw, are you insisting there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself?
You are claiming there is a fact-in-itself independent of human conditions and exists regardless of humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Arguments against moral objectivism

3 The subjectivity of goals

That a goal for our actions is morally right or good is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

Our choice of goal – such as well-being, happiness, pleasure, fulfilment, or pleasing my team’s god - is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

The nature of a goal – what constitutes well-being, happiness, pleasure, and so on – is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

The scope of our moral concerns – whose well-being, happiness, and so on, we should promote – is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

The fact that we think or say X is morally right or wrong does not make it a fact that X is morally right or wrong. Thinking or saying something is so does not make it so.

You are barking up the wrong tree in my case.

The 'oughtness to breathe' is never a subjective choice, opinion nor belief, it is objective.
The above objective is the same [albeit subliminal] as I have argued for moral elements within a moral FSERC, so morality is objective.
Details of my argument is all over in this section of the forum.

[FlashDangerpants]

Today we learned that there is an inherent oughtness in rocks to do what nature tells them to do, which is sit around just existing. This oughtness to exist is an inherent moral fact apparently.

[Peter Holmes]

All your above are strawman[s].

I have already explained a million times re how reality emerges;

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

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

On your side, you have not justify how
absolutely independent facts or universe can be real.

Here's the justification once again. ('The universe' is synonymous with 'reality'.)

1 The universe existed before there were humans, would have existed had there been no humans, and will exist when humans have gone. So the universe was not, is not, and will not be dependent on humans.

2 Human knowledge that the universe existed, exists and will exist - and human descriptions of that universe - are, of course, dependent on humans.

3 The described (here, the universe) is not in any way dependent on the description or the describer. Analogy: the sitter for a portrait is not in any way dependent on the portrait, or the painter.

VA will refuse to actually address these assertions. So can anyone else here explain my point differently, in a way that VA can't ignore? Or - by all means - can anyone else explain what VA says in a way that I must accept as correct or true?

You are begging the question.

1 The universe existed before there were humans, ..
You merely assumed this but did not prove nor justify the truth of your premise.

1 All the evidence from the natural sciences, including evidence of human evolution from non-human ancestors, demonstrates the truth of this premise - provisionally, as with all scientific conclusions. And don't bother with your 'only within the human-based natural science FSRC' claptrap - because all human knowledge is human, so this condition is redundant.

2 Now, demonstrate the truth of your premise that the universe did not exist before there were humans. And don't bother with your 'absolute/relative' distinction. Let's start with physical existence. Show your evidence for the claim that the physical universe did not exist before there were humans.

[Peter Holmes]

Arguments against moral objectivism

3 The subjectivity of goals

That a goal for our actions is morally right or good is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

Our choice of goal – such as well-being, happiness, pleasure, fulfilment, or pleasing my team’s god - is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

The nature of a goal – what constitutes well-being, happiness, pleasure, and so on – is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

The scope of our moral concerns – whose well-being, happiness, and so on, we should promote – is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

The fact that we think or say X is morally right or wrong does not make it a fact that X is morally right or wrong. Thinking or saying something is so does not make it so.

You are barking up the wrong tree in my case.

The 'oughtness to breathe' is never a subjective choice, opinion nor belief, it is objective.
The above objective is the same [albeit subliminal] as I have argued for moral elements within a moral FSERC, so morality is objective.
Details of my argument is all over in this section of the forum.

And your argument is fallacious. The clam that physical things ought to do what they do is nonsensical - or meaningless. Why ought they to? This smells suspiciously like a teleological argument. Theism in disguise?

And your claim that this fallacious oughtness is the same as moral oughtness is outrageous equivocation.

I recommend you look up the equivocation fallacy, as part of your basic training in logic. Never know, you may actually learn something. After all, pigs may fly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's the justification once again. ('The universe' is synonymous with 'reality'.)

1 The universe existed before there were humans, would have existed had there been no humans, and will exist when humans have gone. So the universe was not, is not, and will not be dependent on humans.

2 Human knowledge that the universe existed, exists and will exist - and human descriptions of that universe - are, of course, dependent on humans.

3 The described (here, the universe) is not in any way dependent on the description or the describer. Analogy: the sitter for a portrait is not in any way dependent on the portrait, or the painter.

VA will refuse to actually address these assertions. So can anyone else here explain my point differently, in a way that VA can't ignore? Or - by all means - can anyone else explain what VA says in a way that I must accept as correct or true?

You are begging the question.

1 The universe existed before there were humans, ..
You merely assumed this but did not prove nor justify the truth of your premise.

1 All the evidence from the natural sciences, including evidence of human evolution from non-human ancestors, demonstrates the truth of this premise - provisionally, as with all scientific conclusions. And don't bother with your 'only within the human-based natural science FSRC' claptrap - because all human knowledge is human, so this condition is redundant.

How can you ignore deductive logic?
How can you deny the reality of scientific conclusions that follow are contingent upon the human-based scientific FSERC.
In addition, you know scientific facts are only provisional, never certain and at best are merely polished conjectures.
When you fall back on science to justify your claim, your cannot claim must be qualified to the human-based scientific Framework and System.

Strawman again - abused and misrepresent my argument
Note my FS-Emergence, Realization of Reality, Cognition [knowledge] [FSERC] do not cover knowledge [obviously human dependent] but include the fundamental emergence and realization of reality.

One thing you need to 'know thyself' on an evolutionary basis why you are taking the stance your are arguing for and not be able to understand [not agree] with my alternative view.
Since I am human on the same evolution path, I understand and to a certain agree with the concept of independence but I don't insist it absolutely as an ideology but merely as contingent facts.

2 Now, demonstrate the truth of your premise that the universe did not exist before there were humans. And don't bother with your 'absolute/relative' distinction. Let's start with physical existence. Show your evidence for the claim that the physical universe did not exist before there were humans.

How can one demonstrate [has to be human-based] 'the universe did not exist before there were humans' without the inevitable human-factor at all?
The human-factor follows deductively to the conclusion.

My argument is not new, philosophically it was already there >5000 years ago in Eastern Philosophy and >2500 years ago in Greek/Western philosophy.
This issue has led to dualism, idealism, antinomies, skepticism and the likes where those defeated has turned to pragmaticism. You are so ignorant of these.
Your realist view of independence is ideologized from an evolutionary default, thus very primal and primitive.

[Peter Holmes]

VA's claims.

1 There is no absolutely independent universe. (Philosophical anti-realism. What does this claim mean?)
2 Therefore, there is no absolutely independent universe, whether or not there are humans. (From 1.)
But
3 If there are humans, the universe is only relatively independent from humans. (Why? And which part or aspect of the universe is relatively independent from humans? The absolutely independent part or aspect? But see 1.)
Or
4 Because there are humans, the universe is relatively dependent on humans. (Why? And: because there are dogs, is the universe relatively dependent on dogs, or only relatively independent from dogs?)

Mmm.