What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA's latest sparkly thing: the deflationary theory of truth and, therefore, facts.

'• Imagine a statement like "The cat is on the mat."
o Deflationary Facts: This view says there's no separate "fact" that makes this statement true. The statement itself, accurately reflecting the cat's position, is sufficient.
o Deflationary Truthmaking: This focuses on the connection between the statement and the world. It might explain that the statement is true because the world actually has a cat on a mat, without needing a separate "fact" to mediate that connection.

Key Points:
• Both deflationary facts and deflationary truthmaking aim to simplify how we understand truth.
• Deflationary facts focus on the proposition itself, while deflationary truthmaking focuses on the relationship between language and the world.'

So, there are no separate facts that make a statement true. But there are features of reality, or states-of-affairs, in reality, that make statements about them true.

And this passes for serious philosophy.

All that glisters is not gold.

There are no absolutely human [mind] independent features of reality or states of affair that exists as real. As such, any statements about them has nothing to do with true, so they are meaningless.

A statement like 'water is H20' cannot be absolutely independent of humans [minds] but is always contingent upon the science-chemistry Framework and System [FSERC].
So it is a conditional science-chemistry fact.

That 'Earth is a planet' cannot be absolutely independent of humans [minds] but is always contingent upon the science-astrological Framework and System [FSERC].

That 'Biden is the 46th President of the USA' cannot be absolutely independent of humans [minds] but is always contingent upon the US-Political Framework and System [FSERC].

There cannot be a standalone fact of your type, i.e. a features of reality or states of affair that exists as real and is absolutely human [mind] independent.
Your traditional view of what is fact is outdated and illusory.

False.

Why and how?

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer.
P2 We ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

Strawman, if you are referring to my argument.

Here is my argument is full

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer.
P2 If we don't have lighthouse to steer, then we could be drown.
P3 Naturally and inherently, no humans [not mentally ill] will want to be drown
P4 So, we [as humans] ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer.
C Therefore, naturally there are inherent moral facts[P1].

[Peter Holmes]

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer.
P2 We ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

Strawman, if you are referring to my argument.

Here is my argument is full

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer.
P2 If we don't have lighthouse to steer, then we could be drown.
P3 Naturally and inherently, no humans [not mentally ill] will want to be drown
P4 So, we [as humans] ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer.
C Therefore, naturally there are inherent moral facts[P1].

Thanks. That's clear. And here's what's wrong with your argument. Again.

1 Your P1 is false. We can always set up our own moral lighthouse, deciding collectively that we'll try to act in accordance with certain moral values and codes. And, as an evolving social species, that's what we've done. And the very fact that there are no moral facts has meant that those values and codes have been able to change - and will continue to change.

2 The jump from your P3 to P4 is the very heart of your logical fallacy. Here it is, simplified.

P No normal human wants to drown.
C Therefore, humans ought to have a lighthouse.

That is a non sequitur. (Look it up.) Even if the premise is factually true, the conclusion doesn't follow. It introduces an 'ought' - a belief, judgement or opinion - which is not even suggested or implied in the premise. And it doesn't matter if 'not wanting to drown' is inherent in human nature. That fact has no moral entailment.

This what the following logical rule means: non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And until you understand that rule, you can't understand why your argument fails.

However. I do want to thank you for focussing and keeping it simple.

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer.
P2 We ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

Strawman, if you are referring to my argument.

Here is my argument is full

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer.
P2 If we don't have lighthouse to steer, then we could be drown.
P3 Naturally and inherently, no humans [not mentally ill] will want to be drown
P4 So, we [as humans] ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer.
C Therefore, naturally there are inherent moral facts[P1].

Thanks. That's clear. And here's what's wrong with your argument. Again.

1 Your P1 is false. We can always set up our own moral lighthouse, deciding collectively that we'll try to act in accordance with certain moral values and codes. And, as an evolving social species, that's what we've done. And the very fact that there are no moral facts has meant that those values and codes have been able to change - and will continue to change.

That is a very general principle.
At every point of potential danger of fatalities, you only need to set up one lighthouse that is most effective to avoid the potential danger.
If anyone can set up their own subjective lighthouse, there will be many lighthouses to the specific potential danger and the end result is fatalities will happen.

If you don't understand the analogy of 'lighthouse' refer to 'moral compass' with one universal objective fixed point to the 'North Pole'.
Anyone who construct a proper compass, its needle will always point to the North Pole.

There is a generic moral function that is universal within all humans where all humans are striving towards its ideal in time relative to their present psychological state.
Take for e.g. the oughtnotness no humans be enslaved by humans.
What changes with slavery is the positive trend in time towards ZERO slavery.
This demonstrate there is an inherent moral function re the oughtnotness of slavery within all humans.
It is the same for inbreeding avoidance, murders, genocides, torture & kill babies for pleasure and the whole range of evil acts.

2 The jump from your P3 to P4 is the very heart of your logical fallacy. Here it is, simplified.

P No normal human wants to drown.
C Therefore, humans ought to have a lighthouse.

That is a non sequitur. (Look it up.) Even if the premise is factually true, the conclusion doesn't follow. It introduces an 'ought' - a belief, judgement or opinion - which is not even suggested or implied in the premise. And it doesn't matter if 'not wanting to drown' is inherent in human nature. That fact has no moral entailment.

This what the following logical rule means: non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And until you understand that rule, you can't understand why your argument fails.

However. I do want to thank you for focussing and keeping it simple.

Isn't it a fact, there are lighthouses all over the world at spots where is a potential of fatalities.
Any rational person will comply with the oughtness to put up an effective lighthouse.

It is the same of compasses where humans have created and use them for thousands of years in their oughtness to navigate effectively.

My point is there is a natural oughtness for all humans to survive with high well being and flourishing. [1]
To do so, humans are evolved with inherent objective moral oughtness and oughtnotness within all humans to meet the objective in 1.
The above is a process within a moral FSERC that general objective moral facts.

And the very fact that there are no moral facts has meant that those values and codes have been able to change - and will continue to change.

Change arbitrarily without reference to any objective moral standard?
This will eternally open up the possibility of ending with evil.

There is a need to recognize the inherent objective moral standard of absolute good so that humanity will strive toward a continual reduction in evil with continual increase in good.

[FlashDangerpants]

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer.
P2 We ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

Strawman, if you are referring to my argument.

Here is my argument is full

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer.
P2 If we don't have lighthouse to steer, then we could be drown.
P3 Naturally and inherently, no humans [not mentally ill] will want to be drown
P4 So, we [as humans] ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer.
C Therefore, naturally there are inherent moral facts[P1].

Ought to is. There ought to be a moral fact, so there is a moral fact.

That's your worst effort yet.

[Peter Holmes]

Strawman, if you are referring to my argument.

Here is my argument is full

P1 If there are no moral facts, then we can have no lighthouse by which to steer.
P2 If we don't have lighthouse to steer, then we could be drown.
P3 Naturally and inherently, no humans [not mentally ill] will want to be drown
P4 So, we [as humans] ought to have a lighthouse by which to steer.
C Therefore, naturally there are inherent moral facts[P1].

Thanks. That's clear. And here's what's wrong with your argument. Again.

1 Your P1 is false. We can always set up our own moral lighthouse, deciding collectively that we'll try to act in accordance with certain moral values and codes. And, as an evolving social species, that's what we've done. And the very fact that there are no moral facts has meant that those values and codes have been able to change - and will continue to change.

That is a very general principle.
At every point of potential danger of fatalities, you only need to set up one lighthouse that is most effective to avoid the potential danger.
If anyone can set up their own subjective lighthouse, there will be many lighthouses to the specific potential danger and the end result is fatalities will happen.

If you don't understand the analogy of 'lighthouse' refer to 'moral compass' with one universal objective fixed point to the 'North Pole'.
Anyone who construct a proper compass, its needle will always point to the North Pole.

There is a generic moral function that is universal within all humans where all humans are striving towards its ideal in time relative to their present psychological state.
Take for e.g. the oughtnotness no humans be enslaved by humans.
What changes with slavery is the positive trend in time towards ZERO slavery.
This demonstrate there is an inherent moral function re the oughtnotness of slavery within all humans.
It is the same for inbreeding avoidance, murders, genocides, torture & kill babies for pleasure and the whole range of evil acts.

2 The jump from your P3 to P4 is the very heart of your logical fallacy. Here it is, simplified.

P No normal human wants to drown.
C Therefore, humans ought to have a lighthouse.

That is a non sequitur. (Look it up.) Even if the premise is factually true, the conclusion doesn't follow. It introduces an 'ought' - a belief, judgement or opinion - which is not even suggested or implied in the premise. And it doesn't matter if 'not wanting to drown' is inherent in human nature. That fact has no moral entailment.

This what the following logical rule means: non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And until you understand that rule, you can't understand why your argument fails.

However. I do want to thank you for focussing and keeping it simple.

Isn't it a fact, there are lighthouses all over the world at spots where is a potential of fatalities.
Any rational person will comply with the oughtness to put up an effective lighthouse.

It is the same of compasses where humans have created and use them for thousands of years in their oughtness to navigate effectively.

My point is there is a natural oughtness for all humans to survive with high well being and flourishing. [1]
To do so, humans are evolved with inherent objective moral oughtness and oughtnotness within all humans to meet the objective in 1.
The above is a process within a moral FSERC that general objective moral facts.

And the very fact that there are no moral facts has meant that those values and codes have been able to change - and will continue to change.

Change arbitrarily without reference to any objective moral standard?
This will eternally open up the possibility of ending with evil.

There is a need to recognize the inherent objective moral standard of absolute good so that humanity will strive toward a continual reduction in evil with continual increase in good.

Oh, well. You still don't understand that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And I can't explain it any more simply. All you manage is this:

'Any rational person will comply with the oughtness to put up an effective lighthouse.'

That's a factual assertion, with a truth-value. It doesn't entail the moral conclusion 'therefore we ought to put up lighthouses'.

I really think you're not able to grasp it. So I'm giving up. Again.

[Skepdick]

You still don't understand that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And I can't explain it any more simply.

I don't understand this claim. Is it even true? What makes it true?

Here's a non-moral premise entailing a moral conclusion.

Today is Monday.
Therefore murder is wrong.

What do you mean by "can't"? Why can't it?

Justification required.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks. That's clear. And here's what's wrong with your argument. Again.

1 Your P1 is false. We can always set up our own moral lighthouse, deciding collectively that we'll try to act in accordance with certain moral values and codes. And, as an evolving social species, that's what we've done. And the very fact that there are no moral facts has meant that those values and codes have been able to change - and will continue to change.

That is a very general principle.
At every point of potential danger of fatalities, you only need to set up one lighthouse that is most effective to avoid the potential danger.
If anyone can set up their own subjective lighthouse, there will be many lighthouses to the specific potential danger and the end result is fatalities will happen.

If you don't understand the analogy of 'lighthouse' refer to 'moral compass' with one universal objective fixed point to the 'North Pole'.
Anyone who construct a proper compass, its needle will always point to the North Pole.

There is a generic moral function that is universal within all humans where all humans are striving towards its ideal in time relative to their present psychological state.
Take for e.g. the oughtnotness no humans be enslaved by humans.
What changes with slavery is the positive trend in time towards ZERO slavery.
This demonstrate there is an inherent moral function re the oughtnotness of slavery within all humans.
It is the same for inbreeding avoidance, murders, genocides, torture & kill babies for pleasure and the whole range of evil acts.

2 The jump from your P3 to P4 is the very heart of your logical fallacy. Here it is, simplified.

P No normal human wants to drown.
C Therefore, humans ought to have a lighthouse.

That is a non sequitur. (Look it up.) Even if the premise is factually true, the conclusion doesn't follow. It introduces an 'ought' - a belief, judgement or opinion - which is not even suggested or implied in the premise. And it doesn't matter if 'not wanting to drown' is inherent in human nature. That fact has no moral entailment.

This what the following logical rule means: non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And until you understand that rule, you can't understand why your argument fails.

However. I do want to thank you for focussing and keeping it simple.

Isn't it a fact, there are lighthouses all over the world at spots where is a potential of fatalities.
Any rational person will comply with the oughtness to put up an effective lighthouse.

It is the same of compasses where humans have created and use them for thousands of years in their oughtness to navigate effectively.

My point is there is a natural oughtness for all humans to survive with high well being and flourishing. [1]
To do so, humans are evolved with inherent objective moral oughtness and oughtnotness within all humans to meet the objective in 1.
The above is a process within a moral FSERC that general objective moral facts.

And the very fact that there are no moral facts has meant that those values and codes have been able to change - and will continue to change.

Change arbitrarily without reference to any objective moral standard?
This will eternally open up the possibility of ending with evil.

There is a need to recognize the inherent objective moral standard of absolute good so that humanity will strive toward a continual reduction in evil with continual increase in good.

Oh, well. You still don't understand that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And I can't explain it any more simply. All you manage is this:

'Any rational person will comply with the oughtness to put up an effective lighthouse.'

That's a factual assertion, with a truth-value. It doesn't entail the moral conclusion 'therefore we ought to put up lighthouses'.

I really think you're not able to grasp it. So I'm giving up. Again.

It is your discretion to pull back your neck and head into your tortoise shell and be ignorant forever.
As I had argued your such-a-move is very psychological and primitive - know thyself!

I understand the equivocation and conflation fallacies very well. I had often threw those fallacies with my argument with theists.

Generally it is true one cannot infer an X-premise from a non-X premise, in this case, moral premise from a non-moral premise.

To overcome the above I have introduced the common factor, i.e. conditioned them within a framework and system, i.e. the FSERC.

1. A System takes in inputs to generate output [facts in this case] within a Framework.
2. Whatever facts emerging from a FSERC is objective via a collective of subjects.
3. The oughnot_ness not to kill humans is scientific fact via the science-evolutionary_biology-evolutionary_psychology-neurosciences FSERC. [Fs]
4. Fs in inputted into a valid moral-FSERC.
5. The moral FSERC converts Fs into an objective moral fact [Fm].
6. Since objective moral facts exists from the moral FSERC, moral is objective [as qualified].

[Peter Holmes]

Can a non-moral premise entail a moral conclusion?

1 Humans generate facts through frameworks and systems. (This is false.)
2 Any framework and system can generate facts. (This is false.)
3 A moral framework and system can generate facts. (This begs the question.)
4 A non-moral (eg scientific) fact, fed into a moral framework and system, can generate a moral fact. (This begs the question.)
C Therefore, there can be moral facts, so morality is objective. (This is unsound.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can a non-moral premise entail a moral conclusion?

1 Humans generate facts through frameworks and systems. (This is false.)
2 Any framework and system can generate facts. (This is false.)
3 A moral framework and system can generate facts. (This begs the question.)
4 A non-moral (eg scientific) fact, fed into a moral framework and system, can generate a moral fact. (This begs the question.)
C Therefore, there can be moral facts, so morality is objective. (This is unsound.)

Your above is a strawman.

You need to exercise your intellectual integrity to critique my argument based on my premises not shoot your own created strawmen.

For a start, what is wrong with my P1 below?

• P1. A System takes in inputs to [enable emergence and] generate output [conditioned facts in this case] within a Framework.

How can scientific facts emerged and is realized without the scientific framework and system of emergence, realization of reality, therefrom perception and cognition and subsequently a description of the emerged facts.

I have provided notes [many times] re;

What is a Framework and System of Knowledge? FSC & FSERC
viewtopic.php?t=31889&sid=f8ba817284e93 ... e0a558b7cc

I have explained FSERC in these threads:

• 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

[Peter Holmes]

Can a non-moral premise entail a moral conclusion?

1 Humans generate facts through frameworks and systems. (This is false.)
2 Any framework and system can generate facts. (This is false.)
3 A moral framework and system can generate facts. (This begs the question.)
4 A non-moral (eg scientific) fact, fed into a moral framework and system, can generate a moral fact. (This begs the question.)
C Therefore, there can be moral facts, so morality is objective. (This is unsound.)

Your above is a strawman.

For a start, what is wrong with my P1 below?

• P1. A System takes in inputs to [enable emergence and] generate output [conditioned facts in this case] within a Framework.

How can scientific facts emerged and is realized without the scientific framework and system of emergence, realization of reality, therefrom perception and cognition and subsequently a description of the emerged facts.

1 Your P1 is wrong, because humans don't generate facts. We generate different descriptions, using different discourses. The 'inputs' you gloss over are the features of reality that we describe in different ways. And one of the posts you list is: 'VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts'. Agreed.

2 Not all discourses generate objective (factual) descriptions, because they don't describe features of reality accurately, or at all. Astrology and alchemy are examples. So your argument from 'discourses generate facts' to 'therefore, moral discourse can generate facts' is fallacious.

To straw man an argument is to misrepresent it in order to refute the misrepresentation. But that's not what I'm doing. For example, here's a premise that I think we agree on, even though you put it differently:

P1 We humans have to perceive, know and describe reality (the universe) in human ways.

Now, from that premise, you make one or more of the following conclusions. Therefore...

C1 Reality is not independent from humans.
C2 Reality is relatively dependent on humans.
C3 Humans (somehow) construct reality.

And these and other similar conclusions are non sequiturs. Which means they don't follow from the premise.

[Skepdick]

1 Your P1 is wrong, because humans don't generate facts.

Yes we do.

We generate different descriptions, using different discourses.

This should be trivial to demonstrate then.

If there's a conceptual distinction to be drawn between facts and descriptions of facts then you should be able to show us a fact without describing it.

Facts are social constructions - descriptions sufficient for human purposes.
No humans - no facts.

Realism begs the question.

[Gary Childress]

I wonder what Peter Singer would say about the "objectivity" (or otherwise) of morality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVl5kMXz1vA

1. Are we all evil so long as one person in this world dies from something the rest of us could have easily prevented without significant negative consequence to ourselves?

2. Is it "OK" to be evil?

If the answer to #1 is "yes" and the answer to #2 is "no", then what? I'm evil. Are you?

Perhaps the only non-evil people in this world are those who are dying and in need of assistance and those who are assisting them?

Do we live in a dungeon?

[Peter Holmes]

'Fact: a thing that [is known] to exist, or to have occurred, or to be true.' (Concise Oxford)

I square-bracket 'is known', for two reasons.

First, because expressions such as 'unknown facts', 'we need to establish the facts', 'we don't know all the facts about quantum reality', and so on, are coherent - and would be incoherent if 'being known' were a necessary condition for being a fact.

And second, because the passive construction 'being known' has no agency. Who is the knower? Does it have to be at least one human? And if so, why?

To clarify, then, a fact is 'a thing that exists, or has occurred, or is true.'

The third conjunct refers to a factual assertion - usually a linguistic expression - with the truth-value: true. And those assertions are real things - things that exist. And human beings, which also exist, produce them.

So, for sure, if there were no humans, there would be no human factual assertions. But another - alien? - species could produce them, so the claim 'no humans = no factual assertions' is false.

But now, back to the first two conjuncts: a fact is 'a thing that exists, or has occurred'. And, outside language, those facts have nothing to do with language. A thing that exists or has occurred just is or was the case.

A linguistic expression is indeed a social construct. But lots of facts - features of reality - are not linguistic expressions. And the claim that all such facts are social constructions is false. And ridiculous.

Human descriptions of the universe are social constructions. But the universe, before humans evolved, was not a social construction; there's no reason to think it became one when humans evolved; and it won't be one when we're gone.

Anti-realism is incoherent - and absurdly anthropocentric.

[FlashDangerpants]

I wonder what Peter Singer would say about the "objectivity" (or otherwise) of morality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVl5kMXz1vA

1. Are we all evil so long as one person in this world dies from something the rest of us could have easily prevented without significant negative consequence to ourselves?

2. Is it "OK" to be evil?

If the answer to #1 is "yes" and the answer to #2 is "no", then what? I'm evil. Are you?

Perhaps the only non-evil people in this world are those who are dying and in need of assistance and those who are assisting them?

Do we live in a dungeon?

Broadly speaking Singer was an anti-realist at the time of that 1972 paper, but I understand he later adopted a sort of realism though. But for this, and most arguments, it doesn't actually matter. He also wrote another paper around the same time arguing that the is-ought debate is itself trivial. I can't offer much insight, I haven't read it.

Nevertheless, so long as you hold at least two moral commitments, one of which must be that hypocrisy is morally wrong, and another can be something like it is wrong to allow people to die preventable deaths, then you can be held to account for hypocrisy to the extent that you are part of a system that allows distant people to die needlessly. The question of where you got the idea that hypocrisy is wrong is a secondary matter.

You also need an unspoken extra set of commitments whose foundation is equally suspect to those of your moral commitments. That would be the logical and epistemological sets that require us to to aim for consistent beliefs that don't clash with each other, and also to prefer beliefs that are true in some sense rather than just nice. All of these things apply because you are human, and are applicable to all of us irrespective of whether they are "real" or not.

They aren't actually "real". They can't be justified, they are just part of what it is to have a mind, and to some extent, so is basic morality, so there is something for Singer to work with in his argument that is just a given of some sort, without there needing to be a good reason for it.