The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think for me, finding out that "objective" means this self-referential, tautological thing to VA, definitely results in me thinking his idea of "objective morality" is worth ignoring in bulk. If something is "objective" because it's conditioned upon itself, then everything is objective and objectivity loses meaning.

I don't really care about that kind of self referential objectivity. It doesn't mean anything to me. So I don't care about that conception of objective morality either.

Can we go through your argument again?

I believe you missed my point on why it is not self-referential.

Do you deny scientific facts are objective?
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

It is critical we need a concept of Objectivity and its continuum to facilitate progress grounded on some sort of fixed goal posts rather than Moral Relativism's many goal posts and shifting goal posts.
I believe you have not taken this into account.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think for me, finding out that "objective" means this self-referential, tautological thing to VA, definitely results in me thinking his idea of "objective morality" is worth ignoring in bulk. If something is "objective" because it's conditioned upon itself, then everything is objective and objectivity loses meaning.

I don't really care about that kind of self referential objectivity. It doesn't mean anything to me. So I don't care about that conception of objective morality either.

Can we go through your argument again?

I believe you missed my point on why it is not self-referential.

Do you deny scientific facts are objective?
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

It is critical we need a concept of Objectivity and its continuum to facilitate progress grounded on some sort of fixed goal posts rather than Moral Relativism's many goal posts and shifting goal posts.
I believe you have not taken this into account.

[Flannel Jesus]

I believe you missed my point on why it is not self-referential.

This is what you said

the Christianity morality is conditioned upon the human-based Christianity-moral FSK, thus objective.

If you cannot see why that is self referential, you may not understand what self referential means.

You want me to believe Christian morality is "objective".

Why is it objective? I ask.

You say, because it is conditioned upon the human-based Christianity-moral FSK.

This is self referential. Circular. Christian morality is objective because it's conditioned upon itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you missed my point on why it is not self-referential.

This is what you said

the Christianity morality is conditioned upon the human-based Christianity-moral FSK, thus objective.

If you cannot see why that is self referential, you may not understand what self referential means.

You want me to believe Christian morality is "objective".

Why is it objective? I ask.

You say, because it is conditioned upon the human-based Christianity-moral FSK.

This is self referential. Circular. Christian morality is objective because it's conditioned upon itself.

I don't see the problem?

Note scientific facts are objective because they are conditioned upon the scientific-FSK.

1. What is objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
2. Christianity morality is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. Therefore, Christianity morality is objective.

There is no self-referential in the above.

[Flannel Jesus]

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand what self referential means at the most basic level. If you justify an idea by pointing to itself, that IS self referential, that IS circular. That's what those words mean.

The Bible is true. How do I know that? Because it says it right here, in this page in the Bible.

What you're doing here is just the same as that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand what self referential means at the most basic level. If you justify an idea by pointing to itself, that IS self referential, that IS circular. That's what those words mean.

The Bible is true. How do I know that? Because it says it right here, in this page in the Bible.

What you're doing here is just the same as that.

Show there is self-reference in my specific syllogism above?

[Flannel Jesus]

The circularity was in this quote:

the Christianity morality is conditioned upon the human-based Christianity-moral FSK, thus objective.

I'm not addressing any alternative wording you might have come up with.

There are other problems with your syllogism (related problems though, because they have the same effect as your circular reasoning).

[Veritas Aequitas]

The circularity was in this quote:

the Christianity morality is conditioned upon the human-based Christianity-moral FSK, thus objective.

I'm not addressing any alternative wording you might have come up with.

There are other problems with your syllogism (related problems though, because they have the same effect as your circular reasoning).

My intention was this;

1. What is objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
2. Christianity morality is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. Therefore, Christianity morality is objective.

It is the wording but what is critical is the syllogism which I had presented above.
Focusing on my earlier mistaken wording is cheap.
This is why we need to trash out any kinks and misunderstandings.

[Flannel Jesus]

That syllogism can be applied to every idea anybody has ever thought. It's useless. It makes the word "objective" useless. Christian morality is objective because it's "conditioned upon" the Christian morality fsk. Moral nihilism is objective because it's "conditioned upon" the moral nihilism fsk. My towel is a god is objective because it's "conditioned upon" the my towel is a god fsk.

Everything is objective and objective is no longer a useful word, it doesn't convey any information or meaning.

[Iwannaplato]

That syllogism can be applied to every idea anybody has ever thought. It's useless. It makes the word "objective" useless. Christian morality is objective because it's "conditioned upon" the Christian morality fsk. Moral nihilism is objective because it's "conditioned upon" the moral nihilism fsk. My towel is a god is objective because it's "conditioned upon" the my towel is a god fsk.

Everything is objective and objective is no longer a useful word, it doesn't convey any information or meaning.

And Islam is objective.

I can see saying that these things are intersubjective, but for an antirealist to label them objective seems self-contradictory. And I would guess he's the only antirealist to do so. 'of or relating to objects'

When in fact VA's objectivity has nothing to do with objects or epistemology. It only has to do with a group. If there's a group, their beliefs are objective.

It doesn't make any sense to distinguish one person's opinion as subjective
from
a groups opinion as objective, since there is no need for objects to be involved.

There's no change from subjects to object focus.

There is a change from subjective to intersubjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That syllogism can be applied to every idea anybody has ever thought. It's useless. It makes the word "objective" useless. Christian morality is objective because it's "conditioned upon" the Christian morality fsk. Moral nihilism is objective because it's "conditioned upon" the moral nihilism fsk. My towel is a god is objective because it's "conditioned upon" the my towel is a god fsk.

Everything is objective and objective is no longer a useful word, it doesn't convey any information or meaning.

1. What is objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
2. Christianity morality is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
3. Therefore, Christianity morality is objective.

The above is not applicable to an individual's idea or a loose groups of individuals.
The concept of Framework and System within a group of people is critical in that there must be some sort of Constitution [explicit or implicit], rules, processes and mechanisms that ground whatever the claims therefrom.

In the case of Christianity, it is grounded upon the Gospels of Christ and the Constitution which is co-shared and agreed by Christians [at present >2 billion].
As such, whatever is claimed from the Christianity FSK is objective [as defined].

FJ:Everything is objective and objective is no longer a useful word, it doesn't convey any information or meaning.
Why not??
The next necessary question to ask is 'what degrees of objectivity' is the Christianity FSK.
As contrasted to the scientific FSK [empirically based] the Christianity FSK [based on blind faith] is on first assessment has very low degree of objectivity, but nevertheless is still objective.

There are various utilities from the difference is degrees of objectivity.
The high degree of objectivity of the Natural Science FSK has high predictive values and rely upon them to contribute to the progress of technology and therefrom the well being of humanity.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's objective because it's in a book that a lot of people like?

So, again, any idea at all has the potential to be objective, as long as I codify that idea into a book and a lot of people like it. "My towel is a god" may not be objective now, but when it's on the new York times best sellers list it will be.

How you're using the word "objective" here is just straight up nonsense. Are you creating confusions on purpose?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's objective because it's in a book that a lot of people like?

So, again, any idea at all has the potential to be objective, as long as I codify that idea into a book and a lot of people like it. "My towel is a god" may not be objective now, but when it's on the new York times best sellers list it will be.

How you're using the word "objective" here is just straight up nonsense. Are you creating confusions on purpose?

If your belief "My towel is a god" is accepted by a large group of people who form a club or association with a Constitution to support it, then it qualify as a FSK, thus that would be objective.

But the above is subject to 'what its its degree of objectivity' in contrast to the empirical based scientific FSK as the standard [say 100/100]; in this case your "My towel is a god"-FSK based on blind faith would be rated at the lower extreme at say 0.1/100 degree of objectivity.

I see no confusions if the contexts are properly defined and explained.

Objectivity is a useful concept and there is a wide variation in objectivity, thus the need for a continuum degree of objectivity.

You cannot deny the following has objective values [otherwise?],
1. Share prices above the net-tangible asset and including sentiments.
2. US Dollar and other currencies which are not supported Gold or physical assets equivalent.
3. R'Bonney Gabriel as Miss Universe 2022 based on Beauty and other subjective values.
4. Other objectivity grounded on intersubjective agreement.

Since the above cannot have the same value of objectivity we have to assess them within a range of degrees of objectivity.

[Flannel Jesus]

Something is objective if it wins a popularity contest, right. I'm really not on board with any of the ways you choose to use language, I can't see any point to using the word this way outside of crafting ways to confuse people.

There's already an adjective for beliefs that are held by a lot of people, and it's not "objective". It's "popular". If I get my towel book published and a lot of people believe it, the belief isn't "objective", it's "popular" or "common", or even "ubiquitous" if it gets popular enough, but none of those things are synonyms with "objective". There's no reason to take the word "objective" and make it a synonym with "popular", when the word "popular" already exists