What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

Vector: 'a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another.'

Surely only a moron would think that moral rightness and wrongness are quantities having direction as well as magnitude, etc.

Surely only a moron would think the following is a sound argument for moral objectivity.

P1 If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong.
P2 Murder is wrong.
C Therefore, murder is wrong.

Faced with a thinker of this intellectual calibre, it's game over.

Yes, what can we all do but throw our collective towels into the ring?

[Skepdick]

Surely only a moron would think the following is a sound argument for moral objectivity.

P1 If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong.
P2 Murder is wrong.
C Therefore, murder is wrong.

Observe the moral and intellectual bankruptcy!

A premise entails itself as a conclusion. If X then X. Logic. Law of identity.
Since the premise and conclusion are identical - the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion . This guarantees logical validity.
The premises are true. This guarantees soundness.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is rejecting the soundness of the argument!
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is claiming that the premises are NOT true!

You asked for a sound/valid argument - you got a sound/valid argument. Are you going to move the goal posts?!? Again!

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you have empirical evidence I am wrong? If not, then that is empirical evidence I am right.

There is nobody else joining in this sorting game that you play. And it doesn't need to be played. So maybe stop playing it.

It is true nobody [that I know of] here who are into ranking seriously.

The listing sorting and ranking games you play are pointless. The numbers you make up out of thin air to justify them are meaningless and measure nothing. The whole thing only matters to you.

This problem isn't going to go away by just putting it on the back-burner and hoping people stop asking you about it.

Nothing that matters is even addressed by having a framework for sorting all the frameworks into some league table.
If it was a useful idea, that wouldn't have any bearing on whether it was possible.
Nothing about your number invention method makes any sense and that approach is no use to solving this issue that probably doesn't need solving.
So we have no reason to take this meta-KFC thing at all. Therefore it is rejected.

All your other shit follows it down the same toilet, because all that KFC rubbish you spout depends upon this "credibility" you meaningless assign to things for no particular reason, to solve no particular problem.

[Peter Holmes]

It's amusing that moron dick-for-brains, who doesn't give a shit about classical logic, suddenly cares deeply about classical entailment. But hey - if you fuck up every other kind of argument, why not try a classical one?

And hey, why bother recognising that the truth-aptness of a moral assertion such as 'murder is wrong' is the issue, so that just saying it's true is a fucking waste of time. And why bother recognising the emptiness of repeating a premise as a conclusion, as though that produces a useful argument?

P Murder is wrong.
C Therefore, murder is wrong.

Fucking moron.

[Skepdick]

It's amusing that moron dick-for-brains, who doesn't give a shit about classical logic, suddenly cares deeply about classical entailment. But hey - if you fuck up every other kind of argument, why not try a classical one?

And hey, why bother recognising that the truth-aptness of a moral assertion such as 'murder is wrong' is the issue, so that just saying it's true is a fucking waste of time. And why bother recognising the emptiness of repeating a premise as a conclusion, as though that produces a useful argument?

P Murder is wrong.
C Therefore, murder is wrong.

Fucking moron.

I don't give a fuck about classical logic; or classical entailment.

You said you wanted a sound/valid argument! Those were your goalposts!
I gave you a sound/valid argument! And, surprise! surprise! the goalpost moved.

Nobody gives a fuck if you find the argument useful. It's sound/valid and therefore true. A moral fact! Isn't this what you wanted?

There's no end to the idiocy of a sophist who doesn't even recognize that his request has been sufficiently satisfied.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you have empirical evidence I am wrong? If not, then that is empirical evidence I am right.

There is nobody else joining in this sorting game that you play. And it doesn't need to be played. So maybe stop playing it.

It is true nobody [that I know of] here who are into ranking seriously.

The listing sorting and ranking games you play are pointless. The numbers you make up out of thin air to justify them are meaningless and measure nothing. The whole thing only matters to you.

This problem isn't going to go away by just putting it on the back-burner and hoping people stop asking you about it.

Nothing that matters is even addressed by having a framework for sorting all the frameworks into some league table.
If it was a useful idea, that wouldn't have any bearing on whether it was possible.
Nothing about your number invention method makes any sense and that approach is no use to solving this issue that probably doesn't need solving.
So we have no reason to take this meta-KFC thing at all. Therefore it is rejected.

All your other shit follows it down the same toilet, because all that KFC rubbish you spout depends upon this "credibility" you meaningless assign to things for no particular reason, to solve no particular problem.

You are ignorant and living within a silo.
If you have to have open heart surgery would you depend of the theories and practices of a shaman [FSRC] or a cardiac surgeon leaning his skills on the science-FRSC.
Any rational person will rely on the cardiac surgeon but merely based on faith?
This is why we need some sort of measurement of objectivity to conclude why the cardiac surgeon is more credible, trustworthy and objective.

It is the same with comparing the theories of creationists [FSRC] with those of Science-Physics-Cosmology FSRC.

There are definitely times where we need to assess the credibility and objective of other varying degree within a spectrum from low to high.

I suggest your research wider from your existing dogmatic knowledge-base.

[Peter Holmes]

The soundness of a valid argument refers to the truth of its premises, and therefore the truth of its conclusion.

Now, we're arguing about the supposed truth-vale of a moral premise, such as 'murder is wrong' - whether it makes sense to say it even has a truth-value - that it's 'truth-apt' at all. And moron dick-for-brains proudly offers the following argument.

P1 If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong.
P2 Murder is wrong.
C Therefore, murder is wrong.

The moron admits it doesn't give a fuck about classical logic - but that this is nonetheless a sound argument.

QED.

[Skepdick]

The soundness of a valid argument refers to the truth of its premises, and therefore the truth of its conclusion.

I know! Hence, when you claim that the argument is NOT sound you are necessarily claiming that the premises are NOT true

Which is precisely what I said!

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is rejecting the soundness of the argument!
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is claiming that the premises are NOT true!

Now, we're arguing about the supposed truth-vale of a moral premise, such as 'murder is wrong' - whether it makes sense to say it even has a truth-value - that it's 'truth-apt' at all. And moron dick-for-brains proudly offers the following argument.

No shit, Sherlock! We assign the truth-value "true" to claims which are right. And we assign the truth-value "false" to claims which are wrong.

If moral premises lack truth value then moral premises are neither right nor wrong.
Murder would be neither right nor wrong.

That's absurd!!!

P1 If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong.
P2 Murder is wrong.
C Therefore, murder is wrong.

The moron admits it doesn't give a fuck about classical logic - but that this is nonetheless a sound argument.

QED.

Q.E.D!


If it is NOT the case that murder is wrong then it is the case that murder is NOT wrong.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes rejects the soundness of the argument.
Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes believes that murder is NOT wrong.

What a morally bankrupt wanker! What a moral subjectivist! But I repeat myself.

[Will Bouwman]

If it is NOT the case that murder is wrong then it is the case that murder is NOT wrong.

Well, murder is just how one describes the killing of someone for reasons you happen to disapprove of. There's no objective standard for murder.

[Skepdick]

Well, murder is just how one describes the killing of someone for reasons you happen to disapprove of. There's no objective standard for murder.

Is there an objective standard for "killing"? Or is it just how one describes some events?

[Will Bouwman]

Is there an objective standard for "killing"? Or is it just how one describes some events?

Well, if someone ends up dead because of some events you actioned, I am happy to conclude that you killed them. Being dead is rather more objective than being wrong, methinks.

[Skepdick]

Is there an objective standard for "killing"? Or is it just how one describes some events?

Well, if someone ends up dead because of some events you actioned

Is there an objective standard for "ending up dead" and "events I actioned"? Or is it just how one describes some events?

I am happy to conclude that you killed them. Being dead is rather more objective than being wrong, methinks.

So you are comparing the relative objectivities of dead-ness and wrong-ness?

Great! We agree that they are both objective then!

[Veritas Aequitas]

If it is NOT the case that murder is wrong then it is the case that murder is NOT wrong.

Well, murder is just how one describes the killing of someone for reasons you happen to disapprove of. There's no objective standard for murder.

Re Normative-ethics,

1. The objective moral standard is 'it is immoral for a human to kill humans' period!
This objective standard targets no humans are killed by humans.

the alternative moral standard is
2. 'it is not immoral for humans to kill humans'
this mean that there is a potential for humans to be extinct in the hands of humans.

Any effective moral system must be idiot-proof in terms of the standards to be set.
Standard 1 is idiot-proof thus effective.
Standard 2 is not idiot-proof thus ineffective.

Those who choose standard 2 are morally incompetent and has a cognitive deficit.

Note the objective moral standards are merely to act as guide not to be enforceable.
This guide enable moral competent people to strive towards the impossible ideal while at the same time enabling continuous improvements and progress in moral competence of the individual[s] and the average human.

I also claim that standard 2 can be justified and inferred from empirical evidences [very evident] via a morality-proper FSRC as objective.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is true nobody [that I know of] here who are into ranking seriously.

The listing sorting and ranking games you play are pointless. The numbers you make up out of thin air to justify them are meaningless and measure nothing. The whole thing only matters to you.

This problem isn't going to go away by just putting it on the back-burner and hoping people stop asking you about it.

Nothing that matters is even addressed by having a framework for sorting all the frameworks into some league table.
If it was a useful idea, that wouldn't have any bearing on whether it was possible.
Nothing about your number invention method makes any sense and that approach is no use to solving this issue that probably doesn't need solving.
So we have no reason to take this meta-KFC thing at all. Therefore it is rejected.

All your other shit follows it down the same toilet, because all that KFC rubbish you spout depends upon this "credibility" you meaningless assign to things for no particular reason, to solve no particular problem.

You are ignorant and living within a silo.
If you have to have open heart surgery would you depend of the theories and practices of a shaman [FSRC] or a cardiac surgeon leaning his skills on the science-FRSC.
Any rational person will rely on the cardiac surgeon but merely based on faith?
This is why we need some sort of measurement of objectivity to conclude why the cardiac surgeon is more credible, trustworthy and objective.

If that were true we would be stupid to rely on made up numbers as a means for deciding the "credibility" of one of these KFCs, it be suicide. Lukcinly it isn't, because I don't need any numbers tohelp me decide whether to visit a real doctor or a witch doctor, I don't even consider the voodoo option and if you offered me numbers that said I ought to, I would laugh at your silly made up numbers again.


This is because medical science is type of thing we currently believe we are justified in trusting, and witchcraft is the sort of thing we currently are all persuaded is dumb. Then we only need to know enougg to work out which category to place a thing into and then we are golden.

I know enough about how measurement is supposed to work that I can see that your credibilty-scoring-KFC-bucket is nonsense that makes up bullshit numbers for the purposes of a pointless scoring system to be used in a maniacal sorting game by one strange man on the internet. I don't need to assign it a credibility score of 0.7 out of 622 to know that I will never use it or the fraudulent numbers you make up.

It is the same with comparing the theories of creationists [FSRC] with those of Science-Physics-Cosmology FSRC.

There are definitely times where we need to assess the credibility and objective of other varying degree within a spectrum from low to high.

I suggest your research wider from your existing dogmatic knowledge-base.

That is just more pointless sorting games. Nobody is into them except you. They are shit and stupid.

[Skepdick]

This objective standard targets no humans are killed by humans.

Eh?!? What about humans killed by preventable medical conditions ?!?

You keep missing the forrest for the trees.