Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

But you have to know and judge their behavior in order to be active.

Why?

You have to judge how do deal with people. You have to judge whether they are doing something 'deviant' or dangerous or trivial or harmless. Then you have to decide how to deal with it.

That would seem to be fairly obvious.

Oh, sure. You just mean "assessing," then?

Yeah, we all have to do that, because we all have to make choices about things and people around us. Bu that's nothing strictly judicial, or even specifically moral. That's just living.

[Will Bouwman]

Even you shy from pretending it gives off the illusion of fact.

I don't "shy" away from any such thing, actually.

Oh good. So what is factual about Genesis?

[iambiguous]

Page 666!

[phyllo]

[Immanuel Can]

Even you shy from pretending it gives off the illusion of fact.

I don't "shy" away from any such thing, actually.

Oh good. So what is factual about Genesis?

Let's start at the start.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

[Harbal]

I don't "shy" away from any such thing, actually.

Oh good. So what is factual about Genesis?

Let's start at the start.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

How many heavens?

[Age]

I don't "shy" away from any such thing, actually.

Oh good. So what is factual about Genesis?

Let's start at the start.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Have you never questioned, nor challenged, this claim?

Have you always just accepted this and thus just always believed this was irrefutably true?

And, obviously you will not answer and clarify here openly and honestly because of where doing so will leave you.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh good. So what is factual about Genesis?

Let's start at the start.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

How many heavens?

The term "heavens," with a small "h" and a plural, refers to the cosmos...the planets, stars, etc. But you can see that from context, as it's contrasted to "the Earth."

[Veritas Aequitas]

To repeat, in my opinion, much of the analytic movement constituted a wrong-turn to language. Because what do analytic philosophers analyse? Thought, ideas, concepts? And, if so, are those things amenable to analysis in the way that physical reality is amenable to scientific analysis? And if so, what kind of analysis, and with what results? It is and always was dressed up nonsense.

When I see the word concept, I reach for the fly-swatter. The myth of the mind, containing mental things and events, continues to befog our understanding. 'What is fact?' 'Well, it's a concept.' Sounds like an answer, sounds impressively technical - but it explains absolutely nothing.

While you may reject certain views of the Analytic Tradition, you nevertheless their definition of what is fact, i.e. a feature of reality, that is the case, states of affairs or just-is that is independent of the individual's opinions, judgement, beliefs.
You have defined 'what is fact' countless times.
That is what Betti reject as 'fact'.

And I've shown why Betti is wrong to do so.

I on the other hand, accept 'what is fact' as something that is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC, i.e. not independent regardless of humans.

If Betti 'generally' says that a fact exists only within a language game, then that mistakes what we say for the way things are. And here's the point: it's as mistaken to deny facts, such as identity - sameness and difference - in reality, as it is to insist on linguistic identity in reality outside language. Both mistakes testify to the dazzling power of language - evident in the silliness of truth-maker/truth-bearer theory, and other correspondence theories of truth.

For example, the things we call cats and dogs and rocks and stones and trees are what they are, how ever we identify, name and describe them, and whether we say they're the same as or different from each other.

Yes, they are what they are in correspondence to the language games or FSERC.

Complete nonsense. You don't seem to understand the correspondence theory of truth. And the claim that cats, etc, are what they are only because they 'correspond' to a language game is laughable.

There is no way cats, dogs, rock and stones can exists as things-in-themselves without the relation to everything in the cosmos and human-beings.

This is mystical claptrap. 'Things can exist only in relation to everything else that exists.'

Philosophical anti-realism has been a fashionable dead end for many decades, with false but seductive premises that continue to sucker the unwary.

This is merely handwaving.
There are many types of philosophical anti-realism which oppose philosophical realism.
Philosophical anti-realism is the most effective supporting for the more advanced knowledge we have up to Quantum Physics, then cognitive neuroscience and various philosophies, e.g. morality.

False. Our knowledge is knowledge of reality, including knowledge of how our brains work, and of how reality can be explained increasingly successfully by quantum mechanics. Philosophical anti-realism can't account for this knowledge.

One critical element with philosophical anti-realism is it give some control of reality and destiny to humans instead of being at the mercy of something beyond and is uncontrollable.

Quite the opposite. Philosophical anti-realism denies there's any such thing as a reality that can be understood and controlled - let alone a moral reality.

With objective morality, we have some sort of fixed moral 'lighthouse' [objective moral elements] to guide moral progress and avoiding the rocks of moral life.

There are two completely different claims here.

1 There are moral facts.
2 If we think there are moral facts, and know what they are, we then have a lighthouse to guide moral progress.

You use the second claim to bulldoze through objections to the first. And that's simply untenable.

Crudely:

1. The killing of humans [especially impulsively and arbitrary] is a moral issue.
2. Malignant psychopaths who kill humans [immoral] on impulse has some sort of damaged or abnormal brain the the majority.
3. Scientists had linked psychopathy its basis to the neural set up in the physical brain, thus this objective.
4. When the problem of malignant psychopathy is cured, correspondingly we would have resolved a moral issue re killing of humans.
5. In this specific case, morality is objective.

So, I am not bothered with the feelings and emotional sentiments related to killing of humans.
What I am concerned with are the physical objective matters related to morality, in the above case via psychopathy.
It can be done objectively with other moral issues.

[Peter Holmes]

1. The killing of humans [especially impulsively and arbitrary] is a moral issue.

No. it's not - unless we assume (in this case) moral wrongness. So this premise begs the question.

2. Malignant psychopaths who kill humans [immoral] on impulse has some sort of damaged or abnormal brain the the majority.

This is a factual assertion with a truth-value, but no moral entailment.

3. Scientists had linked psychopathy its basis to the neural set up in the physical brain, thus this objective.

Ditto the above.

4. When the problem of malignant psychopathy is cured, correspondingly we would have resolved a moral issue re killing of humans.

Question-begging, as in 1.

5. In this specific case, morality is objective.

Bollocks. You don't understand the how a deductive argument works. I recommend a logic 101 course or simple text.

[Will Bouwman]

I don't "shy" away from any such thing, actually.

Oh good. So what is factual about Genesis?

Let's start at the start.

I did suggest this, but at the time you were less in favour.

If we want to start at the real beginning, the beginning of my "establishing" of things was the gospels, not Genesis.

Anyway...

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Do you have any objective source other than the Bible to corroborate this?

[Peter Holmes]

1. The killing of humans [especially impulsively and arbitrary] is a moral issue.

No. it's not - unless we assume (in this case) moral wrongness. So this premise begs the question.

2. Malignant psychopaths who kill humans [immoral] on impulse has some sort of damaged or abnormal brain the the majority.

This is a factual assertion with a truth-value, but no moral entailment.

3. Scientists had linked psychopathy its basis to the neural set up in the physical brain, thus this objective.

Ditto the above.

4. When the problem of malignant psychopathy is cured, correspondingly we would have resolved a moral issue re killing of humans.

Question-begging, as in 1.

5. In this specific case, morality is objective.

Bollocks. You don't understand the how a deductive argument works. I recommend a logic 101 course or simple text. Here's your invalid and unsound argument.

P1 X is a moral issue.
P2 To reduce the incidence of X is to resolve this moral issue.
C Therefore, in the case of X, morality is objective.

The missing moral premise is: X is morally wrong/bad/wicked. And the fact that you offer this ridiculous argument demonstrates your philosophical and logical incompetence.

[Harbal]

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Do you have any objective source other than the Bible to corroborate this?

The original planning application is to be found in the archives of Eden Parish Council.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh good. So what is factual about Genesis?

Let's start at the start.

I did suggest this, but at the time you were less in favour.

If we want to start at the real beginning, the beginning of my "establishing" of things was the gospels, not Genesis.

Anyway...

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Do you have any objective source other than the Bible to corroborate this?

Science. Observation. Spiritual experience. Reason. Mathematics. Archaeology. Those are good companions when one is making a decision.

[phyllo]

If a claim is subjective, you cannot check it against anything, and that subsequently brings into question whther it can have a truth value at all.

That would make subjective morality pretty well useless.

Morality is useful for what we use it for, which is a set of social practises that make it possible for us to live together and form societies, which is something most of us seem to like.

If you can't check the morality of a action "against anything" then you can't know if an action is beneficial or useful in any way. The cause and effect aspect of the action is lost.There is no "we're doing this rather than that because it will produce this effect rather than that one". You have no way of verifying anything about the action. Is that producing a result that we want? Who the hell knows? You might as well not have any morality at all.

Having no truth value is the other side of the same coin.