What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have you even read his argument?

How to be a Moral Realist? Boyd
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Realist

No. Your summary is enough to dismiss it. Or didn't you describe it correctly?

the, give what you think is the correct summary in your view?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No. Your summary is enough to dismiss it. Or didn't you describe it correctly?

In the intro for the paper Boyd wrote "It will not be my aim here to establish that moral realism is true", so... VA hasn't understood it well enough to be able to describe it correctly.

Sigh. I wonder if he'll ever make the breakthrough to understanding that the truth of a premise (or premises) and the validity of a conclusion are all that matter in any kind of argument. Nothing else. So that isolating, clarifying and appraising the premises used by any philosopher, from Plato to Kant (to Boyd?) is the most important task. Which often isn't easy, because philosophers often write so badly.

And to the point, anyone who says that an 'ism', such as realism, has a truth-value, has already lost, in my opinion. It's factual assertions that have truth-value, not theories - philosophical or otherwise. If we think a theory (an explanation) is correct, that's because we think its premises are true, and its conclusions are valid.

FDP is lying without any intellectual integrity.

In Boyd's paper [a hypothesis, not a theory], he wrote:

What I want to do in this essay is to explore the ways in which
-recent developments in realist philosophy of science,
-together with related “naturalistic” developments in epistemology and philosophy of language,
can be employed in the articulation and defense of Moral Realism.

where he asserted that Science [objectivity] is analogous to Morality [objectivity];

• • that scientific theories should be understood as putative descriptions of real phenomena,
  • that ordinary scientific methods constitute a reliable procedure for obtaining and improving (approximate) knowledge of the real phenomena which scientific theories describe, and
  • that the reality described by scientific theories is largely independent of our theorizing.
  Scientific theories describe reality and reality is “prior to thought” (see Boyd 1982).

By “Moral Realism” I intend the analogous doctrine [with Science] about moral judgments, Moral statements, and moral theories.

According to Moral Realism:

• 1 Moral statements are the sorts of statements which are (or which express propositions which are) true or false (or approximately true, largely false, etc.);
  2 The truth or falsity (approximate truth…) of Moral statements is largely independent of our moral opinions, theories, etc.;
  3 Ordinary canons of moral reasoning—together with ordinary canons of scientific and everyday factual reasoning—constitute, under many circumstances at least, a reliable method for obtaining and improving (approximate) moral knowledge.

It follows from Moral Realism that such moral terms as “good”, “fair”, “just”, “obligatory” usually correspond to real properties or relations
and that our ordinary standards for moral reasoning and moral disputation
—together with reliable standards for scientific and everyday reasoning
—constitute a fairly reliable way of finding out which events, persons, policies, social arrangements, etc. have these properties and enter into these relations.

It is not a consequence of Moral Realism that our ordinary procedures are “best possible” for this purpose— just as it is not a consequence of Scientific Realism that our existing scientific methods are best possible.

I presented the above in my post;
Boyd: How to be a Moral Realist
viewtopic.php?t=29683

If you think my summary is not correct, what is 'your' correct summary of the paper?
Where are your valid premises to support your conclusion that my summary is not correct.

And to the point, anyone who says that an 'ism', such as realism, has a truth-value, has already lost, in my opinion. It's factual assertions that have truth-value, not theories - philosophical or otherwise. If we think a theory (an explanation) is correct, that's because we think its premises are true, and its conclusions are valid.

First the reality of your 'what is fact and factual' is grounded on an illusion, there is 'no' truth [truth conditions] of reality in your case; it only make sense within a linguistic framework and system.

Do you deny 'scientific realism' as claimed by realist has truth-condition?
Is 'water, H20' per the scientific-chemistry FSERC, yes or no?
Scientific realism [according to realists' has truth-conditions.

Since Boyd claimed morality is analogous to objective science,
therefore objective morality has truth conditions, i.e. Cognitivism.
therefore

[Peter Holmes]

Arguments against moral objectivism

2 The logic of moral arguments

For (classical) deductive validity, a conclusion cannot contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. Therefore, even if they are true, non-moral premises cannot entail moral conclusions.

A moral conclusion (a moral assertion) stands alone, unless it follows from a moral premise (a moral assertion), which also stands alone – and so on. So at the beginning – or the bottom – of an argument with a moral conclusion, there is always a moral assertion, expressing a moral opinion.

Whatever facts we deploy to explain or try to justify a moral opinion, others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify a different moral opinion. That is our moral predicament.

What has been called the is/ought barrier is logically insuperable.

For example, the ‘is’ premise promises are made does not entail the ‘ought’ conclusion promises ought to be kept. And the ‘is’ premise debts are incurred does not entail the ‘ought’ conclusion debts ought to be repaid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Arguments against moral objectivism

2 The logic of moral arguments

For (classical) deductive validity, a conclusion cannot contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. Therefore, even if they are true, non-moral premises cannot entail moral conclusions.

A moral conclusion (a moral assertion) stands alone, unless it follows from a moral premise (a moral assertion), which also stands alone – and so on. So at the beginning – or the bottom – of an argument with a moral conclusion, there is always a moral assertion, expressing a moral opinion.

Whatever facts we deploy to explain or try to justify a moral opinion, others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify a different moral opinion. That is our moral predicament.

What has been called the is/ought barrier is logically insuperable.

For example, the ‘is’ premise promises are made does not entail the ‘ought’ conclusion promises ought to be kept. And the ‘is’ premise debts are incurred does not entail the ‘ought’ conclusion debts ought to be repaid.

Your sense of fact is a sham.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
I don't argue for moral facts on the above illusory basis.

My basis is this:
Whatever is fact [reality, truth, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.
Therefore, a moral facts is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
I have already argued, the moral FSERC get most of its input from scientific facts, thus, the moral FSERC has near credibility and objectivity to the scientific FSERC.

The test of what is moral fact is whether it has any pragmatic values and can contribute to the moral progress of humanity.
I have argued moral objectivity and moral realism has pragmatic values.

On the other hand, moral relativism is to each their own, thus do not have any moral standards to progress upon.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sigh. I wonder if he'll ever make the breakthrough to understanding that the truth of a premise (or premises) and the validity of a conclusion are all that matter in any kind of argument.

At his current rate of not progress, I can't see it ever happening for him. There is no way you will ever get him to to understand that point you just made that "a conclusion cannot contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument" because he's never really cared at all about the relations between premises and conclusions.

How many threads did he launch just to show how confused he is by circular arguments? This happens to him because his idea of argumetn construction is to just label two sentences as P1 and P2 and then the thing he wants to say as C, and that is more or less how he thinks it works and the depth to which he understands the process.

[Peter Holmes]

Whatever is fact [reality, truth, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

Patently and demonstrably false. And self-contradictory. And stupidly anthropocentric. 'Reality is contingent upon that alien species on a planet on the other side of the universe.'

Reality is not 'contingent upon' (?) humans whatsoever. Human knowledge and descriptions of reality are, however, human phenomena. That's trivially true.

[Gary Childress]

Going back to the original question of what could make morality "objective", it seems to me that it would require a level of agreement and/or evidence of it being so that would make it virtually impossible for anyone to disagree.

2+2 = 4 is probably by reasonable accounts "objectively" the case, however, morality is a bit more convoluted and complex. Is it wrong to cut a person with a knife? Or wait, doctors. Is it wrong to cut a person with a knife which ends up killing them. But they didn't mean to kill them. Is it wrong to intentionally kill someone? But as a child the killer was exposed to extremely traumatic experiences which severely warped their socialization? Should we do something to prevent them from killing? Yes. Should we give them the death penalty? Not if we can lock them up for life, because that would bring us down to the level of killing in retaliation--which is often the motivation of killers (the feeling of having been wronged and killing in retaliation). Someone has to break the chain and teach by example. I think it ought to be society.

So is morality "objective"? I still don't know.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever is fact [reality, truth, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

Patently and demonstrably false. And self-contradictory. And stupidly anthropocentric. 'Reality is contingent upon that alien species on a planet on the other side of the universe.'

Reality is not 'contingent upon' (?) humans whatsoever. Human knowledge and descriptions of reality are, however, human phenomena. That's trivially true.

First it is impossible to deduce an absolutely independent reality.
The idea of an independent reality is driven by a necessary evolutionary default to facilitate survival, since it was adapted, it is useful but has its limit.
However, desperate realists ideologized this necessary independent reality as absolute in terms of 'realism' i.e. metaphysical or philosophical realism.
Since the emergence of philosophy, 'realism' has been infected with all sorts of malignant philosophical consequences.
Are you aware of them? e.g. dualism, skepticism, theological nonsense, antinomies, reality-gap, metaphysical delusions, etc.

It is due to the above philosophical malignancy that some philosophy who oppose to 'realism' introduce their specific antirealism [mine = more to Kantianism].

Antirealism cures philosophy of malignant philosophical ideologies.
In the case of Kantianism, reality is confine to what humans are capable of realizing the reality that spontaneously emerged.
This is limited to what is experiential and observable [directly and indirectly] with reinforcement of critical thinking, rationality and wisdom.

[Age]

Whatever is fact [reality, truth, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

Patently and demonstrably false. And self-contradictory. And stupidly anthropocentric. 'Reality is contingent upon that alien species on a planet on the other side of the universe.'

Reality is not 'contingent upon' (?) humans whatsoever. Human knowledge and descriptions of reality are, however, human phenomena. That's trivially true.

First it is impossible to deduce an absolutely independent reality.

But, to you, it is possible to deduce an absolute independent 'moral fact'. Which is Truly surprising considering that all 'morality', in regards to what is Right and Wrong in Life, is held within individual, invisible thoughts and thinking and/or emotions, whereas rocks, concrete, and planets, for example, exist in actual visible and 'touchable' substances. But, to you, the visible and touchable things, independent of you human beings cannot be 'deduced'. However, what is Right and Wrong can be.

What I find Truly amusing to watch and observe here though is for those that claim that there are 'objective moral facts' do not just write down and list what those, supposed, Truly 'objective moral facts' are, exactly.

The idea of an independent reality is driven by a necessary evolutionary default to facilitate survival, since it was adapted, it is useful but has its limit.

The idea, or belief, that there was no planet, no suns/stars, nor even the Universe, Itself, existing before human beings came to exist, some might say and claim, is driven by a form of insanity, itself.

However, desperate realists ideologized this necessary independent reality as absolute in terms of 'realism' i.e. metaphysical or philosophical realism.
Since the emergence of philosophy, 'realism' has been infected with all sorts of malignant philosophical consequences.
Are you aware of them? e.g. dualism, skepticism, theological nonsense, antinomies, reality-gap, metaphysical delusions, etc.

And, this is not to mention the 'scientific nonsense' that the whole Universe, Itself, came from absolutely nothing at all, plus all of the other things.

It is due to the above philosophical malignancy that some philosophy who oppose to 'realism' introduce their specific antirealism [mine = more to Kantianism].

Antirealism cures philosophy of malignant philosophical ideologies.
In the case of Kantianism, reality is confine to what humans are capable of realizing the reality that spontaneously emerged.
This is limited to what is experiential and observable [directly and indirectly] with reinforcement of critical thinking, rationality and wisdom.

Why do you think or believe that those who 'think' or 'see' things in the exact same way you do have critical thinking, rationality, and wisdom, but for absolutely anyone else who 'things' or 'views' things in any slightly different way from you "veritas aequitas" do not have critical thinking, rationality, nor wisdom, or are 'just ignorant'?

Could it be a case that you do not think critically all, of the time, are not rational, all of the time, are not as wise, as you believe you are, or are 'just ignorant' "yourself", some times? Or, is there not a possibility of this, at all, to you?

[Peter Holmes]

In the case of Kantianism, reality is confine to what humans are capable of realizing the reality that spontaneously emerged.
This is limited to what is experiential and observable [directly and indirectly] with reinforcement of critical thinking, rationality and wisdom.

Here's your claim: If there were no humans to experience and observe reality, there would be no reality - no universe.

Nuff said.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the case of Kantianism, reality is confine to what humans are capable of realizing the reality that spontaneously emerged.
This is limited to what is experiential and observable [directly and indirectly] with reinforcement of critical thinking, rationality and wisdom.

Here's your claim: If there were no humans to experience and observe reality, there would be no reality - no universe.

Nuff said.

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.

At present with humans, we are in, realizing and experiencing reality, therefrom perceiving, knowing and describing the realized reality.
There is no case of solipsism, just in case that is your point.

[Peter Holmes]

In the case of Kantianism, reality is confine to what humans are capable of realizing the reality that spontaneously emerged.
This is limited to what is experiential and observable [directly and indirectly] with reinforcement of critical thinking, rationality and wisdom.

Here's your claim: If there were no humans to experience and observe reality, there would be no reality - no universe.

Nuff said.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's your claim: If there were no humans to experience and observe reality, there would be no reality - no universe.

Nuff said.

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.
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.

[Age]

In the case of Kantianism, reality is confine to what humans are capable of realizing the reality that spontaneously emerged.
This is limited to what is experiential and observable [directly and indirectly] with reinforcement of critical thinking, rationality and wisdom.

Here's your claim: If there were no humans to experience and observe reality, there would be no reality - no universe.

Nuff said.

Your response is too shallow and narrow.

How can reality be experienced, realized and known if there are no humans?

By the very living things that can experience, realize, and know. Obviously, human beings are not the only living things that can do these three things.

Note whatever the answer you provide can only be answered by humans.

Obviously, if a question is proposed in, and with, "english" written words, then, only, "english" reading human beings could answer it.

But, this does not take away from the irrefutable Fact that how can 'reality', itself, be experienced, realized, and known is by living things that can experience, realize, and know.

Of which there is, obviously, more than just you human beings who can, and do.

Therefore, logically and deductively, it follows, whatever the resultant reality it cannot be independent of the human conditions.

And, once again, the 'rationality' goes completely astray, as can be clearly seen here when one only 'looks at' and 'sees' things from their already 'currently' held onto beliefs and/or pre/assumptions, only.

At present with humans, we are in, realizing and experiencing reality, therefrom perceiving, knowing and describing the realized reality.
There is no case of solipsism, just in case that is your point.

[Peter Holmes]

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.
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.