What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Sat Dec 25, 2021 11:13 am
I have ALREADY explained, on numerous occasions, how 'you', human beings, can find and UNCOVER Facts, which are obviously IRREFUTABLE, and ever-lasting.
I asked if you can show an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.

Please forgive me if I missed it. Mea maxima culpa.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:52 pm
Age wrote: Sat Dec 25, 2021 11:13 am
I have ALREADY explained, on numerous occasions, how 'you', human beings, can find and UNCOVER Facts, which are obviously IRREFUTABLE, and ever-lasting.
I asked if you can show an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.
EASY, when you tell us what the word 'fact' here means or refers to EXACTLY.

SEE, you might want to claim that the word 'fact' can NEVER be expressed other than just as an opinion. So, while you HOLD a BELIEF like this, then, OF COURSE, to you, it would be an IMPOSSIBILITY to show an example of a 'moral fact' and also show why it is a 'fact' and not the expression of a 'moral opinion'.

So, until you EXPOSE your BELIEFS here, it could be just a COMPLETE and UTTER waste of time discussing this here with you.

But at least we are now closer to understanding that what you are saying may just be your opinion ALONE, and therefore NOT a fact AT ALL, to you. Which would mean that what you are saying and claiming here is NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' NOR 'fact' AT ALL but just on your OWN subjective opinion. So, would there be ANY REAL REASON to listen to it?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:27 pm Please forgive me if I missed it. Mea maxima culpa.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:52 pm
Age wrote: Sat Dec 25, 2021 11:13 am
I have ALREADY explained, on numerous occasions, how 'you', human beings, can find and UNCOVER Facts, which are obviously IRREFUTABLE, and ever-lasting.
I asked if you can show an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.
EASY, when you tell us what the word 'fact' here means or refers to EXACTLY.

SEE, you might want to claim that the word 'fact' can NEVER be expressed other than just as an opinion. So, while you HOLD a BELIEF like this, then, OF COURSE, to you, it would be an IMPOSSIBILITY to show an example of a 'moral fact' and also show why it is a 'fact' and not the expression of a 'moral opinion'.

So, until you EXPOSE your BELIEFS here, it could be just a COMPLETE and UTTER waste of time discussing this here with you.

But at least we are now closer to understanding that what you are saying may just be your opinion ALONE, and therefore NOT a fact AT ALL, to you. Which would mean that what you are saying and claiming here is NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' NOR 'fact' AT ALL but just on your OWN subjective opinion. So, would there be ANY REAL REASON to listen to it?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:27 pm Please forgive me if I missed it. Mea maxima culpa.
Stop dodging. I use the word 'fact' in the standard way, to mean a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality which is true, given the way we use the words involved.

And from what you say here, you clearly understand the difference between what we call a fact and what we call an opinion.

But if you use the words 'fact' and 'opinion' non-standardly, by all means explain how you use them.

Either way, please produce the goods: an example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of anyone's opinion.

And when you find you can't, I suggest you re-think the idea that morality is or can be objective. Because it isn't and can't.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am
Age wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:52 pm

I asked if you can show an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.
EASY, when you tell us what the word 'fact' here means or refers to EXACTLY.

SEE, you might want to claim that the word 'fact' can NEVER be expressed other than just as an opinion. So, while you HOLD a BELIEF like this, then, OF COURSE, to you, it would be an IMPOSSIBILITY to show an example of a 'moral fact' and also show why it is a 'fact' and not the expression of a 'moral opinion'.

So, until you EXPOSE your BELIEFS here, it could be just a COMPLETE and UTTER waste of time discussing this here with you.

But at least we are now closer to understanding that what you are saying may just be your opinion ALONE, and therefore NOT a fact AT ALL, to you. Which would mean that what you are saying and claiming here is NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' NOR 'fact' AT ALL but just on your OWN subjective opinion. So, would there be ANY REAL REASON to listen to it?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:27 pm Please forgive me if I missed it. Mea maxima culpa.
Stop dodging.
"Stop dodging" 'what', EXACTLY?

This I think is the third time I have tried to discuss this issue with you, and the last two times, if I recall correctly it was 'you' who STOPPED responding. Which, could be a PERFECT EXAMPLE of 'dodging'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am I use the word 'fact' in the standard way, to mean a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality which is true, given the way we use the words involved.
SO, just to be absolutely CLEAR, to you, 'facts' do exist, external to opinion, or 'facts' do NOT exist outside of opinion?

To you, are there 'facts', regardless of ANY one's opinion?

if yes, then will you provide some examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And from what you say here, you clearly understand the difference between what we call a fact and what we call an opinion.

But if you use the words 'fact' and 'opinion' non-standardly, by all means explain how you use them.
I am REALLY getting sick AND tired of 'you', human beings, using these MOST OBVIOUSLY IDIOTIC, Wrong, False, and Incorrect terms, like; "Using words non-standardly".

Some of 'you', adult human beings, REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that how 'you' think and look at and see 'things' is the True, Right, AND Correct way to LOOK AT, SEE 'things' and THINK, and that "your way" is the, lol, "standard" way.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am Either way, please produce the goods: an example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of anyone's opinion.
So, are you here AGREEING that there is, or at least could be, a 'moral fact', a moral feature of reality, regardless of ANY one's opinion?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And when you find you can't, I suggest you re-think the idea that morality is or can be objective. Because it isn't and can't.
Okay, so now we KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANY one could SAY, SHOW, or PRESENT to you that could PROVE otherwise.

So, what we have here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED these human beings were when this was being written when they BELIEVED WHOLEHEARTEDLY some 'thing' is true. They, literally, could NOT SEE ANY 'thing' OTHER than what there were CURRENTLY BELIEVING was true.

When, and IF, this one EVER becomes OPEN, then we can DISCUSS what the word 'objective' ACTUALLY could refer to, EXACTLY.

Until then, this one can live in its OWN little 'world'.

By the way, did you answer my CLARIFYING question regarding if there are 'facts', regardless of anyone's opinion?

If you did, and you did say, "There are facts, regardless of anyone's opinion", then WHY can there NOT BE 'moral facts', regardless of people's opinions, to you?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:23 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am
Age wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:03 am

EASY, when you tell us what the word 'fact' here means or refers to EXACTLY.

SEE, you might want to claim that the word 'fact' can NEVER be expressed other than just as an opinion. So, while you HOLD a BELIEF like this, then, OF COURSE, to you, it would be an IMPOSSIBILITY to show an example of a 'moral fact' and also show why it is a 'fact' and not the expression of a 'moral opinion'.

So, until you EXPOSE your BELIEFS here, it could be just a COMPLETE and UTTER waste of time discussing this here with you.

But at least we are now closer to understanding that what you are saying may just be your opinion ALONE, and therefore NOT a fact AT ALL, to you. Which would mean that what you are saying and claiming here is NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' NOR 'fact' AT ALL but just on your OWN subjective opinion. So, would there be ANY REAL REASON to listen to it?
Stop dodging.
"Stop dodging" 'what', EXACTLY?

This I think is the third time I have tried to discuss this issue with you, and the last two times, if I recall correctly it was 'you' who STOPPED responding. Which, could be a PERFECT EXAMPLE of 'dodging'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am I use the word 'fact' in the standard way, to mean a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality which is true, given the way we use the words involved.
SO, just to be absolutely CLEAR, to you, 'facts' do exist, external to opinion, or 'facts' do NOT exist outside of opinion?

To you, are there 'facts', regardless of ANY one's opinion?

if yes, then will you provide some examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And from what you say here, you clearly understand the difference between what we call a fact and what we call an opinion.

But if you use the words 'fact' and 'opinion' non-standardly, by all means explain how you use them.
I am REALLY getting sick AND tired of 'you', human beings, using these MOST OBVIOUSLY IDIOTIC, Wrong, False, and Incorrect terms, like; "Using words non-standardly".

Some of 'you', adult human beings, REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that how 'you' think and look at and see 'things' is the True, Right, AND Correct way to LOOK AT, SEE 'things' and THINK, and that "your way" is the, lol, "standard" way.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am Either way, please produce the goods: an example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of anyone's opinion.
So, are you here AGREEING that there is, or at least could be, a 'moral fact', a moral feature of reality, regardless of ANY one's opinion?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And when you find you can't, I suggest you re-think the idea that morality is or can be objective. Because it isn't and can't.
Okay, so now we KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANY one could SAY, SHOW, or PRESENT to you that could PROVE otherwise.

So, what we have here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED these human beings were when this was being written when they BELIEVED WHOLEHEARTEDLY some 'thing' is true. They, literally, could NOT SEE ANY 'thing' OTHER than what there were CURRENTLY BELIEVING was true.

When, and IF, this one EVER becomes OPEN, then we can DISCUSS what the word 'objective' ACTUALLY could refer to, EXACTLY.

Until then, this one can live in its OWN little 'world'.

By the way, did you answer my CLARIFYING question regarding if there are 'facts', regardless of anyone's opinion?

If you did, and you did say, "There are facts, regardless of anyone's opinion", then WHY can there NOT BE 'moral facts', regardless of people's opinions, to you?
This is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.

The whole point of these discussions is to make convincing arguments. So whining that I'm determined to deny the existence of moral facts is pointless. Present evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one moral fact, and my denial will be irrational. That's all you have to do. Everyone else will benefit, even if I don't. Get on with it.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:23 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am

Stop dodging.
"Stop dodging" 'what', EXACTLY?

This I think is the third time I have tried to discuss this issue with you, and the last two times, if I recall correctly it was 'you' who STOPPED responding. Which, could be a PERFECT EXAMPLE of 'dodging'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am I use the word 'fact' in the standard way, to mean a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality which is true, given the way we use the words involved.
SO, just to be absolutely CLEAR, to you, 'facts' do exist, external to opinion, or 'facts' do NOT exist outside of opinion?

To you, are there 'facts', regardless of ANY one's opinion?

if yes, then will you provide some examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And from what you say here, you clearly understand the difference between what we call a fact and what we call an opinion.

But if you use the words 'fact' and 'opinion' non-standardly, by all means explain how you use them.
I am REALLY getting sick AND tired of 'you', human beings, using these MOST OBVIOUSLY IDIOTIC, Wrong, False, and Incorrect terms, like; "Using words non-standardly".

Some of 'you', adult human beings, REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that how 'you' think and look at and see 'things' is the True, Right, AND Correct way to LOOK AT, SEE 'things' and THINK, and that "your way" is the, lol, "standard" way.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am Either way, please produce the goods: an example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of anyone's opinion.
So, are you here AGREEING that there is, or at least could be, a 'moral fact', a moral feature of reality, regardless of ANY one's opinion?
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And when you find you can't, I suggest you re-think the idea that morality is or can be objective. Because it isn't and can't.
Okay, so now we KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANY one could SAY, SHOW, or PRESENT to you that could PROVE otherwise.

So, what we have here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED these human beings were when this was being written when they BELIEVED WHOLEHEARTEDLY some 'thing' is true. They, literally, could NOT SEE ANY 'thing' OTHER than what there were CURRENTLY BELIEVING was true.

When, and IF, this one EVER becomes OPEN, then we can DISCUSS what the word 'objective' ACTUALLY could refer to, EXACTLY.

Until then, this one can live in its OWN little 'world'.

By the way, did you answer my CLARIFYING question regarding if there are 'facts', regardless of anyone's opinion?

If you did, and you did say, "There are facts, regardless of anyone's opinion", then WHY can there NOT BE 'moral facts', regardless of people's opinions, to you?
This is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.
SO, name a 'fact' that is NOT an opinion.

Are you ABLE to do this?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm The whole point of these discussions is to make convincing arguments.
LOL
LOL
LOL

This here is a TYPICAL PRESUMPTION among the adult human beings, in the days and age of when this was written, and a TYPICAL BEHAVIOR among them. That is; instead of just creating a sound AND valid argument, which OBVIOUSLY means that it would be IRREFUTABLE forever more, they would just TRY TO make 'convincing arguments' ONLY. 'convincing arguments' will ONLY 'convince' some people, some of the time, and this is because they are NOT actually sound AND valid. Whereas, if an argument can so-call 'convince' ALL of the people, ALL of the time, then that is JUST a sound AND valid argument.

LOOK, I do NOT even attempt to 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing'. EVERY 'thing' I write and say here is either True or False, Right or Wrong, or Correct or Incorrect, and if ANY one finds ANY thing that IS or APPEARS TO BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then just POINT 'this' OUT, so that we can ALL LOOK AT 'it' and SEE 'it'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm So whining that I'm determined to deny the existence of moral facts is pointless.
But you are NOT 'determined' to deny the existence of moral facts. You are just DOING THIS, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS, while you continue to HOLD ON TO YOUR CURRENT BELIEF.

Also, I was NEVER whining about you just DOING THIS. I was just POINTING OUT the Fact that this is what you ARE DOING.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm Present evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one moral fact, and my denial will be irrational.
But, to you, it is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY for a 'moral fact' TO EXIST. So, HOW could ANY one present ANY evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one 'moral fact', let alone present even one 'moral fact', to you?

If you TELL US what a 'moral fact', then we will SEE if we can present one, to you.

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm That's all you have to do. Everyone else will benefit, even if I don't. Get on with it.
When human beings do not need to kill animals then killing animals is Wrong.

Now, how this IS a 'moral fact, or an 'objective morality', to me, probably will NOT be, to you.

But, until you EXPLAIN what is 'morality', what is 'objectivity', to you, and EXPRESS what 'facts' exist that are NOT opinions, to you, then NO one can SHOW you ANY thing other than what you currently BELIEVE is true.

And, as for supposedly answering ALL of my clarifying questions, this is OBVIOUSLY an outright LIE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, above.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:38 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:23 am

"Stop dodging" 'what', EXACTLY?

This I think is the third time I have tried to discuss this issue with you, and the last two times, if I recall correctly it was 'you' who STOPPED responding. Which, could be a PERFECT EXAMPLE of 'dodging'.



SO, just to be absolutely CLEAR, to you, 'facts' do exist, external to opinion, or 'facts' do NOT exist outside of opinion?

To you, are there 'facts', regardless of ANY one's opinion?

if yes, then will you provide some examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?



I am REALLY getting sick AND tired of 'you', human beings, using these MOST OBVIOUSLY IDIOTIC, Wrong, False, and Incorrect terms, like; "Using words non-standardly".

Some of 'you', adult human beings, REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that how 'you' think and look at and see 'things' is the True, Right, AND Correct way to LOOK AT, SEE 'things' and THINK, and that "your way" is the, lol, "standard" way.


So, are you here AGREEING that there is, or at least could be, a 'moral fact', a moral feature of reality, regardless of ANY one's opinion?


Okay, so now we KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANY one could SAY, SHOW, or PRESENT to you that could PROVE otherwise.

So, what we have here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED these human beings were when this was being written when they BELIEVED WHOLEHEARTEDLY some 'thing' is true. They, literally, could NOT SEE ANY 'thing' OTHER than what there were CURRENTLY BELIEVING was true.

When, and IF, this one EVER becomes OPEN, then we can DISCUSS what the word 'objective' ACTUALLY could refer to, EXACTLY.

Until then, this one can live in its OWN little 'world'.

By the way, did you answer my CLARIFYING question regarding if there are 'facts', regardless of anyone's opinion?

If you did, and you did say, "There are facts, regardless of anyone's opinion", then WHY can there NOT BE 'moral facts', regardless of people's opinions, to you?
This is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.
SO, name a 'fact' that is NOT an opinion.

Are you ABLE to do this?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm The whole point of these discussions is to make convincing arguments.
LOL
LOL
LOL

This here is a TYPICAL PRESUMPTION among the adult human beings, in the days and age of when this was written, and a TYPICAL BEHAVIOR among them. That is; instead of just creating a sound AND valid argument, which OBVIOUSLY means that it would be IRREFUTABLE forever more, they would just TRY TO make 'convincing arguments' ONLY. 'convincing arguments' will ONLY 'convince' some people, some of the time, and this is because they are NOT actually sound AND valid. Whereas, if an argument can so-call 'convince' ALL of the people, ALL of the time, then that is JUST a sound AND valid argument.

LOOK, I do NOT even attempt to 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing'. EVERY 'thing' I write and say here is either True or False, Right or Wrong, or Correct or Incorrect, and if ANY one finds ANY thing that IS or APPEARS TO BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then just POINT 'this' OUT, so that we can ALL LOOK AT 'it' and SEE 'it'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm So whining that I'm determined to deny the existence of moral facts is pointless.
But you are NOT 'determined' to deny the existence of moral facts. You are just DOING THIS, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS, while you continue to HOLD ON TO YOUR CURRENT BELIEF.

Also, I was NEVER whining about you just DOING THIS. I was just POINTING OUT the Fact that this is what you ARE DOING.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm Present evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one moral fact, and my denial will be irrational.
But, to you, it is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY for a 'moral fact' TO EXIST. So, HOW could ANY one present ANY evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one 'moral fact', let alone present even one 'moral fact', to you?

If you TELL US what a 'moral fact', then we will SEE if we can present one, to you.

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm That's all you have to do. Everyone else will benefit, even if I don't. Get on with it.
When human beings do not need to kill animals then killing animals is Wrong.

Now, how this IS a 'moral fact, or an 'objective morality', to me, probably will NOT be, to you.

But, until you EXPLAIN what is 'morality', what is 'objectivity', to you, and EXPRESS what 'facts' exist that are NOT opinions, to you, then NO one can SHOW you ANY thing other than what you currently BELIEVE is true.

And, as for supposedly answering ALL of my clarifying questions, this is OBVIOUSLY an outright LIE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, above.
So here's your example of a supposed moral fact: killing animals needlessly is morally wrong.

Now, if this is a fact, it's a feature of reality that is the case, regardless of anyone's judgement, belief or opinion. It wouldn't be a matter of opinion at all. And it would be possible to demonstrate that it's the case, citing evidence, so that it would be irrational to disagree with it.

So, please show that all those criteria apply to this supposed moral fact.

(Spoiler: as you'll see, it isn't a fact, but rather an opinion about killing animals needlessly. And then perhaps the penny will drop for you.)
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:38 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm
This is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.
SO, name a 'fact' that is NOT an opinion.

Are you ABLE to do this?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm The whole point of these discussions is to make convincing arguments.
LOL
LOL
LOL

This here is a TYPICAL PRESUMPTION among the adult human beings, in the days and age of when this was written, and a TYPICAL BEHAVIOR among them. That is; instead of just creating a sound AND valid argument, which OBVIOUSLY means that it would be IRREFUTABLE forever more, they would just TRY TO make 'convincing arguments' ONLY. 'convincing arguments' will ONLY 'convince' some people, some of the time, and this is because they are NOT actually sound AND valid. Whereas, if an argument can so-call 'convince' ALL of the people, ALL of the time, then that is JUST a sound AND valid argument.

LOOK, I do NOT even attempt to 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing'. EVERY 'thing' I write and say here is either True or False, Right or Wrong, or Correct or Incorrect, and if ANY one finds ANY thing that IS or APPEARS TO BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then just POINT 'this' OUT, so that we can ALL LOOK AT 'it' and SEE 'it'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm So whining that I'm determined to deny the existence of moral facts is pointless.
But you are NOT 'determined' to deny the existence of moral facts. You are just DOING THIS, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS, while you continue to HOLD ON TO YOUR CURRENT BELIEF.

Also, I was NEVER whining about you just DOING THIS. I was just POINTING OUT the Fact that this is what you ARE DOING.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm Present evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one moral fact, and my denial will be irrational.
But, to you, it is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY for a 'moral fact' TO EXIST. So, HOW could ANY one present ANY evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one 'moral fact', let alone present even one 'moral fact', to you?

If you TELL US what a 'moral fact', then we will SEE if we can present one, to you.

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm That's all you have to do. Everyone else will benefit, even if I don't. Get on with it.
When human beings do not need to kill animals then killing animals is Wrong.

Now, how this IS a 'moral fact, or an 'objective morality', to me, probably will NOT be, to you.

But, until you EXPLAIN what is 'morality', what is 'objectivity', to you, and EXPRESS what 'facts' exist that are NOT opinions, to you, then NO one can SHOW you ANY thing other than what you currently BELIEVE is true.

And, as for supposedly answering ALL of my clarifying questions, this is OBVIOUSLY an outright LIE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, above.
So here's your example of a supposed moral fact: killing animals needlessly is morally wrong.

Now, if this is a fact, it's a feature of reality that is the case, regardless of anyone's judgement, belief or opinion.
But this is just your OWN judgement, belief, or opinion, and is just your OWN subjective view of 'things'. Which I have been POINTING OUT to you but which you do NOT YET seem to comprehend NOR understand.

What you say here is NOT a 'fact'.

I have ALSO asked you to PROVIDE a 'fact' that is NOT an opinion but you WILL NOT DO THIS.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pm It wouldn't be a matter of opinion at all.
If you just STOP for a while, CONSIDERED what I have been GETTING AT, and STOPPED LOOKING FROM your OWN BELIEF ONLY, then you WOULD SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pm And it would be possible to demonstrate that it's the case, citing evidence, so that it would be irrational to disagree with it.
I have ALREADY DONE THIS. You have just FAILED to RECOGNIZE and SEE THIS. And, I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY you KEEP FAILING.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pm So, please show that all those criteria apply to this supposed moral fact.
I have CLAIMED that what makes 'morality objective' can be UNCOVERED and FOUND through DISCUSSIONS. You have NOT wanted to do this. You just asked me to PROVIDE a 'moral fact' instead. So, I did.

You CLAIMED that there are 'facts' that are NOT opinions. I asked you to PROVIDE one of them. You FAILED to do so.

But, now you WANT me to SHOW you that ALL of those MADE UP by you 'criteria' apply to the 'moral fact' that I have SUPPLIED and PROVIDED to you.

How about you PROVIDE a 'fact' that is NOT of opinion, FIRST.

Also. what makes 'morality objective' is, to me, NOT what YOUR OPINION of the 'criteria' IS. Do you UNDERSTAND?

Your OWN MADE UP 'criteria' is just your OWN judgment, belief, or opinion. That 'criteria' is just your subjective view, alone, and thus NOT a 'fact' AT ALL.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pm (Spoiler: as you'll see, it isn't a fact, but rather an opinion about killing animals needlessly. And then perhaps the penny will drop for you.)
LOL

It is YOU who has NOT YET been ABLE to SEE that ALL of your CLAIMS are NOT 'facts', but rather are just your OWN 'opinions' ONLY.

The ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE 'criteria' for what is 'OBJECTIVENESS' you have NOT YET come to REALIZE, SEE, NOR UNDERSTAND. You are just providing your judgments, views, beliefs, or opinions ONLY.

When you come to LEARN and UNDERSTAND FULLY what thee ACTUAL 'criteria' is for 'objectivity', then, and only then, can we move onto LOOKING INTO what 'morality' IS EXACTLY, from which only then we con move onto LOOKING INTO and SEEING if 'morality', itself, can be 'objective, and only then we can SEE, 'What could make 'morality' objective'.

SEE, what makes a truth objective follows the EXACT SAME process and formula but with just a bit more added to it.

By the way, all you have done here, just like your other thread; Is morality objective or subjective?, is just write some words with a question mark at the end, as if you were "proposing" a question but REALLY with NO intention of being AT ALL OPEN and LOOKING INTO this.

You are just 'trolling', as you have just intentionally set the bait to hook in as many as you can, with the intention of NEVER being OPEN to the False "question" AT ALL, while all along intending to ONLY put your OWN judgments, views, beliefs, and/or opinions forward ONLY.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

What makes 'morality' 'objective' is NOT "peter holme's" views or opinions ONLY.
Jeremy
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:21 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Jeremy »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:38 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm
This is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.
SO, name a 'fact' that is NOT an opinion.

Are you ABLE to do this?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm The whole point of these discussions is to make convincing arguments.
LOL
LOL
LOL

This here is a TYPICAL PRESUMPTION among the adult human beings, in the days and age of when this was written, and a TYPICAL BEHAVIOR among them. That is; instead of just creating a sound AND valid argument, which OBVIOUSLY means that it would be IRREFUTABLE forever more, they would just TRY TO make 'convincing arguments' ONLY. 'convincing arguments' will ONLY 'convince' some people, some of the time, and this is because they are NOT actually sound AND valid. Whereas, if an argument can so-call 'convince' ALL of the people, ALL of the time, then that is JUST a sound AND valid argument.

LOOK, I do NOT even attempt to 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing'. EVERY 'thing' I write and say here is either True or False, Right or Wrong, or Correct or Incorrect, and if ANY one finds ANY thing that IS or APPEARS TO BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then just POINT 'this' OUT, so that we can ALL LOOK AT 'it' and SEE 'it'.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm So whining that I'm determined to deny the existence of moral facts is pointless.
But you are NOT 'determined' to deny the existence of moral facts. You are just DOING THIS, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS, while you continue to HOLD ON TO YOUR CURRENT BELIEF.

Also, I was NEVER whining about you just DOING THIS. I was just POINTING OUT the Fact that this is what you ARE DOING.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm Present evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one moral fact, and my denial will be irrational.
But, to you, it is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY for a 'moral fact' TO EXIST. So, HOW could ANY one present ANY evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one 'moral fact', let alone present even one 'moral fact', to you?

If you TELL US what a 'moral fact', then we will SEE if we can present one, to you.

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm That's all you have to do. Everyone else will benefit, even if I don't. Get on with it.
When human beings do not need to kill animals then killing animals is Wrong.

Now, how this IS a 'moral fact, or an 'objective morality', to me, probably will NOT be, to you.

But, until you EXPLAIN what is 'morality', what is 'objectivity', to you, and EXPRESS what 'facts' exist that are NOT opinions, to you, then NO one can SHOW you ANY thing other than what you currently BELIEVE is true.

And, as for supposedly answering ALL of my clarifying questions, this is OBVIOUSLY an outright LIE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, above.
So here's your example of a supposed moral fact: killing animals needlessly is morally wrong.

Now, if this is a fact, it's a feature of reality that is the case, regardless of anyone's judgement, belief or opinion. It wouldn't be a matter of opinion at all. And it would be possible to demonstrate that it's the case, citing evidence, so that it would be irrational to disagree with it.

So, please show that all those criteria apply to this supposed moral fact.

(Spoiler: as you'll see, it isn't a fact, but rather an opinion about killing animals needlessly. And then perhaps the penny will drop for you.)
There are 2 ways to categorise facts: things that are objectively true and things that are universally true. The latter implies that although some things are subjective, because morality ultimately pertains to good an ill-will, and will is universal, so is morality.

The act is ultimately going to be an opinion about what is for the best, but that is a different quality of opinion that one such as green is my favorite colour. My favorite colour is merely my personal preference, whereas morality is essentially free of personal desire - mostly because the truth as it pertains to truthfulness is a universal is regardless of what anyone likes, dislikes, wants or doesn't want.
Last edited by Jeremy on Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:51 pm What makes 'morality' 'objective' is NOT "peter holme's" views or opinions ONLY.
OFFS. If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then my or anyone's views or opinions about those moral facts are irrelevant.

So if it's a fact that the needless killing of animals is morally wrong, what you or I or anyone thinks about the needless killing of animals is irrelevant.

You do understand that, don't you?
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:51 pm What makes 'morality' 'objective' is NOT "peter holme's" views or opinions ONLY.
OFFS. If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then my or anyone's views or opinions about those moral facts are irrelevant.
AND, what "peter holmes" views or opinions are, they are irrelevant also, correct?

Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that YOUR views and opinions are relevant, while "others" are NOT?

See, the CLAIM that, "If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then "peter holme's" views or opinions about these moral face are irrelevant, IS just "peter holme's" views and opinions ONLY.

And, what makes this view or opinion of "peter holmes" objective or a fact?

How come you STILL can NOT SEE what you are doing here?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm So if it's a fact that the needless killing of animals is morally wrong, what you or I or anyone thinks about the needless killing of animals is irrelevant.
WHY do you HAVE this view or opinion?

WHY are you MAKING this CLAIM?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm You do understand that, don't you?
I understand PERFECTLY what you are 'trying to' CLAIM is a 'fact'. But what you STILL seem to be NOT understanding AT ALL is that if that CLAIM is a 'fact', according to your OWN so-called "logic" here, then what 'you' or ANY one thinks about that self MADE UP 'criteria' IS IRRELEVANT.

What you can NOT YET understand is that what "peter holmes" views as being the 'criteria' for 'objectivity' is NOT necessarily 'objectivity' AT ALL.

What has happened here, ONCE AGAIN, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN is just ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of a human being with a BELIEF that 'this' is true, and who has then, subconsciously, gone out of 'its' way to LOOK FOR and "find" what fits in with that BELIEF, and is now saying just about ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support that BELIEF of "theirs".

When and if you STOP 'trying to' TWIST and DISTORT things around, then you may START SEEING CLEARLY, also.

I have asked you to PROVIDE a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion. You STILL have NOT done this, and you will NOT do this because if you did, then you would CONTRADICT your OWN views, BELIEFS, and opinions here.

LOOK, you can NOT have it BOTH WAYS. You can NOT logically claim that there are NO 'moral facts' because they are ALL just views or opinions but then go on to CLAIM there are 'facts' which are NOT views NOR opinions. To do so is just you SHOWING your OWN ILLOGICAL views and opinions.

And because you can NOT provide a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion, you are just PROVING True what I have been SAYING and SHOWING here all along.

Now, if you would like to CLAIM that there are NO 'facts' AT ALL, including moral ones, because they are ALL views or opinions, then go on and do that. But to CLAIM there are some 'facts' that are NOT views NOR opinions, but then express your OWN view and opinion about " but there are NOT 'moral facts' " is just ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, HYPOCRITICAL, and CONTRADICTORY.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:04 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:51 pm What makes 'morality' 'objective' is NOT "peter holme's" views or opinions ONLY.
OFFS. If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then my or anyone's views or opinions about those moral facts are irrelevant.
AND, what "peter holmes" views or opinions are, they are irrelevant also, correct?

Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that YOUR views and opinions are relevant, while "others" are NOT?

See, the CLAIM that, "If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then "peter holme's" views or opinions about these moral face are irrelevant, IS just "peter holme's" views and opinions ONLY.

And, what makes this view or opinion of "peter holmes" objective or a fact?

How come you STILL can NOT SEE what you are doing here?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm So if it's a fact that the needless killing of animals is morally wrong, what you or I or anyone thinks about the needless killing of animals is irrelevant.
WHY do you HAVE this view or opinion?

WHY are you MAKING this CLAIM?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm You do understand that, don't you?
I understand PERFECTLY what you are 'trying to' CLAIM is a 'fact'. But what you STILL seem to be NOT understanding AT ALL is that if that CLAIM is a 'fact', according to your OWN so-called "logic" here, then what 'you' or ANY one thinks about that self MADE UP 'criteria' IS IRRELEVANT.

What you can NOT YET understand is that what "peter holmes" views as being the 'criteria' for 'objectivity' is NOT necessarily 'objectivity' AT ALL.

What has happened here, ONCE AGAIN, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN is just ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of a human being with a BELIEF that 'this' is true, and who has then, subconsciously, gone out of 'its' way to LOOK FOR and "find" what fits in with that BELIEF, and is now saying just about ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support that BELIEF of "theirs".

When and if you STOP 'trying to' TWIST and DISTORT things around, then you may START SEEING CLEARLY, also.

I have asked you to PROVIDE a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion. You STILL have NOT done this, and you will NOT do this because if you did, then you would CONTRADICT your OWN views, BELIEFS, and opinions here.

LOOK, you can NOT have it BOTH WAYS. You can NOT logically claim that there are NO 'moral facts' because they are ALL just views or opinions but then go on to CLAIM there are 'facts' which are NOT views NOR opinions. To do so is just you SHOWING your OWN ILLOGICAL views and opinions.

And because you can NOT provide a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion, you are just PROVING True what I have been SAYING and SHOWING here all along.

Now, if you would like to CLAIM that there are NO 'facts' AT ALL, including moral ones, because they are ALL views or opinions, then go on and do that. But to CLAIM there are some 'facts' that are NOT views NOR opinions, but then express your OWN view and opinion about " but there are NOT 'moral facts' " is just ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, HYPOCRITICAL, and CONTRADICTORY.
I find it difficult to understand what it is that you don't understand. But maybe these thoughts will help.

1 Signs such as words can mean only what we (English speakers) use them to mean. And there's no other court of appeal. And this applies to the words 'truth', 'meaning', 'knowledge', 'fact' and 'objectivity'.

2 What we (English speakers) call objectivity means independence from opinion when considering the facts. So the word 'objective' means 'factual' or 'based on facts'. And this isn't just my opinion. It's a fact about our linguistic practice.

3 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature that is true, given the way we use the words or other signs involved. And this isn't just my opinion. It's a fact about our linguistic practice. So it's a fact that we use the word 'fact' in that way.

4 If you think my account of these facts about our linguistic practice - our use of the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - is incorrect, then by all means challenge it. Because, if you disagree with but don't challenge my account, we're just talking past each other.

5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen. Because this feature of reality is the case, the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs. Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.

6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means. For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case? For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong, so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?

Now, please have a really good, careful think about this. And instead of shooting off ill-considered questions, work out exactly where you think my reasoning goes wrong - and state your argument.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:04 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm
OFFS. If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then my or anyone's views or opinions about those moral facts are irrelevant.
AND, what "peter holmes" views or opinions are, they are irrelevant also, correct?

Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that YOUR views and opinions are relevant, while "others" are NOT?

See, the CLAIM that, "If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then "peter holme's" views or opinions about these moral face are irrelevant, IS just "peter holme's" views and opinions ONLY.

And, what makes this view or opinion of "peter holmes" objective or a fact?

How come you STILL can NOT SEE what you are doing here?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm So if it's a fact that the needless killing of animals is morally wrong, what you or I or anyone thinks about the needless killing of animals is irrelevant.
WHY do you HAVE this view or opinion?

WHY are you MAKING this CLAIM?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm You do understand that, don't you?
I understand PERFECTLY what you are 'trying to' CLAIM is a 'fact'. But what you STILL seem to be NOT understanding AT ALL is that if that CLAIM is a 'fact', according to your OWN so-called "logic" here, then what 'you' or ANY one thinks about that self MADE UP 'criteria' IS IRRELEVANT.

What you can NOT YET understand is that what "peter holmes" views as being the 'criteria' for 'objectivity' is NOT necessarily 'objectivity' AT ALL.

What has happened here, ONCE AGAIN, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN is just ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of a human being with a BELIEF that 'this' is true, and who has then, subconsciously, gone out of 'its' way to LOOK FOR and "find" what fits in with that BELIEF, and is now saying just about ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support that BELIEF of "theirs".

When and if you STOP 'trying to' TWIST and DISTORT things around, then you may START SEEING CLEARLY, also.

I have asked you to PROVIDE a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion. You STILL have NOT done this, and you will NOT do this because if you did, then you would CONTRADICT your OWN views, BELIEFS, and opinions here.

LOOK, you can NOT have it BOTH WAYS. You can NOT logically claim that there are NO 'moral facts' because they are ALL just views or opinions but then go on to CLAIM there are 'facts' which are NOT views NOR opinions. To do so is just you SHOWING your OWN ILLOGICAL views and opinions.

And because you can NOT provide a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion, you are just PROVING True what I have been SAYING and SHOWING here all along.

Now, if you would like to CLAIM that there are NO 'facts' AT ALL, including moral ones, because they are ALL views or opinions, then go on and do that. But to CLAIM there are some 'facts' that are NOT views NOR opinions, but then express your OWN view and opinion about " but there are NOT 'moral facts' " is just ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, HYPOCRITICAL, and CONTRADICTORY.
I find it difficult to understand what it is that you don't understand.
And this is BECAUSE 'you' do NOT ACTUALLY KNOW what 'I' do NOT understand.

'you' are only making the PRESUMPTION that I am NOT understanding here. And, because this PRESUMPTION of YOURS is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect this is WHY you are finding things DIFFICULT here.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm But maybe these thoughts will help.

1 Signs such as words can mean only what we (English speakers) use them to mean.
If you did NOT add the words "(English speakers)", then I would have said, 'true'.

But anyway let us NOT FORGET that what a 'word' means to 'you' can mean VERY DIFFERENT, or even EXACT OPPOSITE to 'another'.

And, let us also NOT FORGET that even 'words', themselves, can have TWO or MORE VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS with some 'words' even have the EXACT OPPOSITE meanings, themselves.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm And there's no other court of appeal. And this applies to the words 'truth', 'meaning', 'knowledge', 'fact' and 'objectivity'.
But who says, 'YOUR COURT' over rules ANY 'other court'?

In other words, who is to say that "peter holme's" version, views, beliefs, and/or opinions OVERRIDES ANY one "elses" version, views, beliefs, and/or opinions?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 2 What we (English speakers) call objectivity means independence from opinion when considering the facts.
LOL
LOL
LOL

This is about one of the MOST ABSURD definitions for 'objectivity' that I have seen, WHEN CONSIDERING what one ACTUALLY USES to DISCERN Fact FROM Fiction.

But if that is the 'one' that 'you' want to go by, then PLEASE feel absolutely FREE to do so.

I am CERTAINLY NOT going to STOP you having NOR hold this view nor opinion.

Also, how MANY ACTUAL "english" speaking people do you think or BELIEVE will AGREE WITH and ACCEPT this 'version' of what 'objectivity' means?

In fact, how MANY ACTUAL 'posters', just here in this forum, do you think or BELIEVE will AGREE WITH and ACCEPT this 'version' of what 'objectivity' means?

As I have been continually SAYING and POINTING OUT, and which you KEEP MISSING or NOT UNDERSTANDING, (which I have ALSO KEPT POINTING OUT and SAYING) is that YOUR OWN 'criteria' for 'objectivity' IS NOT the 'criteria' EVERY one else USES. Therefore, YOUR OWN 'criteria' is just YOUR OWN view or opinion, which, by YOUR OWN "logic", MEANS that it is NOT an 'objective fact', ANYWAY.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm So the word 'objective' means 'factual' or 'based on facts'. And this isn't just my opinion. It's a fact about our linguistic practice.
ONCE MORE, what "peter holme's" SAYS and CLAIMS are NOT views nor opinions, but INSTEAD they ARE 'facts'. And, absolutely EVERY one just HAS TO ACCEPT this AND AGREE WITH this, correct?

Since when has the word 'objective', itself, MEANT 'factual' or 'based on facts'?

And, above you wrote that; " What 'you', "english speakers", call 'objectivity' means independence from opinion when considering the facts".

So, if the word 'objective', to you, MEANS 'factual' or 'based on facts', then HOW EXACTLY can 'objectivity' MEAN, "independence from opinion" WHEN "considering the facts"?

HOW, EXACTLY, do 'you', "english speakers" ARRIVE at a so-called 'objective fact' and at 'objectivity', itself?

And, how do you EXPLAIN and DO ANY of this 'independent from opinion?

I have ALREADY POINTED OUT that what a 'cat' IS, is YOUR OPINION.

I have even called 'you' into question about YOUR OPINION and CLAIM that there are 'facts', which are, supposedly, NOT views NOR opinions. I asked you to PROVIDE an example of a 'fact' that is NOT a view NOR an opinion.

And, we are STILL WAITING. But you MIGHT surprise us before the end of this post.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 3 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature that is true, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.
Will you GIVE us an example?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm And this isn't just my opinion. It's a fact about our linguistic practice. So it's a fact that we use the word 'fact' in that way.
LOL
LOL
LOL

To each one of those three CLAIMS and OPINIONS of YOURS here.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 4 If you think my account of these facts about our linguistic practice - our use of the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - is incorrect, then by all means challenge it.
Your OWN account of 'things' here is your OWN personal view, belief, or opinion. As you have just DEMONSTRATED SO.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm Because, if you disagree with but don't challenge my account, we're just talking past each other.
PROVIDE a 'fact' that is NOT your OWN view NOR opinion.

And do NOT FORGET 'you' just saying, "they are facts" or "these facts" does NOT necessarily make "them" 'facts' AT ALL.

After all it is a 'fact' that if there is NO need to kill animals, then there is OBVIOUSLY NO need to kill animals, AND 'this is an IRREFUTABLE fact', which some say would MEAN that it is FACTUALLY Wrong to kill animals when there is NO need to.

And, what would 'this' lead to EXACTLY?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen.
And ANOTHER example of a 'fact' IS; You have YET TO PROVIDE a 'fact', which is NOT of YOUR OWN opinion NOR view.

Also, WHERE did you get those words from if NOT from opinions NOR views?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm Because this feature of reality is the case,
You keep using words like; "this feature of reality", and, "is the case". What IS "this feature" if NOT an opinion NOR view? What IS 'reality' if NOT an opinion NOR view? What IS "a feature of reality" if NOT an opinion NOR view? And, what IS, "is the case", if NOT an opinion NOR view?

If these 'things' are NOT an opinion NOR view, then what are they RELATIVE to, EXACTLY?

When and IF you EVER start comprehending this, then we can move forward and progress.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs.
And, the way 'you' use "those signs" ALL comes down to YOUR OWN opinions AND views of 'things'.

LOOK, OF COURSE there is a 'Reality', that is ABSOLUTELY a True Fact, which NO one could REFUTE. But, absolutely EVERY 'sign' or 'word' that was OBVIOUSLY constructed by human beings from an opinion or view of what would be the BEST 'word' or 'phrase' to use here now.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.
And, if there is NO need to kill animals, then there is NO need to kill animals. Now, If, in your opinion, that assertion is true OR false, to you, then this is FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Simply because it happens to be the case that when there is NO need to kill animals, then there is NO need to kill animals.

This is a feature of reality, and what 'you', "english speakers", call a fact, as explained above.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means.
It MEANS, 'Are there moral facts?', to those speakers of ANY language who are Truly OPEN. But, to those who BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that, "There are NO moral facts", then this question is just a COMPLETE and UTTER WASTE OF TIME.

Also, hopefully by now, you are, STARTING to anyway, REALIZE that your OWN 'criteria' for 'objective' AND 'objectivity' are NOT the SAME for EVERY one.

See, how I arrive at 'objective Facts, which are Facts that can be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED BY absolutely EVERY one, and therefore they are ALSO 'absolute AND irrefutable facts', is VERY DIFFERENT to YOUR WAY.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case?
That all depends. If the way that 'water being H2O' is found to 'be the case' through AGREEMENT WITH and ACCEPTANCE BY 'you', human beings, then the 'moral wrongness' of needlessly killing animals' is found to 'be the case' through AGREEMENT WITH and ACCEPTANCE BY 'you', human beings, then YES, the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals being a feature of reality that is the case, WAS FOUND, in the SAME way that water being H2O is the case, AS WELL.

SEE, if 'you', human beings, did NOT AGREE UPON and ACCEPT what the components of 'water' is EXACTLY, then 'water being H2O' would NOT be 'the case' AT ALL.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong,
YES. As I have ALREADY explained.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?
To you, would ANY one's opinion on ANY matter be relevant? Or, is EVERY opinion of EVERY one ALWAYS irrelevant?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm Now, please have a really good, careful think about this. And instead of shooting off ill-considered questions, work out exactly where you think my reasoning goes wrong - and state your argument.
ONCE AGAIN:

Firstly; YOUR "reasoning" goes Wrong when you STARTED "reasoning" that opinions AND views ARE IRRELEVANT. Especially considering it is ACTUALLY YOUR opinions AND views 'you' are USING to EXPRESS YOUR OWN 'reasoning' WITH.

Secondly; YOUR "reasoning" goes Wrong when you STARTED ASSUMING how 'objective facts' are obtained. How could ANY one consider if some 'thing' is a 'fact' without using their OWN personal opinions or views? What else could they be basing 'facts on, EXACTLY?

Thirdly; YOUR "reasoning" goes Wrong when you make CLAIMS like; 'facts' exist without views NOR opinions", but when CHALLENGED to PROVIDE examples of 'facts' that exist WITHOUT opinions NOR views, and you FAIL to provide ANY.

My argument, for now, is;

There are truths, which are personal, to individuals, but which are REFUTABLE, and so although they are NOT ACTUAL Truths, they are still just PERCEIVED to be truths.

There are Truths, which are personal, to ALL individuals, as a collective One, which are IRREFUTABLE. These are ACTUAL Truths, without question.

All 'truths' come from views or opinions. These 'truths' are subjective truths, which may be true or false, right or wrong, or correct or incorrect. But ANY of these, personal, 'truths', which can be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED by EVERY one, and so can NOT be REFUTED become 'objective Truths', which can ONLY be True, Right, and/or Correct.

To me, views or opinions are 'subjective' when they come from one individual. But views or opinions are 'objective' when they come from EVERY one.

When ANY one is LOOKING FROM the perspective of thee One's (or Everyone together's) Individual perspective, instead of just LOOKING FROM one's own individual perspective, then they GAIN a Truly Objective perspective of 'things', from which ONLY IRREFUTABLE Truths can come from, and it is these IRREFUTABLE Truths where Facts ARE FOUND.

See, a Fact only exists with an IRREFUTABLE Truth.

But ALL Facts, and even ALL IRREFUTABLE Truths, HAVE TO come from what people SEE or how people view 'things'. Which, again, are JUST 'opinions' ONLY. But it is when views or opinions ALIGN WHERE Truth and Facts EXIST.

An IRREFUTABLE Fact or an IRREFUTABLE Truth can ONLY be Truly FOUND, and KNOWN, FOR SURE, in 'that' what EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS.

And, what EVERY one AGREES with ACCEPTS can ONLY be Truly FOUND from EVERY one's OWN personal and individual views, or opinions, of 'things'.
Belinda
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote:
5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen. Because this feature of reality is the case, the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs. Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.

6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means. For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case? For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong, so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?
Men called wet drinkable unadulterated stuff "water" or "agua" or "Wasser" long before chemistry defined it. Some intelligent trained dogs and chimps include "water" in their vocabularies.
Post Reply