What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

VA, do you claim that, before humans evolved, what we call water didn't exist?

[Skepdick]

VA, do you claim that, before humans evolved, what we call water didn't exist?

What a fucking stupid question. Before humans evolved everything existed.

But before humans evolved there was nobody to isolate "that which we call water" from everything else in order to call it "water".

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA, do you claim that, before humans evolved, what we call water didn't exist?

Your above is an oxymoron.

If there are no humans, there is no "we" and 'what we call water'.

Even after humans emerged,
'what we call water' is merely a linguistic [ordinary language] fact.
see my thread;
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

As I had stated, 'water is H20' with philosophical rigor should be;
'water [ordinary language FSK fact] is H20 [science-physics-chemistry FSK fact].'

In this very contentious issue, I insist that whenever you mentioned 'Water is H20' you must qualify and present it in like;
'water [ordinary language FSK fact] is H20 [science-physics-chemistry FSK fact].'

As such whatever you claim as a fact must be qualified to its specific FSK.
Since a FSK is constructed by human subjects, whatever the fact cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

As such a moral FSK grounded on human condition is possible.
Where its inputs of moral FSK are significantly from the scientific FSK, the moral FSK will have reasonable reliability and credibility.
Just as the scientific FSK is objective, the moral FSK is also objective, therefore morality is objective.

Your 'water is H20' is merely an abstraction from the many different type of H2Os to represent certain liquids, it is not a real fact per se.

"Water is Not H20"
to be philosophically correct;
'water [ordinary language FSK fact] is H20 [science-physics-chemistry FSK fact].'

Your refutation that 'Morality is Not Objective' is grounded on a definition of "what is a fact" that is illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and nonsensical.
Your claim 'Morality is Not Objective' is fatuous.

[Peter Holmes]

So, VA agrees that, before we humans turned up, what we call water did, in fact, exist. And the dick-for-brains is keen to associate itself with that difficult, challenging opinion.

Of course, humans didn't know, name and describe water before we turned up. And, of course, humans perceive, know and describe water in human ways. What sort of delta-minus eejit would say otherwise?

But it's rational to conclude that there are facts - features of reality that are or were the case regardless of knowledge and description. - And that, if there are moral facts, that's what they must be.

And there ain't none, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

[Skepdick]

But it's rational to conclude that there are facts - features of reality that are or were the case regardless of knowledge and description. - And that, if there are moral facts, that's what they must be.

What or where is a "feature" or a " feature of reality" a priori humans?

What makes water "a feature of reality" ?

feature noun 1. a distinctive attribute or aspect of something.

What makes "water" a "distinctive attribute or aspect of something"?

[Iwannaplato]

But it's rational to conclude that there are facts - features of reality that are or were the case regardless of knowledge and description. - And that, if there are moral facts, that's what they must be.

I think this is improved by the removal of 'facts'. Just go directly to 'features of reality' and 'reality' for that matter. 'Fact' to me implies knowers and language. I can't really see a non-linguistic fact. Nor something that is or is purported to be information without informers and informees. But that there was reality before and features to that reality seems a stronger base.

That something we, when we arrived, called water - whether this was a clunky term batching isotopes, etc. - was there before we arrived to label it. Or was a facet of the all ecompassing thing that was reality.

[Skepdick]

I think this is improved by the removal of 'facts'. Just go directly to 'features of reality' and 'reality' for that matter.

Doesn't help one bit.

What sub-divides reality into "features"; or "facets"?
How many features does reality sub-divide into?
Is any given feature further sub-divisible into sub-features?
Do sub-features sub-divide into sub-sub-features?
How many layers of sub-sub-sub-sub...features are there; or is it features all the way down?
What distinguishes one feature from another if they are both features?

Who is asking all these questions if humans don't exist and how are they asking them in English?!?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, VA agrees that, before we humans turned up, what we call water did, in fact, exist.

Strawman again.
Where did I say that?

I stated,
Your above is an oxymoron.
If there are no humans, there is no "we" and 'what we call water'.

Of course, humans didn't know, name and describe water before we turned up. And, of course, humans perceive, know and describe water in human ways. What sort of delta-minus eejit would say otherwise?

There is no issue with the above.

But it's rational to conclude that there are facts - features of reality that are or were the case regardless of knowledge and description.

As I had stated, you cannot claim "there are facts - features of reality that are or were the case regardless of knowledge and description" without any qualification a FSK.

As I had stated, 'water is H20' with philosophical rigor should be;
'water [ordinary language FSK fact] is H20 [science-physics-chemistry FSK fact].'

- And that, if there are moral facts, that's what they must be.
And there ain't none, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

There is certainly no moral facts before humans emerged. This is like, there is certainly no human sexual facts before humans emerged.
The moral function within ALL humans emerged with the evolution of humans.
The inherent moral function is comprised of moral facts.
It is objective because it is inherent in ALL humans independent of any individual[s] opinions, beliefs and judgments.

But it's rational to conclude that there are facts - features of reality that are or were the case regardless of knowledge and description.

Show and demonstrate what are they a priori?
You are merely clinging to facts as intelligible objects which are illusory.

If you rely on 'rational' then you are grounding it on human conditions of rationality, i.e. that has to be some sort of FSK.
As such, the 'rational' outcomes of what is fact cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions and FSK.

By your means, you will ultimately arrive at an abstraction and never that supposed fact that is independent of the human conditions.
"Water is H2O" is an Abstraction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39876

[Skepdick]

By your means, you will ultimately arrive at an abstraction and never that supposed fact that is independent of the human conditions.
"Water is H2O" is an Abstraction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39876

https://youtu.be/E4KhK3kktcM?t=2406

The things that we refer to can't even exist. --Noam Chomsky

...the word is not picking out an object in the world. It's picking out some complex abstraction. Every word works like that including cat, tree, person, book, anything you want. --Noam Chomsky

[Veritas Aequitas]

By your means, you will ultimately arrive at an abstraction and never that supposed fact that is independent of the human conditions.
"Water is H2O" is an Abstraction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39876

https://youtu.be/E4KhK3kktcM?t=2406

The things that we refer to can't even exist. --Noam Chomsky

...the word is not picking out an object in the world. It's picking out some complex abstraction. Every word works like that including cat, tree, person, book, anything you want. --Noam Chomsky

Noted.

To repeat my point
"If we had a simple heap of H2O molecules, it would not be recognizable as water."

There are many types of 'water' with different chemical compositions and structure.
Because if we look at enough samples of enough water [in ordinary language], we will find different chemical compositions, like H2O17, H2O18, HDO16, D2O17, T2O18, etc., in addition to H2O16.
In fact, natural samples of water almost always contain a mixture of these other isomers.

As such "water is H20" is merely an ABSTRACTION from the many types of H2O with their specific isotopes and other composition.

There is no real independent fact i.e. 'water is H20' as PH supposed.

[Peter Holmes]

The thing we call a tree isn't an abstraction - a thing that doesn't exist. It exists physically, just as do the many different things that constitute it - down to the quantum mechanical events that seem to constitute everything that exists. If a tree is an abstraction, then so is everything, including humans and their silly conclusions.

Chomsky was one of many victims of a fashionable delusion.

[Skepdick]

The thing we call a tree isn't an abstraction - a thing that doesn't exist. It exists physically, just as do the many different things that constitute it - down to the quantum mechanical events that seem to constitute everything that exists. If a tree is an abstraction, then so is everything, including humans and their silly conclusions.

Chomsky was one of many victims of a fashionable delusion.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is projecting his own delusion onto others again.

Given two things what makes them both "trees"?
Given two events what makes them both "quantum mechanical"?

Grouping two elements into one category necessarily implies you are discarding information about their differences.
Grouping all the things into a single category called "reality" discards all information about their differences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The thing we call a tree isn't an abstraction - a thing that doesn't exist. It exists physically, just as do the many different things that constitute it - down to the quantum mechanical events that seem to constitute everything that exists. If a tree is an abstraction, then so is everything, including humans and their silly conclusions.

Chomsky was one of many victims of a fashionable delusion.

If the thing you call tree isn't an abstraction,
then you will have to name each every tree with their specific conditions [trunk, leaves, etc.].

Note I posted this quote;

"Through this story of the changing conceptions of water, I also
wish to advance the debate on some major philosophical issues, including realism
and pluralism.
I have deliberately chosen as the subject of my study one of the most
familiar substances [water] in human life and one of the most basic scientific facts about that substance." - Hasok Chang.

The above implies the general principles from this 'water is not really H20' is applicable to all scientific facts, i.e. whatever is claimed as a scientific fact is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

When such a statement 'water is H20' is an abstraction, it would be the same for the more fundamental things like atoms, electrons, protons, particle and quarks.
Then when you end up with QM, then will encounter the following;

The electron is a particle
The same electron in not-a-particle but a wave.

The above is a contradiction; how it be a fact within your definition of what is fact?

The only way to accept the truth of the above contradiction is to subsume them within a FSK, i.e. the human-based science-QM FSK.
So, the whole of reality is grounded upon a FSK, thus cannot be independent of the human conditions.

Yes, when we refer to humans for communication and interactions, we are referring to 'human' as an abstraction from the reality of 8 billion unique humans.
But the individual himself is not an abstraction because he has the faculty of self-awareness and direct experience of his existence as real, albeit within his individual human-FSK.

What you call a 'fact' based on your definition of 'what is fact' is an abstraction, i.e. an intelligible object, a noumenon, empty, nothing, meaningless and non-sensical on the other side that is beyond human reach.

[Peter Holmes]

The thing we call a tree isn't an abstraction - a thing that doesn't exist. It exists physically, just as do the many different things that constitute it - down to the quantum mechanical events that seem to constitute everything that exists. If a tree is an abstraction, then so is everything, including humans and their silly conclusions.

Chomsky was one of many victims of a fashionable delusion.

If the thing you call tree isn't an abstraction,
then you will have to name each every tree with their specific conditions [trunk, leaves, etc.].

This is obviously false - and self-refuting, because no description could satisfy the condition of specificity of particulars. That's why the scholastic debate over the existence of so-called universals was ridiculous. A common noun doesn't name an abstraction from all the particulars it supposedly names - it doesn't name a 'universal'. That idea was Plato's mistake - or the mistake of Platonists and their successors ever since.

[Skepdick]

This is obviously false - and self-refuting, because no description could satisfy the condition of specificity of particulars.

So how is any definition satisfied then?

That's why the scholastic debate over the existence of so-called universals was ridiculous. A common noun doesn't name an abstraction from all the particulars it supposedly names - it doesn't name a 'universal'. That idea was Plato's mistake - or the mistake of Platonists and their successors ever since.

So what's a "tree" then?

How is it logically possible that a contradiction is satisfiable ?!?!?

Code: Select all

In [1]: ('A' == 'A') and not ('A' == 'А')
Out[1]: True

contradiction.png (10.05 KiB) Viewed 361 times

Isn't that a objectively real and existing contradiction?!?!?