What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

There are no formal explicit model of morality at present.

Science, medicine, social/well-being metrics. GINI coefficients, economic statistics, crime rates, education rates. Poverty rates.

They are the best encodings of 'morality' we have given our available formalisms (tools) for defining things.

Language is broken. You can't define anything useful in English without a corresponding measurement/metric.

You will find lots of literature on the topic around Systems Engineering/Safety managemen/Complexity theory/Risk management.
Scientists/practitioners are onto it It's a hard problem.

Start here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/signuptosafe ... e-papr.pdf

[TimeSeeker]

here's a dictionary definition of the word 'objective':

Appeal to authority. The dictionary merely points out common use of words. It is descriptive not prescriptive.
Ironically - the meaning of words is agreed upon by tacit CONSENSUS through common use.

But I am willing to indulge your definition just long enough so I can beat you over the head with it. That is - hold you accountable to it.

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Notice that, by this definition, objectivity has nothing to do with consensus, and everything to do with facts - true factual assertions - true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know - true even if the consensus is 100% rejection.

So then you should have absolutely no problem telling me the OBJECTIVE RULES by which you evaluate "rational and sound arguments" so that you can tell them apart from the "irrational and unsound arguments"?
You should have absolutely no problem telling me the OBJECTIVE RULES by which you ASSERT whether something is "true" or "factual" as opposed to "false" and "non-factual".

You should have absolutely no problem telling me the OBJECTIVE RULES by which you INTERPRET and LABEL the information you acquire via your sense. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, feeling and perceiving!

The OBJECTIVE RULES you use to parse ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing ) the meaning of everything you experience.

All I ask for is transparency and intellectual honesty. I am waiting.

In reciprocation - I will tell you that I intend on using the Regress argument ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument ) over and over and over. For evey definition you give me or any distinction you try to draw. Until you figure out that I can DECIDE to work towards consensus or DECIDE to work towards disagreement. And I have all the tools to do either one effectively!

I will give you no quarter and will not allow you to "ground" or define objectivity. Until you acknowledge and accept the symbol grounding problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

Because objectivity is made up! By humans. By consensus. Just like how words acquire meaning. By consensus.

I can't be arsed to scroll back and find your valid and sound argument demonstrating the objectivity of morality. My bad and my loss, no doubt.

Probably because you know I've called you out on your bullshit.

For shits and giggles - you can even call me an atruist. I reject truth like atheists reject god.

[Immanuel Can]

Yet, here I stand before you. An atheist. Having grounded morality in human survival.

Inadequate.

"Human survival" cannot even be demonstrated to be of value, in a universe that is originally the accidental byproduct of a cosmic explosion, and is now nothing but an unusual collocation of accidental atoms. In such a universe, there is no "good," no "evil," no "right", no "wrong" -- there is only what IS.

Hume saw this. So did Nietzsche.

But you say you've "grounded" your account, so you must be able to show why "human survival" is a universal, imperative value. What is your demonstration of that?

But what if I'm stronger, nastier, more devious, and more influential than you

You aren't. I command the respect of an army. I have incredible capability for violence and I a comfortable with the idea of taking human life. And I don't do it. So again - mosquitos and T-rexes.

Evasive. You've only posited the reverse question...you haven't lifted a finger to resolve the problem. Just reverse the pronouns, and the problem is identical.

An "übermensch" wants others to become "übermensch" too, for (s)he realizes (s)he needs all the help (s)he can get. Against The Universe.

"Ubermensch" means explicitly, "over-man." Nietzsche did not speak of "over-women." So far as he was concerned, as he said, "You go to women? Take the whip." (His words, not mine)

There is nothing in Nietzsche's philosophy that says the übermensch "needs help" to get by. In fact, he is one who regards himself as "beyond good and evil," as Nietzsche put it. He uses and discards the weak as is suits his particular purposes and advantages, and has no naive delusions about having to hold back.

So you've only verbally neutered Nietzsche -- not a tremendous achievement, because he's dead -- and you haven't represented him accurately. And, of course, you haven't dealt with the challenge his version of history poses.

[TimeSeeker]

Inadequate.

By what standard for adequacy?

But you say you've "grounded" your account, so you must be able to show why "human survival" is a universal, imperative value. What is your demonstration of that?

I never said it's universal. I said it's shared by majority of humans. So by majority-consensus it's the best we have.
You are still failing to commit to it, so I am just going to assume you don't think your life is important.

Prove it. By posting your suicide live on youtube. Dosaxtic commitment.

[Immanuel Can]

But why does even that matter? When it happens, IF it ever happens, you and I will be long dead. What matters it then whether or not life on this planet or any other continues? Why should we care, since we will not be there?

Because you are here. Now.

Rhetorical.

So what if "I am here" now? "I," according to Atheism, am a cosmic accident. So is everyone else. And death ends all. Why should we care what happens to others when we're gone? We have enough for ourselves at this moment. Now. So why do we need to forego any of that for the accidental entities that may or may not appear once our "now" has ended?

Which is fine, if you mind your own business. But if you step out of line - WE will make the rest of your remaining life very unpleasant.

No, actually, you don't, you won't and you can't.

You may get impotently angry, and type very furiously. No doubt you will. However, it will not hurt.

[TimeSeeker]

No, actually, you don't, you won't and you can't. You may get impotently angry, and type very furiously. No doubt you will. However, it will not hurt.

Rhetorical.

You can either post your live suicide on YouTube, or your address

Otherwise...

Rhetorical.

[Immanuel Can]

Inadequate.

By what standard for adequacy?

Rational adequacy. A statement must be supported by premises adequate to making the conclusion necessary.

But you say you've "grounded" your account, so you must be able to show why "human survival" is a universal, imperative value. What is your demonstration of that?

I never said it's universal. I said it's shared by majority of humans. You are still failing to commit to it, so I am just going to assume you disagree.

Well, you know what happens when you "assume"...

You have to demonstrate it rationally, or no rational person has any obligation to believe you.

[TimeSeeker]

Rational adequacy. A statement must be supported by premises adequate to making the conclusion necessary.

By what standard of rationality?
By what standard of adequacy?
By what standard of necessity?

[Immanuel Can]

Rational adequacy. A statement must be supported by premises adequate to making the conclusion necessary.

By what standard of rationality?
By what standard of adequacy?

You may have to familiarize yourself with the basic principles of forming logical syllogisms. Two premises and a conclusion are necessary, and they must be valid in form and true in content in order to be rationally compelling for the conclusion tendered.

It is not wrong for someone with no philosophy background to participate here, but you will find it very helpful to acquire a little of that background, if you wish to argue compellingly.

[TimeSeeker]

You may have to familiarize yourself with the basic principles of forming logical syllogisms.

1. Appeal to authority. On what grounds do you accept the basic principles?
2. Ad-hominem. I have been forming complex syllogisms (building software systems) for 30 years.

Two premises and a conclusion are necessary, and they must be valid in form and true in content in order to be rationally compelling for the conclusion tendered.

By what standard of validity?
By what standard for truth?

It is not wrong for

By what standard of right and wrong?

someone with no philosophy background to participate here

No true Scotsman fallacy.

[Immanuel Can]

You may have to familiarize yourself with the basic principles of forming logical syllogisms.

Appeal to authority. On what grounds do you accept the basic principles?

Not "appeal to authority." No "authority" cited.

In fact, don't take my word for it. Check out any Philosophy 101, and they'll cover the basic structure of logic.

By what standard of validity?
By what standard for truth?

Again, Philosophy 101. "Validity" refers to appropriate logical form, and "truth" refers to the rational plausibility of statements.

It is not wrong for

By what standard of right and wrong?

Good question. In an Atheistic world, there are no such objective standards, and no way to arbitrate morally between options for action. Whatever "works" (for some purpose a person can have) is as "good" and as "bad" as it gets...or more correctly, is neither...for there is no standard of objective morality, then.

someone with no philosophy background to participate here

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Incorrect. The NTS fallacy takes the form, "No true ___________ would _________." No such implication was mine.

I merely point out that the questions you are asking appear to demonstrate vacancies in knowledge of basic concepts that are covered in any Philosophy 101. I don't offer that as an insult, but as helpful information, so you can understand that your objections as stated are considered rudimentary, and can be adequately addressed by firming up your basic knowledge of the discipline. You could do that formally or informally.

However, the truth is that they are not the rapier sharp "gotcha" ripostes you may presently perceive them to be. The discipline itself has addressed them early and often.

[TimeSeeker]

Check out any Philosophy 101, and they'll cover the basic structure of logic.

Check out any Computer Science 101 and they will cover the complex structure of logic.

But far more importantly - its limits! For every principle - there is a counter-principle.

Again, Philosophy 101. "Validity" refers to appropriate logical form, and truth refers to the rational plausibility of statements.

By what standard of rationality?
By what standard of plausibility?

Good question. In an Atheistic world, there are no such objective standards, and no way to arbitrate morally between options for action. Whatever "works" (for some purpose a person can have) is as "good" and as "bad" as it gets...or more correctly, is neither...for there is no standard of objective morality, then.

So there are no objective standards then? Good! Finally got some agreement out of you.

Which leads me to the next point.....

Incorrect. The NTS fallacy takes the form, "No true ___________ would _________." No such implication was mine.

Deflection. The NTS is also known as "appeal to purity". You pointed at my "no philosophy background". You are correct to observe that I haven't studied philosophy. But in so far as understanding how logic works (as a system) - I do think I am far more knowledgeable given my applied experience with logic/mathematics/statistics/systems theory/complexity/physics than you. So you have no argument.

[Immanuel Can]

So there are no objective standards then? Good! Finally got some agreement out of you.

...in an Atheistic world. That was my conditional clause. We must not forget it.

The NTS is also known as "appeal to purity".

I didn't appeal to your "purity." I merely made the routine observation that your objections appear to give evidence of significant lacunae in your knowledge base regarding logic. I invited you to rectify the problem.

I'm just suggesting you don't want to frustrate your interlocutors by accidentally offering objections they know have been routinely answered by the discipline already.

[TimeSeeker]

...in an Atheistic world. That was my conditional clause. We must not forget it.

Performative contradiction.

The world is. Unqualified.

Since you have successfully qualified the world (even hypothetically) as "Atheistic" and "non-atheistic", then you already have some classification rules in mind which would allow you to differentiate an "atheistic" from "non-atheistic" world. You'd know that if you had studied any statistics or computer science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

I didn't appeal to your "purity." I merely made the routine observation that your objections appear to give evidence of significant lacunae in your knowledge base regarding logic. I invited you to rectify the problem.

False positive. The lacunae is in your knowledge. The Dunning-Kruger effect prevents you from recognizing that.

And I will help you rectify this by pointing you to some reading. Hypothesis testing is Bayesian inference. If you leave out the "true" hypothesis from your test (in which case - this was "I am the one lacking knowledge") the interpretation of evidence necessarily leads you to a false positive.

Always consider your own fallibility as a plausible hypothesis...

ET Jaynes, 2003, chapter 5 ( https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712 )

[TimeSeeker]

...in an Atheistic world. That was my conditional clause. We must not forget it.

And you went and made two errors in reasoning in one sentence: https://repl.it/repls/PrivateMealySequence