What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

But sane waking commonsense reality is insufficient when for the sake of forging a moral code we need to ask what human beings are, and how humans should live their lives. My life experience is different enough from many others' life experiences that I need to know how to be fair to those whose realities include being bombed from aeroplanes, being beaten by lovers, being homeless, being very rich, and so forth.

No, the sane waking commonsense reality is more than sufficient cuz it's the real one.

As for moral codes: modestly, I've offered one. It works.

As for bein' fair: nobody likes bein' bombed or beaten or livin' in the streets; everyone likes a little cash in their pockets.

None of this is rocket science, none of this is hard to figure out.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

As for bein' fair: nobody likes bein' bombed or beaten or livin' in the streets; everyone likes a little cash in their pockets.

What moral code makes life fairer and pain diminished?

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

As for bein' fair: nobody likes bein' bombed or beaten or livin' in the streets; everyone likes a little cash in their pockets.

What moral code makes life fairer and pain diminished?

Hold on there, sister, I didn't say nuthin' about makin' life fair or more painless. I said I offered a moral code that works. That is: if folks abide then folks are free.

[Belinda]

how do you know what you want to be free to do?

[henry quirk]

how do you know what you want to be free to do?

That's my business, B, as long as I'm not screwin' somebody else's pooch.

Seems to me that's all a moral code is good for: to keep you from futzin' around with another's life, liberty, and property, and to keep the other guy from futzin' around with yours.

The rest is your business.

[RCSaunders]

Henry I said 'real' and 'objective' do not mean the same.

" The Earth is flat" may be a reality for some people but it is not objectively true.

I'm only asking, not making any point.

By, "reality," you mean whatever someone is convinced is actually so. (Is that right?)
So what does, "objective truth," pertain to, since it is not reality.

If, "the earth is flat," is reality for someone, and they say, "the earth is flat," why isn't what they say objectively true? (I agree it is not objectively true, by the way.) They obviously are not intentionally telling an untruth (lie), because it is what is reality to them.

What most people mean by, "reality," is what is actually so independently of what anyone believes, thinks, or knows, which is why they call it, "objective," i.e. that which exists and has the nature it has whether anyone is conscious of it or knows it or not. You seem to mean something different. Is that right?

[Ginkgo]

Morality is both subjective and objective. Morality to some extent depends upon human motivation and that morality is not just a matter of inclination, taste, or preference. Rather it is something objective; or at lease Kant thought so.Common sense tells us that that morality involves both a subjective side and an objective element. According to Kant, it makes a difference the intentions a person has when they decide to act. Kant tells us that morality is not entirely a matter of human motivation. It only when a person acts from a sense of duty that one can universalize their actions. Kant's ethics attempts to combine the subjective with the objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks. There's no need to repeat whole chunks of your argument. Save time and effort by just answering each question.

So, you think your proposals are factual assertions with truth-value - given that what we call truth is always contextual and 'given the way we use the signs involved'.

You think those factual assertions are true.

And you think they're neither commands - which have no truth-value anyway - nor expressions of opinion - which can have only trivial truth-value, in that 'my opinion is x' is true if x is my opinion, and not true if x isn't my opinion.

Is that a fair summary of your position? (A simple answer will do. I just don't want to move on before we're clear.)

Yes, my proposed secular objective absolute moral laws [as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning] are factual assertions with truth-value, i.e. conditioned within an established Moral Framework and System.

Yes, in that context, they are factual assertion of moral truths.

Yes, these secular objective absolute moral laws by default [PURE] are not commands and should NEVER be enforced but used as GUIDEs only to improve with the APPLIED Ethics.

• Analogy: A Perfect/Ideal circle in Pure Geometry is NEVER enforced but merely used as a GUIDE and reference for actual circles in Applied Geometry to be as near as possible to the Pure-Perfect circle.

Get it?

As stated above secular objective absolute moral laws [as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning] are factual assertions with truth-value, i.e. conditioned within an established Moral Framework and System.
Therefore they cannot be crude 'opinions' [as defined and explained].
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion?s=t

Note the above are merely repetitions which I have done many times.

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks. There's no need to repeat whole chunks of your argument. Save time and effort by just answering each question.

So, you think your proposals are factual assertions with truth-value - given that what we call truth is always contextual and 'given the way we use the signs involved'.

You think those factual assertions are true.

And you think they're neither commands - which have no truth-value anyway - nor expressions of opinion - which can have only trivial truth-value, in that 'my opinion is x' is true if x is my opinion, and not true if x isn't my opinion.

Is that a fair summary of your position? (A simple answer will do. I just don't want to move on before we're clear.)

Yes, my proposed secular objective absolute moral laws [as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning] are factual assertions with truth-value, i.e. conditioned within an established Moral Framework and System.

Yes, in that context, they are factual assertion of moral truths.

Yes, these secular objective absolute moral laws by default [PURE] are not commands and should NEVER be enforced but used as GUIDEs only to improve with the APPLIED Ethics.

• Analogy: A Perfect/Ideal circle in Pure Geometry is NEVER enforced but merely used as a GUIDE and reference for actual circles in Applied Geometry to be as near as possible to the Pure-Perfect circle.

Get it?

As stated above secular objective absolute moral laws [as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning] are factual assertions with truth-value, i.e. conditioned within an established Moral Framework and System.
Therefore they cannot be crude 'opinions' [as defined and explained].
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion?s=t

Note the above are merely repetitions which I have done many times.

Thanks. No need to be grumpy. That was a shorter answer, thankfully. It could have been 'Yes', but never mind.

You think your proposals are factual assertions with truth-value - given that what we call truth is always contextual and given the way we use the signs involved. (Perhaps we can leave out the proviso about truth from now on, because we agree about it.)

Next question. Do you agree that saying the assertion 'We must do X' is true - is not making any assertion about X?

In other words, do you agree that, if 'We must do X' is a factual assertion with truth value, then it must have its own truth conditions? That, to show it's true, we have to show why we must do X?

Again, I think a very short answer would do. And, at this stage, I'm not asking you to show why we must do X. That's not the point here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks. There's no need to repeat whole chunks of your argument. Save time and effort by just answering each question.

So, you think your proposals are factual assertions with truth-value - given that what we call truth is always contextual and 'given the way we use the signs involved'.

You think those factual assertions are true.

And you think they're neither commands - which have no truth-value anyway - nor expressions of opinion - which can have only trivial truth-value, in that 'my opinion is x' is true if x is my opinion, and not true if x isn't my opinion.

Is that a fair summary of your position? (A simple answer will do. I just don't want to move on before we're clear.)

Yes, my proposed secular objective absolute moral laws [as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning] are factual assertions with truth-value, i.e. conditioned within an established Moral Framework and System.

Yes, in that context, they are factual assertion of moral truths.

Yes, these secular objective absolute moral laws by default [PURE] are not commands and should NEVER be enforced but used as GUIDEs only to improve with the APPLIED Ethics.

• Analogy: A Perfect/Ideal circle in Pure Geometry is NEVER enforced but merely used as a GUIDE and reference for actual circles in Applied Geometry to be as near as possible to the Pure-Perfect circle.

Get it?

As stated above secular objective absolute moral laws [as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning] are factual assertions with truth-value, i.e. conditioned within an established Moral Framework and System.
Therefore they cannot be crude 'opinions' [as defined and explained].
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion?s=t

Note the above are merely repetitions which I have done many times.

Thanks. No need to be grumpy. That was a shorter answer, thankfully. It could have been 'Yes', but never mind.

You think your proposals are factual assertions with truth-value - given that what we call truth is always contextual and given the way we use the signs involved. (Perhaps we can leave out the proviso about truth from now on, because we agree about it.)

Next question. Do you agree that saying the assertion 'We must do X' is true - is not making any assertion about X?

In other words, do you agree that, if 'We must do X' is a factual assertion with truth value, then it must have its own truth conditions? That, to show it's true, we have to show why we must do X?

Again, I think a very short answer would do. And, at this stage, I'm not asking you to show why we must do X. That's not the point here.

It is the other way round.

X is a factual assertion [morally] with its truth value justified empirically and philosophically.

From the consideration of Morality - i.e. to promote right and good behavior,
'we must do X' is thus the most efficient GUIDE to be used with the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

In this case, 'we must do X' implies we are referring to the assertion of X as justified empirically and philosophically.
Don't forget a lot of effort is exercised in justifying X empirically and philosophically.

[Peter Holmes]

Next question. Do you agree that saying the assertion 'We must do X' is true - is not making any assertion about X?

In other words, do you agree that, if 'We must do X' is a factual assertion with truth value, then it must have its own truth conditions? That, to show it's true, we have to show why we must do X?

Again, I think a very short answer would do. And, at this stage, I'm not asking you to show why we must do X. That's not the point here.

It is the other way round.

X is a factual assertion [morally] with its truth value justified empirically and philosophically.

From the consideration of Morality - i.e. to promote right and good behavior,
'we must do X' is thus the most efficient GUIDE to be used with the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

In this case, 'we must do X' implies we are referring to the assertion of X as justified empirically and philosophically.
Don't forget a lot of effort is exercised in justifying X empirically and philosophically.

No, you did what I asked you not to do - explain what X is, in your opinion. But, in doing that, I think you're agreeing that, in order to show the truth-value of 'We must do X', we have to show why we must do X - which, you say, is in order to achieve, or get nearer to, goal Y.

So your proposals should say this: We must do X to achieve, or get nearer to, goal Y.

Or to put it another way: If we want to achieve, or get nearer to, goal Y, then we must do X.

And you're saying that these are factual assertions with truth-value. Do you agree so far?

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Seems to me that's all a moral code is good for: to keep you from futzin' around with another's life, liberty, and property, and to keep the other guy from futzin' around with yours.

The rest is your business.

Should your business include pulling a drowning child from the water?

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Seems to me that's all a moral code is good for: to keep you from futzin' around with another's life, liberty, and property, and to keep the other guy from futzin' around with yours.

The rest is your business.

Should your business include pulling a drowning child from the water?

I'm not a very good swimmer. And i have a 13 year old counting on me to be alive. I'm thinkin' that drowning kid might just have to drown.

[Belinda]

Henry , you do stick to your guns.

[henry quirk]

Henry , you do stick to your guns.

Consistency, coherence, persistence...