What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But anyway, if there are no moral facts - and there's no evidence that they exist - the claims of metaethical moral relativism and moral nihilism - nothing is objectively morally right or wrong - are trivially true by definition and default.

If morality isn't objective, then the default position is moral subjectivism - that moral assertions express value judgements.

How do you verify, justify and ensure your above claims is 'objective' i.e. independent of anyone's beliefs or opinion?

There are so many counter arguments that "metaethical moral relativism" do not work.
Therefore "metaethical moral relativism" is not objective thus cannot be the default because it is subjected to personal opinions and beliefs.

If you insist, show the proofs "metaethical moral relativism" is objectively true.

[surreptitious57]

what we directly see and feel is merely appearance which we believe to be a sign of some reality behind
But if the reality is not what appears have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all
And if so have we any means of finding out what it is like

We cannot operate beyond our sense organs and cognitive ability from which all knowledge and experience comes
So we treat the reality we experience as being objective and real because it is the simplest option available to us
To deny what we experience as reality would require a more complex explanation than we could actually provide

[Belinda]

what we directly see and feel is merely appearance which we believe to be a sign of some reality behind
But if the reality is not what appears have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all
And if so have we any means of finding out what it is like

We cannot operate beyond our sense organs and cognitive ability from which all knowledge and experience comes
So we treat the reality we experience as being objective and real because it is the simplest option available to us
To deny what we experience as reality would require a more complex explanation than we could actually provide

True, but insufficient.

What we experience is shaped or in some cases determined by belief, in which case what we experience is largely social reality. Social reality is a manifestation of subjective reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

what we directly see and feel is merely appearance which we believe to be a sign of some reality behind
But if the reality is not what appears have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all
And if so have we any means of finding out what it is like

We cannot operate beyond our sense organs and cognitive ability from which all knowledge and experience comes
So we treat the reality we experience as being objective and real because it is the simplest option available to us
To deny what we experience as reality would require a more complex explanation than we could actually provide

It is not complex and difficult to understand what is reality when we understand our inherent dogmatic stance.

• Note the analogy;
  All humans are "programmed" to focus outward to facilitate survival.
  This is what happened with the geocentric versus the heliocentric model.
  Humans of old observed outward and assumed what is observed to be conclusively true, thus the claimed the Sun revolves around the Earth.
  It was Copernicus who directed attention inward to the Earth we stand on, and it is the Earth that is revolving round the Sun.

It is the same with general reality where the focus is always outward, thus humans speculate there is an external reality that is yet to be discovered, thus they ASSUMED it is there awaiting discovery.
What they do not focus is inward to themselves to investigate whether they as human themselves play a critical role is realizing what-is-reality.

The point is for any given object/thing of reality, we should not hastily jumped to conclusion or presumption there is something really real as a referent of that given-object.
Rather we should investigate how that given-object is interacted with the human self that enable the emergence of that given-object.
From there we should only go as far as the empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning can take us and should never jumped ahead to ASSUME that is an objective reality of what is Given to us.

Note Kant on this;

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
CPR-A5

Note Kant's point on how humans are driven to jump to conclusion [instinctively & instantly] from speculations first and then find explanations for their haste, ending with all sorts of excuses to justify their speculations and presumptions.

[Belinda]

what we directly see and feel is merely appearance which we believe to be a sign of some reality behind
But if the reality is not what appears have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all
And if so have we any means of finding out what it is like

We cannot operate beyond our sense organs and cognitive ability from which all knowledge and experience comes
So we treat the reality we experience as being objective and real because it is the simplest option available to us
To deny what we experience as reality would require a more complex explanation than we could actually provide

It is not complex and difficult to understand what is reality when we understand our inherent dogmatic stance.

• Note the analogy;
  All humans are "programmed" to focus outward to facilitate survival.
  This is what happened with the geocentric versus the heliocentric model.
  Humans of old observed outward and assumed what is observed to be conclusively true, thus the claimed the Sun revolves around the Earth.
  It was Copernicus who directed attention inward to the Earth we stand on, and it is the Earth that is revolving round the Sun.

It is the same with general reality where the focus is always outward, thus humans speculate there is an external reality that is yet to be discovered, thus they ASSUMED it is there awaiting discovery.
What they do not focus is inward to themselves to investigate whether they as human themselves play a critical role is realizing what-is-reality.

The point is for any given object/thing of reality, we should not hastily jumped to conclusion or presumption there is something really real as a referent of that given-object.
Rather we should investigate how that given-object is interacted with the human self that enable the emergence of that given-object.
From there we should only go as far as the empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning can take us and should never jumped ahead to ASSUME that is an objective reality of what is Given to us.

Note Kant on this;

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
CPR-A5

Note Kant's point on how humans are driven to jump to conclusion [instinctively & instantly] from speculations first and then find explanations for their haste, ending with all sorts of excuses to justify their speculations and presumptions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

What they do not focus is inward to themselves to investigate whether they as human themselves play a critical role is realizing what-is-reality.

a) If by "inward to themselves" you mean understanding and awareness of subjectivity and psychology you are mistaken. Most people by the time they finish secondary education are aware of how they themselves impact on what they experience and believe. Narcissists are deficient at this level of understanding.

b) If by "Inward to themselves" you mean humans have innate knowledge of ultimate reality you may be right. I understand this is|Roman Catholic doctrine. It is a hopeful doctrine but the downside is people who believe it are easily manipulated by traditional authorities like kings and priests.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

What they do not focus is inward to themselves to investigate whether they as human themselves play a critical role is realizing what-is-reality.

a) If by "inward to themselves" you mean understanding and awareness of subjectivity and psychology you are mistaken. Most people by the time they finish secondary education are aware of how they themselves impact on what they experience and believe. Narcissists are deficient at this level of understanding.

b) If by "Inward to themselves" you mean humans have innate knowledge of ultimate reality you may be right. I understand this is|Roman Catholic doctrine. It is a hopeful doctrine but the downside is people who believe it are easily manipulated by traditional authorities like kings and priests.

You missed my point which is actually quite subtle;

I wrote, they are ignorant of;
"whether they as human themselves play a critical role is realizing what-is-reality"
the end result is they are clinging to Philosophical Realism;

In metaphysics, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

If they had understood themselves internally and the role they play in realizing reality, they would not be dogmatically philosophical realists as the majority of people at present are.

[Sculptor]

"ALL human[s] ought to prevent other humans from breathing till they die."
How can this be an opinion [as defined]?

That opinion is not more valid than the converse.
Let me show you where you are going wrong.

You have stated that breathing is necessary for life in humans. Actually you can live without breathing, with a machine, but I'll let that go for purposes of simplicity. No one disagrees the truth of this; that at least oxygen is necessary for the persistence of a living human life.

So far so good.

You seem to continue to say that breathing is an objective right, or words to that effect.
Is this okay so far?

Let's see if you are kidding yourself and ignoring some issues here. Let's start simply by answering the questions without comment.

Can you answer these questions, yes or no, please!

1) Is it possible that the continuation of a life is a good idea, from the perspective of an individual?

2) Is it possible that the continuation of a particular life is a good is a good idea, from the perspective of society?

3) Is it possible that the preservation of life of an infinite number of humans on a planet with finite resources a good idea?

4) If you think that breathing is an objective moral right, who has to responsibility to guarantee that right and provide the resources where necessary to given each and every human the means to breath?

5) It is necessary for a potato eelworm to have potatoes to live. Does a potato eelworm have the right to potatoes?

[Peter Holmes]

There's obviously no point in going over this, saying the same things.

It boils down to something very simple, Pete.

• I say there is such a thing as an objective morality.

• You say there is such a thing as a subjective morality.

• Nihilists say there is no such thing as any real, justifiable, rational or actual morality...just a bunch of fakes.

And you're right to say that we moral objectivists have to show that objective moral facts do exist. Fair enough.

But anybody who believes in subjectivism, and refuses to plunge to Nihilism, owes exactly the same kind of demonstration.

Otherwise, the Nihilists win.

So I will work on my demonstrations. And I have been, so long as we've been discussing Linville's argument (to which I am happy to return).

But equally, let's see what you can do with yours: what are the grounds for saying "subjective morality" is real, justifiable, rational or authentic at all?

Why isn't it the case that the Nihilists are right, in other words?

Nihilists don't 'say there is no such thing as any real, justifiable, rational or actual morality... just a bunch of fakes.' That's a straw man of your invention. Moral nihilism covers a variety of ideas. But one common claim, I think, is the denial of the existence of moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective.

And, as you agree, 'moral objectivists have to show that objective moral facts do exist'. Still waiting.

If you think Linville's argument does demonstrate the existence of moral facts, and that it's sound, then set it out simply and clearly here, so that we can assess it. Asking people to read someone else's work, as a substitute for making the argument yourself, is lazy.

In my opinion, he's developing Plantinga's EAAN, which deals with epistemology - and whose soundness has been challenged almost from when he produced it. And I maintain morality isn't an epistmological matter anyway - as my OP indicated.

[Peter Holmes]

There's obviously no point in going over this, saying the same things.

It boils down to something very simple, Pete.

• I say there is such a thing as an objective morality.

• You say there is such a thing as a subjective morality.

• Nihilists say there is no such thing as any real, justifiable, rational or actual morality...just a bunch of fakes.

And you're right to say that we moral objectivists have to show that objective moral facts do exist. Fair enough.

But anybody who believes in subjectivism, and refuses to plunge to Nihilism, owes exactly the same kind of demonstration.

Otherwise, the Nihilists win.

So I will work on my demonstrations. And I have been, so long as we've been discussing Linville's argument (to which I am happy to return).

But equally, let's see what you can do with yours: what are the grounds for saying "subjective morality" is real, justifiable, rational or authentic at all?

Why isn't it the case that the Nihilists are right, in other words?

Nihilists don't 'say there is no such thing as any real, justifiable, rational or actual morality... just a bunch of fakes.' That's a straw man of your invention. Moral nihilism covers a variety of ideas. But one common claim, I think, is the denial of the existence of moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective.

And, as you agree, 'moral objectivists have to show that objective moral facts do exist'. Still waiting. (Btw, all facts are objective, so 'objective facts' is a redundancy.)

If you think Linville's argument does demonstrate the existence of moral facts, and that it's sound, then set it out simply and clearly here, so that we can assess it. Asking people to read someone else's work, as a substitute for making the argument yourself, is unfair.

In my opinion, he's developing Plantinga's EAAN, which deals with epistemology - and whose soundness has been challenged almost from when he produced it. And I maintain morality isn't an epistmological matter anyway - as my OP indicated.

[Immanuel Can]

what are the grounds for saying subjective morality is real

Even if one accepts that objective morality exists it would still be subjectively interpreted by human beings

That's quite different from saying that the morality they interpret would itself be subjective. It's like the difference between saying, "Mountains exist, but we know them perspectivally," and saying, "Mountains don't really exist at all, and we imagine them."

...no human being can attain perfection no matter how rigorously they may practice an objective morality they believe in

That is true enough.

But the function of an ideal is not always perfection. Sometimes it's higher achievement. For example, there's no such thing as "the perfect game" in football. That doesn't mean that aiming for the ideal performance isn't a good thing for athletes. So when you say,

"Striving for perfection is therefore impractical but can serve as an ideal to aim for even if it will never be achieved in practice"

...you are quite correct.

To blindly adhere...

I cannot remember anybody in this conversation advocating "blindness." You'll have to point out where you got that idea.

no morality can exist without the freedom to actually make moral choices

This is also, of course, true. "Ought implies can," as the axiom goes: if we have no freedom, then we could not do otherwise than we do, and thus could not be morally responsive. But it's not very relevant to the question of the objectivity of morality, so far as I can see, because I see nothing in morality that suggests Determinism.

The question therefore should not be whether morality is objective or subjective but how rigorously one can live by ones own moral choices

That won't work, for two reasons: one is very obvious...how does one verify to oneself that one's choices are "moral" if there is no standard beyond oneself for evaluating them? The second is that ANYBODY can live by "one's own" standards, and there's nothing particularly "moral"or "rigorous" about it. One is just doing what one wants, not responding to any moral standard.

[Immanuel Can]

In metaphysics, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Whether or not you could say I believe any of this would depend on what is meant by "independent." Is morality independent of human subjectivity? Epistemologically, no...ontologically, yes.

[Immanuel Can]

Nihilists don't 'say there is no such thing as any real, justifiable, rational or actual morality... just a bunch of fakes.'

They say everything but that last phrase, which they wouldn't want to admit, even though it's the automatic implication of the earlier phrases. They very definitely have to believe that morality is neither real, justifiable, rational or actual. Otherwise, they're not Nihilists anymore.

If you think Linville's argument does demonstrate the existence of moral facts, and that it's sound, then set it out simply and clearly here, so that we can assess it.

You can assess it. You can read it.

Meanwhile, I'm not going to do a "Reader's Digest" summary, in place of the full case. That would be silly. If I made it short enough for these spaces, you'd complain that it wasn't "proven," wasn't "documented," or "lacked stages of argument to be rational." And if I repeat the full argument, it would take me pages and pages, and merely repeat what is already available to you.

Now, as I'm sure you realize, the principle of charity requires that one should face an argument in its fullest, best-articulated, most fully-developed form, if it exists in such a form. If one has not done that, then one simply has not faced the argument. And since you yourself claimed that there were no such reasons and evidence,I think you owe it to yourself to see if that's really true.

And that being said, if you want to read the arguments, then there is no point of them that I am reluctant to discuss. I will go over the entire book with you (to the extent I am competent, though a couple of the arguments are not in areas I know as well as others), if you wish. And Linville's essay is a good starting point.

Now you know how to do that. And you can see that thoughtful, sophisticated, well-documented and precisely arranged arguments do, in fact exist. Even if, at the end of the day, you rejected every argument that could be adduced, including all the ones in the book, you would still have to realize that sophisticated issues exist, and the matter was not, in fact, decidable in the perfunctory, dismissive way you had said it was.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

What they do not focus is inward to themselves to investigate whether they as human themselves play a critical role is realizing what-is-reality.

a) If by "inward to themselves" you mean understanding and awareness of subjectivity and psychology you are mistaken. Most people by the time they finish secondary education are aware of how they themselves impact on what they experience and believe. Narcissists are deficient at this level of understanding.

b) If by "Inward to themselves" you mean humans have innate knowledge of ultimate reality you may be right. I understand this is|Roman Catholic doctrine. It is a hopeful doctrine but the downside is people who believe it are easily manipulated by traditional authorities like kings and priests.

You missed my point which is actually quite subtle;

I wrote, they are ignorant of;
"whether they as human themselves play a critical role is realizing what-is-reality"
the end result is they are clinging to Philosophical Realism;

In metaphysics, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

If they had understood themselves internally and the role they play in realizing reality, they would not be dogmatically philosophical realists as the majority of people at present are.

"whether they as human themselves play a critical role is realizing what-is-reality"
the end result is they are clinging to Philosophical Realism;

Is also called naive realism. I'd be surprised if anyone with a basic knowledge of metaphysics was a naive realist. I agree most people most of whom have no knowledge of philosophy are naive realists.
I seem to have forgotten what this discussion about how we might know stuff has got to do with whether or not morality is objective. The title would be better "what could make ethics objective? ".

[uwot]

Nihilists don't 'say there is no such thing as any real, justifiable, rational or actual morality... just a bunch of fakes.'

They say everything but that last phrase, which they wouldn't want to admit, even though it's the automatic implication of the earlier phrases. They very definitely have to believe that morality is neither real, justifiable, rational or actual. Otherwise, they're not Nihilists anymore.

You're doing it again, Mr Can. You are like a child who draws a house with a door in the centre, windows either side and a chimney on top. All your proper noun caricatures: Atheist, Leftist, Progressive, Nihilist et al either have all deformities you ascribe to them, or they don't qualify. They are straw men. Mr Can, you should learn to draw without outlines: learn some tone and subtlety - see what is actually there, rather than what you believe. If you are right, and we are all products of your 'supreme being', you could at least acknowledge the variety and nuance of 'His' (if you must) creation. If you cannot respect your fellow man, at least respect your god.

[Peter Holmes]

Nihilists don't 'say there is no such thing as any real, justifiable, rational or actual morality... just a bunch of fakes.'

They say everything but that last phrase, which they wouldn't want to admit, even though it's the automatic implication of the earlier phrases. They very definitely have to believe that morality is neither real, justifiable, rational or actual. Otherwise, they're not Nihilists anymore.

No, you're introducing terms that are not necessary to moral nihilism. which as a minimum denies that there are moral facts - so that morality isn't and can't be objective. That position is perfectly compatible with a rational and justifiable morality. That you think it isn't is your problem - a requirement of your invented straw-man. You need to demonise moral nihilism, so you have to misrepresent it.

If you think Linville's argument does demonstrate the existence of moral facts, and that it's sound, then set it out simply and clearly here, so that we can assess it.

You can assess it. You can read it.

Meanwhile, I'm not going to do a "Reader's Digest" summary, in place of the full case. That would be silly. If I made it short enough for these spaces, you'd complain that it wasn't "proven," wasn't "documented," or "lacked stages of argument to be rational." And if I repeat the full argument, it would take me pages and pages, and merely repeat what is already available to you.

Now, as I'm sure you realize, the principle of charity requires that one should face an argument in its fullest, best-articulated, most fully-developed form, if it exists in such a form. If one has not done that, then one simply has not faced the argument. And since you yourself claimed that there were no such reasons and evidence,I think you owe it to yourself to see if that's really true.

And that being said, if you want to read the arguments, then there is no point of them that I am reluctant to discuss. I will go over the entire book with you (to the extent I am competent, though a couple of the arguments are not in areas I know as well as others), if you wish. And Linville's essay is a good starting point.

Now you know how to do that. And you can see that thoughtful, sophisticated, well-documented and precisely arranged arguments do, in fact exist. Even if, at the end of the day, you rejected every argument that could be adduced, including all the ones in the book, you would still have to realize that sophisticated issues exist, and the matter was not, in fact, decidable in the perfunctory, dismissive way you had said it was.

No, this is evasion. Any argument can be distilled down to well-formed premises and a conclusion - with definitions, clarifications and notes if necessary. To start, I suggest you formulate Linville's conclusion, as you understand it. What is he trying to prove? Then you can work out the premises that supposedly entail that conclusion. If you can't do this, I suggest you don't understand his argument.

Meanwhile, as you agree, you need to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. Still waiting.