What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The sequence is: evidence supports claims (assertions), which are then premises in arguments.

The idea that there can be evidence for an argument is incoherent, in my opinion.

Very bad opinion.
Generally yes, but not for every argument.

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

In many areas of Science, arguments for hypotheses and theories are presented in argument based on statement in natural language or equations.

Thereafter scientists look for evidence to justify that their arguments are realistic.
Example, this was the case for Einstein's theory;

Light traveling from a star through space and passing the sun's field would be bent, if Einstein's theory were true. If you could see the star during the day, he predicted, it would be in a different place than at night. The only chance to see it during the day would be during an eclipse.

On March 29, 1919, that opportunity came. British Astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington traveled to Príncipe Island off the western coast of Africa. His team photographed starfields during the eclipse and compared the photos with those of the same starfield taken when the sun was not present. Eddington found the apparent location of the stars had shifted, just as Einstein predicted.

Further proofs of Einstein's theory came with advancing technology through the 1960s and continue in the present. But the immediate impact in 1919 was enormous. World War I had just ended. Einstein became a celebrity, and within a year, more than 100 books had been published about his theories.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/e ... p15ei.html#

[Peter Holmes]

The sequence is: evidence supports claims (assertions), which are then premises in arguments.

The idea that there can be evidence for an argument is incoherent, in my opinion.

Very bad opinion.
Generally yes, but not for every argument.

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

In many areas of Science, arguments for hypotheses and theories are presented in argument based on statement in natural language or equations.

Thereafter scientists look for evidence to justify that their arguments are realistic.
Example, this was the case for Einstein's theory;

Light traveling from a star through space and passing the sun's field would be bent, if Einstein's theory were true. If you could see the star during the day, he predicted, it would be in a different place than at night. The only chance to see it during the day would be during an eclipse.

On March 29, 1919, that opportunity came. British Astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington traveled to Príncipe Island off the western coast of Africa. His team photographed starfields during the eclipse and compared the photos with those of the same starfield taken when the sun was not present. Eddington found the apparent location of the stars had shifted, just as Einstein predicted.

Further proofs of Einstein's theory came with advancing technology through the 1960s and continue in the present. But the immediate impact in 1919 was enormous. World War I had just ended. Einstein became a celebrity, and within a year, more than 100 books had been published about his theories.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/e ... p15ei.html#

Nope. They have evidence for the premise(s), then they look for evidence to support the conclusion - the hypothesis - which is a claim. It's an everyday shorthand to talk about the evidence for an argument - but it's only ever evidence for a claim - a factual assertion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The sequence is: evidence supports claims (assertions), which are then premises in arguments.

The idea that there can be evidence for an argument is incoherent, in my opinion.

Very bad opinion.
Generally yes, but not for every argument.

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

In many areas of Science, arguments for hypotheses and theories are presented in argument based on statement in natural language or equations.

Thereafter scientists look for evidence to justify that their arguments are realistic.
Example, this was the case for Einstein's theory;

Light traveling from a star through space and passing the sun's field would be bent, if Einstein's theory were true. If you could see the star during the day, he predicted, it would be in a different place than at night. The only chance to see it during the day would be during an eclipse.

On March 29, 1919, that opportunity came. British Astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington traveled to Príncipe Island off the western coast of Africa. His team photographed starfields during the eclipse and compared the photos with those of the same starfield taken when the sun was not present. Eddington found the apparent location of the stars had shifted, just as Einstein predicted.

Further proofs of Einstein's theory came with advancing technology through the 1960s and continue in the present. But the immediate impact in 1919 was enormous. World War I had just ended. Einstein became a celebrity, and within a year, more than 100 books had been published about his theories.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/e ... p15ei.html#

Nope. They have evidence for the premise(s), then they look for evidence to support the conclusion - the hypothesis - which is a claim. It's an everyday shorthand to talk about the evidence for an argument - but it's only ever evidence for a claim - a factual assertion.

Agree with the above.

A priori arguments and analytic proposition are not dependent on evidences.

Btw, my view is what is claimed to be real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

[Peter Holmes]

Very bad opinion.
Generally yes, but not for every argument.



In many areas of Science, arguments for hypotheses and theories are presented in argument based on statement in natural language or equations.

Thereafter scientists look for evidence to justify that their arguments are realistic.
Example, this was the case for Einstein's theory;

Nope. They have evidence for the premise(s), then they look for evidence to support the conclusion - the hypothesis - which is a claim. It's an everyday shorthand to talk about the evidence for an argument - but it's only ever evidence for a claim - a factual assertion.

Agree with the above.

A priori arguments and analytic proposition are not dependent on evidences.

Btw, my view is what is claimed to be real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Okay, but what you call philosphical justification is merely the presentation of valid and sound argument - and there's nothing specifically philosophical about that. And any ontology, epistemology or theory of truth used to make an argument has itself to use valid and sound argument. And what we call justification is nothing more than explanation, using valid and sound argument. That's what your appeal to philosophical justification amounts to.

As for empirical justification for an existence-claim - couldn't agree more. And that's what moral realism and objectivism lack: evidence for the existence of a moral reality, and therefore moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity with regard to those facts.

But we're never going to agree about that - so let's not do it over again. We can only rehash tired old arguments.

[Skepdick]

Okay, but what you call philosphical justification is merely the presentation of valid and sound argument - and there's nothing specifically philosophical about that. And any ontology, epistemology or theory of truth used to make an argument has itself to use valid and sound argument.

Before you can make any "sound arguments" you need a theory of soundness AND a theory of semantics.

How do you propose we resolve your circular dependency problem?

A logical system has the soundness property if and only if every formula that can be proved in the system is logically valid with respect to the semantics of the system.

[Peter Holmes]

1 We have to use language to talk about anything, including the ways we use language.

2 The claim that truth conditions in one language have to be defined in another language is circular or infinitely regressive.

3 Anxiety about circularity or infinite regress comes from the delusion that a way out of the circle, or a foundation, is possible: that a description could be the things being described.

4 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are.

[Skepdick]

1 We have to use language to talk about anything, including the ways we use language.

And languages which talk about other languages are called metalanguages.

2 The claim that truth conditions in one language have to be defined in another language is circular or infinitely regressive.

No, it's not. It's just recursive. You never have to go more than a few meta-layers deep to agree on truth conditions.

3 Anxiety about circularity or infinite regress comes from the delusion that a way out of the circle, or a foundation, is possible: that a description could be the things being described.

Which is why most non-idiots figure out that talking/language isn't sufficient for "understanding".

Bertrand Russel called it "reasoning about properties of the world from the language used to describe it".
It's not a reliable way of finding out how the world actually behaves.

That's why we abandoned Philosophy for Science about 300 years ago.

4 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are.

Precisely. And we do say that murder is objectively wrong.

And we also say that people who don't think murder is objectively wrong are wrong in thinking that murder is not objectively wrong.

So what is confusing your stupid?

[Sculptor]

1 We have to use language to talk about anything, including the ways we use language.

2 The claim that truth conditions in one language have to be defined in another language is circular or infinitely regressive.

3 Anxiety about circularity or infinite regress comes from the delusion that a way out of the circle, or a foundation, is possible: that a description could be the things being described.

4 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are.

I think it is quite possible to use "objective" and "objectivity" in practical and useful ways. Sadly those who choose to assert "objective" morality use these words in ways that has no respect for the most basic apprehension of reality.
Objectivity requires scales and determinants that are agreed upon by those using the term. Such criteria are ultimately arbitrary and tend to amount to the subjective views of a collective or community.
Where we might use terms like more or less sweet when describing apples, an objective viewpoint would have to remove the opinions of taste to some device or machine that was capable of measurement of sugar content. A scale could be produced to offer a numerical value for sweetness. This would mean very little to individuals who think that apple A is "too sweet" when another thought apple "A" was not sweet enough. THe objective machine might offer sweetness = 7.343.
If the entire language community of the English speaking world, could agree that "rape is bad". This might be argued to be "objective", until you find someone who did not agree. And one would have to ask, upon what basis is rape bad? But wait, you can all rush in with an answer, but that would NOT be the point. It's still going to be an opinion. I agree that rape is bad - without equivocation, nor with any reserve. But that is my viewpoint. It is not objective. When you ask WHY! And that why has to involve a long list of codisils to do with valuing freedoms; repect of the individual, and a multitude of other endemic assumptions, none of which are objective. I might agree with them all. But that would be my opinion. And opinions are subjective.

This thread like so many others is empty.

[Skepdick]

If the entire language community of the English speaking world, could agree that "rape is bad". This might be argued to be "objective", until you find someone who did not agree.

What a fucking idiot.

The people who vehemently disagree that "rape is bad" are usually called rapists. We tend to throw them in prison.

To avoid getting stuck in the usual stupid game of definitions, arguments and semantics, lets just pretend that rape is good. Rape is GREAT, actually.
English and non-English speaking communities alike agree that rape is so good that people who practice it should be thrown in prison.

This is usually the point where idiot-philosophers begin defending the semantics of "good" and "bad" instead of debating whether rapists belong in prison.

[Sculptor]

If the entire language community of the English speaking world, could agree that "rape is bad". This might be argued to be "objective", until you find someone who did not agree.

What a fucking idiot.

The people who vehemently disagree that "rape is bad" are usually called rapists. We tend to throw them in prison.

To avoid getting stuck in the usual stupid game of definitions, arguments and semantics, lets just pretend that rape is good. Rape is GREAT, actually.
English and non-English speaking communities alike agree that rape is so good that people who practice it should be thrown in prison.

This is usually the point where idiot-philosophers begin defending the semantics of "good" and "bad" instead of debating whether rapists belong in prison.

What has any of this got to do with objectivity?
Rape was great in ancient Greece and there are many contexts in history where rape was not considered bad.

[Skepdick]

What has any of this got to do with objectivity?

Everything.

objective
adj. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
adj. Based on observable phenomena; empirical.

Rape was great in ancient Greece and there are many contexts in history where rape was not considered bad.

If this "badness" or "greatness" was not observed or objective, then how was it ever recorded and communicated in history books?
If it's wasn't "objective" how did you come to learn or determine the social attitudes to rape in ancient Greece?

What did the ancient Greeks did or didn't do for you to determine what you have determined?

[Sculptor]

What has any of this got to do with objectivity?

Everything.

Nothing.

objective
adj. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
adj. Based on observable phenomena; empirical.

Exactly NOTHING.

Rape was great in ancient Greece and there are many contexts in history where rape was not considered bad.

If this "badness" or "greatness" was not observed or objective, then how was it ever recorded and communicated in history books?

Your ignorance does not win you any arguements.

If it's wasn't "objective" how did you come to learn or determine the social attitudes to rape in ancient Greece?

What did the ancient Greeks did or didn't do for you to determine what you have determined?

I suggest you go back and attend school.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. They have evidence for the premise(s), then they look for evidence to support the conclusion - the hypothesis - which is a claim. It's an everyday shorthand to talk about the evidence for an argument - but it's only ever evidence for a claim - a factual assertion.

Agree with the above.

A priori arguments and analytic proposition are not dependent on evidences.

Btw, my view is what is claimed to be real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Okay, but what you call philosphical justification is merely the presentation of valid and sound argument - and there's nothing specifically philosophical about that. And any ontology, epistemology or theory of truth used to make an argument has itself to use valid and sound argument. And what we call justification is nothing more than explanation, using valid and sound argument. That's what your appeal to philosophical justification amounts to.

As for empirical justification for an existence-claim - couldn't agree more. And that's what moral realism and objectivism lack: evidence for the existence of a moral reality, and therefore moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity with regard to those facts.

But we're never going to agree about that - so let's not do it over again. We can only rehash tired old arguments.

I missed adding the usual 'within the specific FSK' to
"my view is what is claimed to be real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically."

As I had stated the Moral FSK is similar in core principles with the Scientific FSK.
Since the scientific FSK generate justified true scientific facts, the moral FSK also generate Justified True Moral Facts.

What I meant re 'philosophically' is not merely sound logical arguments, but it refer to the entailing of whatever tools, e.g. in the establishment and maintenance of the moral framework itself and whatever that are necessary to reinforce the conclusions derived represent reality-as-it-is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think it is quite possible to use "objective" and "objectivity" in practical and useful ways. Sadly those who choose to assert "objective" morality use these words in ways that has no respect for the most basic apprehension of reality.

I don't see you understand "what is objective" thoroughly.

What is 'objectivity' must at least meet the requirement of the essential features [dimension] that qualify whatever to be objective.

• According to Mathew Kramers who wrote one specialized book on 'Moral Objectivity' where what is objectivity-proper must fulfill 7 dimensions below;
  
  Ontological (Chapters 2–5)
  1 Mind-independence
  2 Determinate correctness
  3 Uniform applicability
  4 Invariance
  
  Epistemic (Chapters 6–7)
  5 Transindividual concurrence
  6 Impartiality
  
  Semantic (Chapter -8)
  7 Truth-aptitude

Objectivity requires scales and determinants that are agreed upon by those using the term. Such criteria are ultimately arbitrary and tend to amount to the subjective views of a collective or community.
Where we might use terms like more or less sweet when describing apples, an objective viewpoint would have to remove the opinions of taste to some device or machine that was capable of measurement of sugar content. A scale could be produced to offer a numerical value for sweetness. This would mean very little to individuals who think that apple A is "too sweet" when another thought apple "A" was not sweet enough. THe objective machine might offer sweetness = 7.343.

Agree the above is a more reliable method of objectivity.
However if you reflect on it, what is objectivity of higher precision is nevertheless ultimately subjective, i.e. grounded on individual then collective consensus of subjects.

The whole set up to measure, to rate, the measurements are all done by individual subjects.
Thus whatever is objective is basically intersubjective consensus.
Such intersubjective consensus is independent of the individual[s] opinions and beliefs, thus objective.

The objective of scientific truths and facts processed from the scientific framework are good examples of the above intersubjective consensus.

If the entire language community of the English speaking world, could agree that "rape is bad". This might be argued to be "objective", until you find someone who did not agree. And one would have to ask, upon what basis is rape bad?
But wait, you can all rush in with an answer, but that would NOT be the point. It's still going to be an opinion. I agree that rape is bad - without equivocation, nor with any reserve. But that is my viewpoint. It is not objective. When you ask WHY! And that why has to involve a long list of codisils to do with valuing freedoms; repect of the individual, and a multitude of other endemic assumptions, none of which are objective. I might agree with them all. But that would be my opinion. And opinions are subjective.

This thread like so many others is empty.

Note almost the entire world recognize the 'earth is spherical' or roundish which objective.
But there are many who still insist the earth is flat.
There are many claims of truths where the majority recognized as objective [e.g. scientific truths, legal truths, historic truths] but at the same time there are many who dispute these truths.
So according to your point above, i.e. because there are disagreement, these objective claims, especially scientific truths are not objective??

This is why you are wrong!

What is objective is so because it satisfy the core of the above 7 dimensions of objectivity and not because what is claimed to be objective is disputed by some people.

The moral fact 'no one ought to rape another' is not easy to explain, thus put it aside for the moment.

However note the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' within a moral framework and system - FSK - is objective because it satisfy the core of the 7 dimensions of Objectivity listed above.
Where it is verified and justified within a specific FSK empirically and philosophically, that is based on intersubjective consensus, thus objective and independent of any individual opinions and beliefs.

The moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' from within a moral FSK is not simply as assertion. a statement, command or expression by individuals. It is verified and justified from empirical evidences on something physical and mental [supervenience] within the FSK, thus objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Agree with the above.

A priori arguments and analytic proposition are not dependent on evidences.

Btw, my view is what is claimed to be real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Okay, but what you call philosphical justification is merely the presentation of valid and sound argument - and there's nothing specifically philosophical about that. And any ontology, epistemology or theory of truth used to make an argument has itself to use valid and sound argument. And what we call justification is nothing more than explanation, using valid and sound argument. That's what your appeal to philosophical justification amounts to.

As for empirical justification for an existence-claim - couldn't agree more. And that's what moral realism and objectivism lack: evidence for the existence of a moral reality, and therefore moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity with regard to those facts.

But we're never going to agree about that - so let's not do it over again. We can only rehash tired old arguments.

I missed adding the usual 'within the specific FSK' to
"my view is what is claimed to be real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically."

As I had stated the Moral FSK is similar in core principles with the Scientific FSK.
Since the scientific FSK generate justified true scientific facts, the moral FSK also generate Justified True Moral Facts.

What I meant re 'philosophically' is not merely sound logical arguments, but it refer to the entailing of whatever tools, e.g. in the establishment and maintenance of the moral framework itself and whatever that are necessary to reinforce the conclusions derived represent reality-as-it-is.

WOT