What could make morality objective?

[Agent Smith]

I have this question which I want to ask the OP: What do you mean

[Skepdick]

Language does NOT an cannot express anything about an "external" reality.

Of course it can. We just can't know when it does.

Potato/potaoh. If we accept your premise (how do we know it's true?) then that is a sufficient condition for disposing with Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's conception of objectivity.

How do you know when to use the term "objective" if you don't know when you are expressing something about "external" reality?

It's pretty damn obvious Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is misrepresenting the way he uses the term "objective".

[Peter Holmes]

I have this question which I want to ask the OP: What do you mean

May I suggest you read the OP? Happy to clarify anything.

However - objectivity is to do with facts, so perhaps I should have asked 'Are there moral facts?' instead.

However, for a long time now, VA and sidekick dick-for-brains have been questioning the nature of what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity: facts are inventions, and any invention can be a fact, so there can be moral facts.

Questions. Why can we not know what reality is, and therefore describe it correctly? Why must reality not be the way we perceive, know and describe factually? If we can't know what reality is, how can we know what reality is not?

VA and sidekick dick-for-brains have swallowed a shitty premise, which is why only shit comes out.

[Skepdick]

I have this question which I want to ask the OP: What do you mean

May I suggest you read the OP? Happy to clarify anything.

However - objectivity is to do with facts, so perhaps I should have asked 'Are there moral facts?' instead.

However, for a long time now, VA and sidekick dick-for-brains have been questioning the nature of what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity: facts are inventions, and any invention can be a fact, so there can be moral facts.

Questions. Why can we not know what reality is, and therefore describe it correctly? Why must reality not be the way we perceive, know and describe factually? If we can't know what reality is, how can we know what reality is not?

VA and sidekick dick-for-brains have swallowed a shitty premise, which is why only shit comes out.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes keeps strawmanning everything said. It's difficult and incredibly painful to attempt to correct somebody so fucking stupid.

If the choice of signifiers is arbitrary...

... signifiers are arbitrary, and that signs don't magically contain signifieds...

What is "it" that makes any given signifier "correct" or "incorrect" in relation to any given signified?
What is "it" that passes judgment of "correctness" or "incorrectness" on the relationship between signifiers and signifieds?

WHY is water a "correct" signifier for the signified Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes calls "water"?
WHY is chicken an "incorrect" signifier for the signified Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes calls "water"?

You've been caught with your pants down peddling a linguistic ought.

[Peter Holmes]

Why is 'water is H2O' a true factual assertion, given the way we use those signs in context? Mmm.

Why is 'water is not H2O' a false factual assertion, given the way, etc? Mmm.

Why is 'water is chicken' a false factual assertion, given the way, etc? Mmm.

Ah. The amazing usefulness of philosophy.

[Skepdick]

Why is 'water is H2O' a true factual assertion, given the way we use those signs in context? Mmm.

Why is 'water is not H2O' a false factual assertion, given the way, etc? Mmm.

Why is 'water is chicken' a false factual assertion, given the way, etc? Mmm.

Ah. The amazing usefulness of philosophy.

We who? You keep alluding to this abstract "we". Do you need to see a psychiatrist? Are you hearing voices in your head?

And thus Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes admits he is making judgments about the "correct" and "incorrect" use of language based on how "we" use signs.

He's not even ashamed to commit the fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[FlashDangerpants]

You can't have two people lavishing this much attention on Skepdick in the same thread, or even on the same day in different ones. It gets him overexcited and he has to write cunt all the time. There will be tears before bedtime, you mark my words.

[Skepdick]

You can't have two people lavishing this much attention on Skepdick in the same thread, or even on the same day in different ones. It gets him overexcited and he has to write cunt all the time. There will be tears before bedtime, you mark my words.

There's a feature in Mac OS where I just type "pdh" and magic happens! It's a time-saver!

Yay for arbitrary signifiers!

pdh.png (74.24 KiB) Viewed 425 times

[FlashDangerpants]

See? You guys let him get so frisky he set up a hotkey to swear at you with.
Stop messing with him, it's not nice. It's nap time for skepdick.

[Skepdick]

See? You guys let him get so frisky he set up a hotkey to swear at you with.
Stop messing with him, it's not nice. It's nap time for skepdick.

It's so cute when you start projecting your theory of mind onto me.

Is that what causes you to swear? Being frisky? Heh.

Also, "frisky" people don't take naps, you dolt

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why is 'water is H2O' a true factual assertion, given the way we use those signs in context? Mmm.

Don't you realize 'context' is only possible within some kind of human contexts ultimately, i.e. human conditions.
In this case, 'water is H2O' is a true factual assertion as a scientific fact within a human based scientific FSK and in no other context.

Why is 'water is not H2O' a false factual assertion, given the way, etc? Mmm.

It is a false factual assertion ONLY within the context of the science-chemistry FSK.
In a pretend-FSK, 'water is not H2O' maybe a relatively true factual assertion; because a pretended FSK has no credibility and reliability in contrast to the science-FSK as a standard, whatever facts it claim could just be illusory and mere fiction.

Why is 'water is chicken' a false factual assertion, given the way, etc? Mmm.

Same as the above.

Ah. The amazing usefulness of philosophy.

The usefulness of philosophy is understanding the mechanics of how FSKs work and acknowledges their respective limitations.
There are some good philosophers who acknowledge their theological-FSK generates "fake-facts" e.g. God exists as real, but they nevertheless insist on believing it based on faith because it has therapeutic salvific values.

You are doing bastardized & corrupt philosophy and is delusional when you dogmatically and ideologically insist your 'what is fact' is the absolute truth while other views on 'what is fact' are nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have this question which I want to ask the OP: What do you mean

May I suggest you read the OP? Happy to clarify anything.

However - objectivity is to do with facts, so perhaps I should have asked 'Are there moral facts?' instead.

However, for a long time now, VA and sidekick dick-for-brains have been questioning the nature of what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity: facts are inventions, and any invention can be a fact, so there can be moral facts.

Questions. Why can we not know what reality is, and therefore describe it correctly? Why must reality not be the way we perceive, know and describe factually? If we can't know what reality is, how can we know what reality is not?

VA and sidekick dick-for-brains have swallowed a shitty premise, which is why only shit comes out.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes keeps strawmanning everything said. It's difficult and incredibly painful to attempt to correct somebody so fucking stupid.

If the choice of signifiers is arbitrary...

... signifiers are arbitrary, and that signs don't magically contain signifieds...

What is "it" that makes any given signifier "correct" or "incorrect" in relation to any given signified?
What is "it" that passes judgment of "correctness" or "incorrectness" on the relationship between signifiers and signifieds?

WHY is water a "correct" signifier for the signified Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes calls "water"?
WHY is chicken an "incorrect" signifier for the signified Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes calls "water"?

You've been caught with your pants down peddling a linguistic ought.

PH do not realize his insistence there are no moral facts, no moral objectivity, i.e. no Moral Normativity, except there are is only Moral Relativism is 'SELF-REFUTING'.

The fact is;
"PH insistence there are no moral facts, no moral objectivity, i.e. no Moral Normativity, except there are is only Moral Relativism"
is itself an ought and normativity, i.e. a epistemic normativity.

[Peter Holmes]

To describe the ways we use signs such as words is not to claim that we ought to use them in those ways - and certainly not to claim that it's morally right to use them in those ways, and morally wrong not to.

And Iwannaplato is right: to say there are no moral facts is not to say there ought to be no moral facts.

[Skepdick]

To describe the ways we use signs such as words is not to claim that we ought to use them in those ways

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes really struggles to grasp the implications of his own words.

Who is this mystical "we" you keep appealing to? I am super serious - are you hearing voices in your head?

If your description of the way "we" use signs doesn't account for the way I use signs then your "we" doesn't apply to me. So in the exact same sense in which you are using the word "wrong" - your description of "the way we use signs" is wrong. We minus me ≠ We.

A proper acount of the way "we" use signs would be a Pareto distribution enumerating the multitude of use-cases for any given sign.

Now explain to me why any use of the sign "wrong" (which doesn't coincide with the way you claim "we" use the sign "wrong") is wrong, because it necessarily follows from your own stupidity that there is a right and a wrong way to use the signs "right" and "wrong".

[Peter Holmes]

Here are more of those damnably indeterminate signs.

Here are more of those damnably indeterminate signs.

Here are more of those damnably indeterminate signs.

And here's one more damnably indeterminate sign.

Yawn.