What could make morality objective?

[Terrapin Station]

Is there a 'thought' or 'view' that exits "independently of person"?

Obviously not, hence why if one agrees that moral stances are judgments or something similar--some sort of view or thought, then it should be obvious to one that morality isn't objective.

People who believe that morality is objective need to explain what a moral stance would amount to independent of persons. They need to explain just how that would obtain, what would it be instantiated as or in, what would it be a property of, etc. Otherwise they're stuck trying to equate "objectivity" with some sort of normative, but that doesn't work, because there's no way around that reducing to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

what would it be a property of

try this one (it's already been rejected by all the best minds)...

a man belongs to himself...we know this becuz, universally, every man, without thinkin' about it, will claim himself as his own...no one ever agrees he is or should be property, and no one leashed ever ever accepts it (though circumstance may force him to tolerate the leash till an opportunity comes along to cast it off)...it is a fact about man's nature that exists independently of whatever anyone thinks about it

from this fact we can draw out the *moral fact: it's wrong to treat a man as property, to leash him, to make a slave of him

From that fact you can draw out "It is wrong . . " how? How does any fact suggest any normative?

[henry quirk]

Obviously not, hence why if one agrees that moral stances are judgments or something similar--some sort of view or thought, then it should be obvious to one that morality isn't objective.

People who believe that morality is objective need to explain what a moral stance would amount to independent of persons. They need to explain just how that would obtain, what would it be instantiated as or in, what would it be a property of, etc. Otherwise they're stuck trying to equate "objectivity" with some sort of normative, but that doesn't work, because there's no way around that reducing to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

what would it be a property of

try this one (it's already been rejected by all the best minds)...

a man belongs to himself...we know this becuz, universally, every man, without thinkin' about it, will claim himself as his own...no one ever agrees he is or should be property, and no one leashed ever ever accepts it (though circumstance may force him to tolerate the leash till an opportunity comes along to cast it off)...it is a fact about man's nature that exists independently of whatever anyone thinks about it

from this fact we can draw out the *moral fact: it's wrong to treat a man as property, to leash him, to make a slave of him

From that fact you can draw out "It is wrong . . " how? How does any fact suggest any normative?

a man belongs to himself so it's wrong to claim him as property

...or...

even though a man belongs to himself it's permissible to claim him as property

one is coherent, the other is not

and: I ain't talkin' normatives, which implies consensus; I'm talkin' fact, a man, any man, anywhere, at any time, belongs to himself, and moral fact, so it's wrong, everywhere, at any time, to claim him as property

it's okay if you dismiss it...as I say, all the best minds here have

[Terrapin Station]

a man belongs to himself so it's wrong to claim him as property

...or...

even though a man belongs to himself it's permissible to claim him as property

one is coherent, the other is not

and: I ain't talkin' normatives, which implies consensus; I'm talkin' fact, a man, any man, anywhere, at any time, belongs to himself, and moral fact, so it's wrong, everywhere, at any time, to claim him as property

it's okay if you dismiss it...as I say, all the best minds here have

"Normative" is about what we should or shouldn't do, what we ought to do or ought not to do. So moral stances are normatives. "Normative" doesn't mean the same thing as "this is what most people do"--normatives aren't the same thing as statistical norms, and claiming that a statistical norm implies a normative would need to be justified.

At any rate, I don't at all see how one seems coherent to you while the other doesn't. If we assume "a man belongs to himself," that doesn't seem to imply any "it's right or wrong," unless one feels that "things should be as they are." But that doesn't follow from anything.

It can't be a case where you're saying that "things can only be as they are," because in that case, it simply wouldn't be possible to make anyone a slave or claim them as property, etc. If something can only be a given way, it wouldn't matter if we thought it was right or wrong--we'd not be able to do contrary to whatever it is.

Morality is only an issue where it's possible to treat someone x way or to treat them y way. No fact tells us which way we should treat someone. Again, you might personally feel that if S was like x, then S should remain like x, but that doesn't at all follow merely from the fact that S is like x.

[Skepdick]

normatives aren't the same thing as statistical norms, and claiming that a statistical norm implies a normative would need to be justified.

By what normative standard of justification?

[Skepdick]

What it would amount to for a moral stance to be a fact is that the moral stance somehow obtains in the world independently of persons.

What would it amount to for anything to obtain in the world independently of persons?

[henry quirk]

a man belongs to himself so it's wrong to claim him as property

...or...

even though a man belongs to himself it's permissible to claim him as property

one is coherent, the other is not

and: I ain't talkin' normatives, which implies consensus; I'm talkin' fact, a man, any man, anywhere, at any time, belongs to himself, and moral fact, so it's wrong, everywhere, at any time, to claim him as property

it's okay if you dismiss it...as I say, all the best minds here have

"Normative" is about what we should or shouldn't do, what we ought to do or ought not to do. So moral stances are normatives. "Normative" doesn't mean the same thing as "this is what most people do"--normatives aren't the same thing as statistical norms, and claiming that a statistical norm implies a normative would need to be justified.

At any rate, *I don't at all see how one seems coherent to you while the other doesn't. If we assume "a man belongs to himself," that doesn't seem to imply any "it's right or wrong," unless one feels that "things should be as they are." But that doesn't follow from anything.

It can't be a case where you're saying that "things can only be as they are," because in that case, it simply wouldn't be possible to make anyone a slave or claim them as property, etc. If something can only be a given way, it wouldn't matter if we thought it was right or wrong--we'd not be able to do contrary to whatever it is.

Morality is only an issue where it's possible to treat someone x way or to treat them y way. No fact tells us which way we should treat someone. Again, you might personally feel that if S was like x, then S should remain like x, but that doesn't at all follow merely from the fact that S is like x.

*I know you don't...I don't think you can

don't worry about it

[Terrapin Station]

normatives aren't the same thing as statistical norms, and claiming that a statistical norm implies a normative would need to be justified.

By what normative standard of justification?

By no normative standard. It would need to be justified because otherwise it doesn't follow from anything that a statistical norm implies a normative.

[Terrapin Station]

What it would amount to for a moral stance to be a fact is that the moral stance somehow obtains in the world independently of persons.

What would it amount to for anything to obtain in the world independently of persons?

Still struggling with what "obtain" refers to?

[Skepdick]

By no normative standard. It would need to be justified because otherwise it doesn't follow from anything that a statistical norm implies a normative.

So from what does it follow that it would need to be justified?

Are you not appealing to the Philosophical social norm of "justification"?

[Skepdick]

Still struggling with what "obtain" refers to?

In the context of "world independent of persons" I am struggling indeed!

Perhaps you could enlighten us what "necessity" and "reference" amounts to in such a world?

[Peter Holmes]

I AGREE there are moral facts. Full stop. Thee "other" one is the one CLAIMING there are NO moral facts.

Perhaps I missed it. Please can you propose one example of a supposed moral fact, and show why it's a fact, rather than the expression of an opinion?

1. You can NOT 'miss' what has NOT YET been presented.
2. OBVIOUSLY, EVERY thing that is said or written down can be perceived to be an 'opinion'.

Is it a matter of opinion that water is H2O - given the way we use those words in context? Would it be rational to have a different opinion, given the context? If someone was of the opinion that water is H2N, would there be a way to settle the dispute?

So, if you want me to show you WHY some 'thing' is a 'fact', rather than the expression of an 'opinion', then you will have to tell me what the difference is between a 'fact' and an 'opinion', to you, okay?

'This painting is beautiful' expresses an opinion. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not an independent property, like the chemical composition of water.

Anyway, one example of a supposed 'moral fact' is 'that thing' which EVERY one agrees with as being morally right, or morally wrong, and which is also proven to be true. Like, for example, the fact that 'we', human beings, do NOT 'need' to eat meat. Thus, if we do NOT need to eat meat, then we do NOT need to kill animals to eat. Now, if this can be proven to be true, then we have the 'fact' part out of the way, so now we just have to work on the 'moral' part.

I agree that a fact is a feature of reality, such as that humans don't need to kill animals to eat their meat. If those facts are shown to be the case, that shows that the claim 'humans don't need to kill animals to eat their meat' is true.

But I disagree that the criterion for a moral fact can be 'what everyone agrees is morally right or wrong'. For example, if everyone agreed that capital punishment is morally right, that wouldn't make it so - in my opinion. Moral assertions express opinions, how ever many people agree with them. And that's why they're not factual assertions, with truth-values independent from opinion.

I have my way of working out what is 'morally wrong' and/or 'morally right', which we can discuss after you respond to what I have written here so far, okay?

NB If you don't use the word 'fact' to mean 'feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality' - then please explain what you think a fact is.

If you want to talk like this, then what do you think 'reality' is?

I use the word as a synonym for nature, the cosmos, or everything there is.

If 'you', human beings, are going to use the word 'fact' to mean; feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality'
, then because just about EVERY one 'you' can have their OWN 'reality', then this means that 'you' ALL can have your OWN 'facts' as well. Each and EVERY one of 'you' could "justify" to "your" OWN "selves" just about absolutely ANY 'thing' with definitions like that. Then we will be back to the beginning.

Nonsense. That each of us experiences reality separately doesn't mean each of us 'has' her own reality - her own facts. Why should it?

So, I suggest that you will REALLY need to come up with a better definition for the word 'fact' here.

Mine works fine, and is consistent with most dictionary definitions.

'NB If you think a declarative can do nothing other than express an opinion, and so must be subjective, please explain the coherence of claiming that there are moral facts.

If, and when, 'you' define what a 'moral fact' is, to you, then I will see if I could explain, to you, the coherence of claiming that there are 'moral facts'.

A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality. It follows that a supposed moral fact is a moral feature of reality ... etc. I think there's no such thing, because the idea is incoherent and the expression 'moral fact' is a grammatical misattribution.

I'd be extremely grateful if you can do these things as simply and clearly as possible.

But, to you, a 'moral fact' is an IMPOSSIBILITY, correct?

If yes, then HOW could I possibly do what you are asking here?

Not my problem. You say there are moral facts. Can you meet your burden of proof for that claim?

By the way, do not forget, if I recall correctly, you said that you were going to get around to discussing with me the points that I made to you PREVIOUSLY, which I am still WAITING for and to do.

On reflection, and having tried several times to identify your points or questions clearly, I find I can't. If you want to clarify and set them out again, I'll try again. But no worries. I think I've addressed your objections to my argument.

[Terrapin Station]

By no normative standard. It would need to be justified because otherwise it doesn't follow from anything that a statistical norm implies a normative.

So from what does it follow that it would need to be justified?

Are you not appealing to the Philosophical social norm of "justification"?

Holy crap you can't read. It says the answer in the post you're quoting: "because otherwise it doesn't follow from anything that a statistical norm implies a normative."

[Terrapin Station]

Still struggling with what "obtain" refers to?

In the context of "world independent of persons" I am struggling indeed!

Perhaps you could enlighten us what "necessity" and "reference" amounts to in such a world?

Do you believe there is a world independent of persons first off?

[Skepdick]

Holy crap you can't read.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

It says the answer in the post you're quoting: "because otherwise it doesn't follow from anything that a statistical norm implies a normative."

I am not talking about that.

I am talking about justification in general. From what does it follow that justification is necessary?

[Skepdick]

Do you believe there is a world independent of persons first off?

I don't know.

What is a "world" independent of persons?